When the Naked calls the Haggard indecent

An English saying goes something like this: “It's a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.” It is used to indicate that someone is accusing another of being what he is himself.

But what can you say about someone that smells like the sewer accusing one that smells like roses of smelling like gutter? Well, there are so many ways you can put it, I let you use your imagination.

Whatever you come up with can be said in a single sentence, or can be said in an article that's almost a thousand words long. In fact, Clifford D. May chose the second option and wrote: “China, Iran and North Korea stay focused on hostile agendas during pandemic,” an article of almost a thousand words that was published on April 28, 2020 in The Washington Times. What May has done, is falsely accuse countries that lead perfectly normal lives of the sins, criminal and otherwise, which are committed by Israel and America as a matter of course.

Clifford May says he received a letter from an ambassador that happens to be from of a “free and friendly country,” saying that the world has been upended by COVID-19; and that's no exaggeration. Clifford May says he did not respond to the ambassador's letter but wrote what could have been a response, and used it as an article he published for us readers to appreciate what has been going through his mind.

He says that the countries that were bad before the outbreak of the pandemic have remained just as bad. He went beyond these words and said that some countries have become even worse after the outbreak by taking advantage of the fact that the good countries were distracted by the health and economic crises plaguing them and the rest of the world.

May cited China which, he says, enjoyed the fact that mass demonstrations did not occur in Hong Kong because the would-be demonstrators were afraid of catching the virus from each other. In the screwy and distorted view of Clifford May, this proves that China is a bad actor.

Next, says Clifford May, there is Iran. Do you know what Iran did, screamed Clifford May? It asked the IMF for a loan to help it eradicate the pandemic and its aftermath. If that's not enough, the Iranians continued to improve on their understanding of science, and they continued to upgrade their mastery of technology both in the nuclear and aerospace fields. Who do they think they are? America or Russia or China or Europe or India or North Korea, all of whom have nuclear and aerospace programs? These Iranians must not try to be what they are not supposed to be … in the screwy and distorted view of Clifford May.

Do you know what's wrong with that situation, lamented Clifford May? What's wrong is that the Iranians could one day become so smart, they'll do something similar to what America did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even if May did not say it, implicit in what he wrote is the warning that America is not doing enough of what the Jews of America and the Israelis are advocating. It is that the Arabs and the Muslims must not be allowed to advance because if they do, they'll want to vanquish Israel. And if America will stand in the way of this happening, they'll vanquish America too. For this reason, America must bomb the Arabs and the Muslims for daring to advance economically, scientifically and technologically.

As to North Korea, it claims to be one of the twenty or so countries that have not been infested by the virus, which is a credible claim given that the whole country has been on lockdown for decades. But while this is forgivable what's not, says Clifford May, is that North Korea has continued to test its missiles. And get this now, my friend, May complains that North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un had the temerity to be under the weather for at least two weeks now. Who does he think he is, an ordinary mortal like the rest of us?

And then, there is Russia. It did what a rival military superpower does, and had been doing during the Cold War years when both the Soviet Union and America were testing, warning and scaring each other. This time, said Clifford May, America sent its spy planes too close to Russia, and the Russians intercepted and buzzed those planes. How dare they? As well, America has been conducting mysterious experiments in space, and the Russians responded by testing their ability to blow up whatever that is if it turns out to be dangerous to Russia or the world. How dare they do this? Have they appointed themselves policeman of the world?

Aside from those state actors, says Clifford May, there are the non-state actors who can be just as evil. No, he did not mean the terrorist entity posing as a nation and calling itself Israel, he meant the terrorists of Mozambique and Afghanistan who were as busy as ever terrorizing their neighbors even without receiving weapons or money from America the way that Israel does. What has the world come to?

An absurd Extreme is now governing America

If you live in an environment where debating all kinds of issues, is a way of life for you and your friends, you get to learn a debating method that comes in handy once in a while.

If it appears that your debating opponent does not have a core system of values from where to defend his point of view, but relies on the accumulation of talking points he learned by rote –– you activate that debating method to point out the fallacy of his stance, or put an early end to the debate.

What you do is grab onto one of the issues in which your opponent appears to be the most vulnerable, and maneuver him to keep pushing the point in one direction till he takes it to an absurd extreme where his argument melts. He thus reveals the moral bankruptcy of his stance, and you win this round of the debate.

Well then, suppose you are in a group that is locked in a constant state of debate with another group. What would be a God-given gift to your group that you'll savor like manna from the sky? Would you not love to have someone join the other group, who is at the same time a reflection of what the group is about, and a constant revelation of its extreme points of view?

Would you not love it if, like a veritable joker, he would take those points to the extreme without the need for you to maneuver him there? Would you not like to have him there instead, whereas members of the group have up to now been cautious enough to make their points with subtlety … having learned the bitter lessons of their long sordid history?

Believe it or not, one such dude actually exists. His name is Donald J. Trump who is such an embodiment of the Jewish moral bankruptcy, he cannot open his mouth without sounding like the unvarnished voice of the two-bit Jewish propagandists. Self-centered, selfish, amoral to the core, reckless and shallow, he firmly believes he is the best thing that happened to humanity in the same way that they firmly believe they were created to make of humanity the best that it can be.

And because he is today standing as President of the United States of America, many of the pundits that were right-wing moderates until the recent past, have been colored by his presence, and were converted to the absurd extreme almost overnight. You could see how extreme that was at the start of the COVID-19 outbreak when they rushed to explain to the bewildered American public that Israel and America were going to have a cure for the pandemic in a week or maybe a day or maybe just an hour from now.

They also explained to the public that America's democracy and Israel’s “za damacracy of za Shamir” will never, never do what the Communists of China did, which was to ask people to lock themselves in their homes to contain the disease and defeat it. But time has shown those pundits to be as wild and wet as the wet markets of China from around where the pandemic may have originated.

You can appreciate that when it comes to saving lives by the hundreds of thousands, normal people do not stop to think if a move they make is Left-wing or Right-wing, Communist or Capitalist, Oriental or Western. They just do it; they save lives and ask questions later. But the clowning pundits that spewed the nonsense at the start of the outbreak, did not wait to see how things will develop before making fools of themselves to make Israel sound like the perfect thing, and make America look like the privileged protector of the perfect thing.

Had those freaks waited long enough, they would have read the article that was written by Alyssa Ayres, showing how India, the largest democracy in the world emulated China, the largest capitalist country in the world –– and ordered the lockdown of its citizens for a time, thus saved hundreds of thousands of lives that would have perished the way they did and still do in America. And the freaks would have seen how in the end, America and much of the so-called democracies ordered the lockdown of their own citizens after all.

Alyssa Ayres's article came under the title: “Coronavirus in an Informal India: Fighting Economy,” and the subtitle: “India has so far prevented a major outbreak of the coronavirus, but the trade-off in doing so has meant hardship for those in the vast informal economy.” It was published on April 24, 2020 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. After telling how difficult life has been for those who labor in India’s informal economy, Alyssa Ayres reported the following:

“The lockdown has helped prevent the spread of COVID-19. The country has reported a relatively low number of cases given its enormous population––more than twenty-three thousand cases as of April 24. But some in India have begun to ask whether the lockdown has come at too great a cost to the economy”.

These are the armchair generals who –– like their American counterparts –– have nothing intelligent to say before the crucial decisions are taken, but then come up with smart Aleck questions after the decisions are taken, and the event has run its course.

They deserve not a single moment of your attention.

This free capitalism leaves much to be desired

When a top-notch salesman tries to get the most for a product he is selling, he'll delve into all kinds of explanations to confuse you as to the merit of what he is selling for the price that he is asking. And most of the time, he'll succeed to entice you to buy the product.

The way to deal with a sharp salesman is to cut short his or her verbal diarrhea by calling for the bottom line. Something that goes like this: What exactly are you selling? At what price are you selling it? When you get a response, you snap back: I know of someone selling the same product for half the price. Can you do better?

In a free market system, the “fair” value of a product or a service is determined by the law of supply and demand. Consider it to be an ironclad rule for, it has been tested over and over throughout the centuries, and was proven to work every time under normal conditions. Thus, in the above example, if the product is in short supply, you'd find yourself in a seller's market, and the salesman would have called your bluff, responding to your question as follows: No; I cannot do better, so go ahead and buy the product from that someone. And you'd change your mind and pay the asking price because you badly need the product.

But if on the other hand, the product was available in the marketplace in ample supply, and was going at the price he asked for or lower, you'd find yourself in a buyer's market. The salesman would have agreed to sell you the product at the price you offered. He might even have sold for less, had you offered less.

Can there be an exception to the rule of supply and demand? Yes, there can be an exception, and it is referred to as: coerced to accept the deal under duress. This means you were forced to pay a high price for a product regardless of its fair value because of extraneous considerations that would cost you enormously if you rejected the price imposed on you.

And nothing puts someone under duress like the matter of a loved-one's life being in the balance. If someone that's dear to you is on the verge of dying, you will not haggle over payment, you will not even waste time getting into a debate about it. You'll pay the doctor what he or she asks, even if it is an order of magnitude above the going honorarium.

It is for this reason that every civilized country has set up a system which relieves the patients and their families of the fear they might someday be forced to choose between the health of a loved-one or financial ruin. Or worse, having to choose between financial ruin or the life of a loved-one. The system that those countries have set up, came to be known as single payer –– the payer being the government acting as both the insurer of first and last resorts.

So, the question that baffles the whole world is this: Why on Earth has the United States not implemented this system? The answer is that there is opposition to it from the special interest groups who benefit from the existing system, which is one of duress. It is a system that has America pay twice as much for healthcare as any other nation, and yet delivers an inferior product as measured by the various mortality rates of its citizens when compared to the rest of the world.

To see how horrendously idiotic the stance of the interest groups has been, you may read the article that came under the title: “Socialized health care would have made coronavirus worse, not better,” and the subtitle: “Health care best supported by free market principles.” It was written by Kelli Ward and published on April 25, 2020 in The Washington Times.

Please note that Kelli Ward was a medical doctor that turned politician, and now serves as lobbyist for the so-called Health Maintenance Organizations, a kind of “middlemen” who stand between the patients and their doctors, and benefit from the misery of the American public.

To make her point, which is intended to impress the politicians who will ultimately decide the fate of the country's healthcare system, Kelli Ward has played the role of the top-notch saleslady. She falsely asserted that the existing system in America was the best in the world, and then delved into all kinds of explanations to confuse the readers as to the merit of what she is selling … which is the continuation of the existing system.

The problem with Ward's explanations, however, is that she relied too much on playing the game of statistics. What she did amounted to a verbal diarrhea that was ripe to be cut off, as the bottom line was ready to be called: What exactly is she selling? At what price is she selling it?

The answer to the first question is that she was proven to sell an inferior product by the mortality rates in America, and she was selling the product at twice the price of everywhere else.

As to her statistics, all the numbers she quoted get blown away as fake when you look at the bottom line. Here is the reality of the situation:

America's population amounts to 4.3 % the world's population. According to the latest figures, America has 33 % of those infected with the coronavirus disease, and 27% of those that died from the pandemic.

This says that America is 7 times worse off than the rest of the world; not better. And Kelli Ward cannot hide this reality.

Mutual Perceptions will also shape the Future

Two articles speculating on what the future may look like past the COVID-19 pandemic, were published recently in the online publication, Project Syndicate on the same day, April 24, 2020.

Between them, the two articles seem to present a comprehensive treatment of the subject, except for one aspect of reality which, when taken into consideration, forces a change in the conclusions that were reached by the authors of the articles.

One article came under the title: “COVID-19 and the Thucydides Trap,” and was cowritten by the two writers Yu Yongding and Kevin P. Gallagher. The other article came under the title: “The international Order After COVID-19,” and was written by Robert Malley.

The summary reflecting the content of the Yongding and Gallagher article was given as follows: “After years of deepening Sino-American divisions, perhaps it is not surprising that the COVID-19 pandemic has made matters worse. But if both countries take a clear-eyed view of their own interests, they will see that cooperation is the best medicine now”.

As to the summary reflecting the content of the Malley article, it was given as follows: “At first blush, the coronavirus pandemic seems likely to corroborate the argument for deeper international cooperation to confront shared global challenges. But crises tend to intensify and accelerate preexisting trends – in this case, the rise of anti-globalist nativism”.

Writing from Beijing, Yongding and Gallagher say that the COVID-19 pandemic has destroyed the trust between China and America. They see that in the future, a relationship from among three possible ones will develop between the two nations. As to their preference, they dismiss two of the possibilities, and choose the one that says the best way to move forward is to restore mutual trust between the two powers. Here is how they put it in their own words: “...by focusing on common interests and fighting common enemies,” such as diseases for example.

Writing from Washington, Malley sees that two opposing narratives have already developed and are ongoing. He says they are competing as if in a tug-of-war about how the world, “ought to be governed.” According to him, one narrative says that the pandemic has demonstrated that no one can go it alone, whether motivated by nationalism or by the sense of isolationism. As to the other narrative, Malley says it offers the view that, “globalization and open borders create vulnerabilities to viruses and other threats.” Malley endorses the first narrative because, echoing the Yongding and Gallagher sentiment, he sees that the best way to move forward is for America and China to cooperate.

What is not discussed in depth in either article, however, is the way that each nation perceives the other; a factor which in my view, will play a major role in determining how the future relationship between the two nations will develop. To their credit, however, Yongding and Gallagher brought up the subject, but only briefly, and said nothing as to how it will affect the future relationship between the two nations.

Here is what they said in that regard: “Rather than thanking China for its help, the US has doubled down on disparaging the country. As Malaysian economist Andrew Sheng has observed, 'Anything that China does that is supposed to be good will be treated as a conspiracy for China to grab power. China in the eyes of the West cannot do anything right.'” But having mentioned something about the “West's” view of China, Yongding and Gallagher said not a word about China's view of the West––read America.

Still, whereas Sheng's observation is correct, it only reflects the symptom of what is going on in America with regard to the disparagement of China. This said, we must stress that what goes on in America does not necessarily reflect what goes on in the entire “West.” In fact, what's happening in America is that the old coalition of neocons, Taiwan lobbyists and agents of the military-industrial complex, has gotten together, and working on painting China into the image of the hated bogeyman for the new Cold War that the little devils are in the process of patching together.

As to China's perception of America, it is not much different from the view that the former colonies have of the old colonial powers. The Americans may think of their country as one that did not colonize other nations, but to the Chinese who fought bitter wars against America in Korea and Vietnam, that argument sounds like propaganda designed to con the Chinese into dropping their guard.

And so, what I see developing in the future, is that, guided by the perception each country has of the other, the level of cooperation and business dealings between them, will continue out of necessity.

Yes, that level will ebb and flow in response to the business cycle, but also in response to the machinations of the neocons, the Taiwan lobbyists and the agents of the American military-industrial complex who will continually play on the fears of the politicians in Washington to continually stir the pot.

And of course, there is also the possibility that something unforeseen will happen by design or by accident, and throw a monkey's wrench into the relationship, thus cause a whole new paradigm to develop.

Can 60 million want 4 more years of that?

How can you explain a scene reminiscent of the Jonestown mass suicide; a scene unfolding in America this time, during which the President of the United States stood before the nation and counseled his followers to drink a household disinfectant that will forever be known as the Donald Trump Kool-Aid.

There is no doubt that the immediate motivation was that Donald Trump thought it perfectly acceptable to sacrifice the lives of his 60 million followers, such that if one of them survives the experiment he, Donald J. Trump the magnificent, could then stand before the nation and the world, and claim with a straight face that the one life saved was due to his knowledge of medicine which exceeds that of all his medical and science advisers put together ... It's not even close.

But Donald Trump's motivation did not get to be this immediate without a witch’s brew in the background percolating for a while to produce it. What could that brew have been? Well, we get a hint of it from two incidents that have unfolded in the past week. One of the incidents had to do with Iran launching a satellite into space, the other had to do with the Israelis once again, floating the balloon of their desire to emulate Hitler by annexing still more Palestinian lands.

The Americans reacted by saying that the Iranians should not have done what they did, even if they stole nothing from no one. They also reacted by saying that the Israelis can do what they want without us, Americans, interfering with their decision even if we're the ones that keep them alive, protected, well feed, well armed and forcefully belligerent.

The full implication of what the Americans have said is that they keep out of Israel's business knowing full well that they do so at a high cost to themselves both materially and in terms of the moral authority by which they used to move nations with a single word uttered by their president. Such was the force of their authority, now diminished to the fertilizer value of a single flushing from a Jewish toilet … It's not even close.

We know this to be the reality of the situation because we know how it started and how it developed to become what it is today. In fact, we have a reminder of the sordid machinations that went on, in a recent article that was published in the Jewish online publication, Jewish News Syndicate.

The article came under the title: “Pro-Israel groups take on Libertarian Republican Rep. Thomas Massie over record,” and the descriptive blurb that went as follows: “He was the sole Republican vote against the overwhelmingly passed July 2019 resolution in the US House of Representatives condemning the anti-Israel BDS movement and voted against the Never Again Education Act in January that seeks to expand Holocaust education in America.” It was written by Jackson Richman, and published on April 23, 2020. What follows is a condensed version of what came in the article:

“Christians United for Israel, said that if you're a supporter of Israel, then Representative Thomas Massie is not representing your views. Massie has always been a Republican vote against issues outside the powers of Congress. This has extended into votes on support for Israel. As a result of Massie's record, a few pro-Israel groups endorsed his Republican primary opponent Todd McMurtry. The Republican Jewish Coalition said it would not support Congressman Massie. It has decided to endorse and fundraise for his GOP primary opponent, Todd McMurtry, and will be activating its nationwide team of volunteers to contact voters in Massie's district to explain why it is so important to support McMurtry: He supports Israel. Another group, 'Pro-Israel America,' announced that it would also support McMurtry. It is committed to help elect pro-Israel candidates. It said that Tom Massie has one of the worst records on the US-Israel relationship in Congress”.

That passage describes what Donald Trump grew up believing will be a perfect model for him to emulate. It is the Jewish model that puts the self at the center of everything. Before Israel, the Jews embraced an issue only if it was good for the Jews. When Israel came into being, a chunk of the Jewish rank-and-file, switched from asking: “Is it good for the Jews?” to asking “Is it good for Israel.” Either way, the narcissistic impulse has been the deciding factor in the choices that were made by Jews. What this leads them to do, to be sure, is sacrifice anything and everything to reward the self, regardless of the consequences to others.

Loyal to America, Thomas Massie was duty bound to consistently vote for what he believed was good for America. The Jews, on the other hand, who are loyal only to Israel and use America to maintain Israel afloat, have consistently wanted those in the Congress and elsewhere in politics, to sacrifice the interests of America to promote those of Israel.

This model so appealed to Donald Trump he saw nothing wrong in asking his followers to commit suicide for his sake. He thought that this will give him the chance to generate a few seconds of adulation while standing in front of a crowd, claiming to be more knowledgeable in medicine than the doctors and scientists who are advising him.

Sacrificing 60 million followers for that brief moment of ecstasy would be worth it according to Donald Trump's Jewish induced narcissistic impulse.

He just revealed the not-so-Secret Secret

Did you hear the often-repeated complaint that the American so-called intelligence agencies never got it right when it came to forming an intelligent understanding of what went on in the hot spots of the world?

Whether or not you did, here is something that you'll find interesting. It is the unintended revelation by a Jew who served at the CIA and other such posts for 30 years, of how he screwed up the good work that might have been done by other non-Jewish agents.

His name is Daniel N. Hoffman, and he made the revelation in an article he wrote under the title: “Don't let Iran off the economic hook during COVID-19 crisis,” and the subtitle: “Iran can't evade the choice between military aggression and providing for its people,” published on April 23, 2020 in The Washington Times.

Believing that you'll be treated with the insight of a highly qualified individual endowed with the credentials that he does, you go through Daniel Hoffman's article looking for the gift of knowledge that no one else can give you. But all you encounter in the article is a repeat of the Jewish talking points, as well as the long discredited stereotyping of Iran, outright lies and a spin of realities so shameful, you are stunned by the shallowness of a guy who spent 30 years learning on the job and came out as ignorant as when he went in.

Look how Hoffman started his article: “Iran began easing physical distancing restrictions. Officials also lifted the ban on travel between cities and re-opened low risk businesses, while their TV showed scenes of crowded streets and packed buses and trains.” What's wrong with that, you ask? Nothing. Everybody else is opening up, be they in Asia, Europe or America. But look how Hoffman spun the news to give false credence to his point of view: “The clerics felt the pressure to risk their citizens' lives to relieve the economic pain.” Was the economic pressure felt only in Iran, or was it felt in the other places as well?

So, what is Hoffman's point of view? It is that Iran is doing so badly economically as a result of Trump's maximum pressure on it, America is one hair away from scoring a big victory, and must therefore maintain Iran on the hook during these trying times under the strain of the COVID-19 crisis.

Hoffman went on to list many of the false stereotypes, the Jews have created about Iran, and then accused its leaders of the following: “Iran is facing international opposition to its request from the IMF for a $5 billion loan, which Tehran claims is needed to fight the coronavirus. But a $5 billion IMF loan would only finance new nuclear and ballistic missile development”.

To say that Iran is facing international opposition to its request for a $5 billion IMF loan is to tell a stinky lie. That's because the whole world, including America's closest allies in Europe, are in favor of the loan being approved. In fact, the only one opposed to it, is Jewish America; an act that comes as a clear affront to normal Americans, many of whom have argued for approving the loan, but were dismissed by the likes of Daniel Hoffman as being left-wing progressives.

As if this were not enough, Hoffman went on to ascertain with the authority of a CIA veteran that: “A $5 billion IMF loan would only go to finance new nuclear and ballistic missile development.” And that's how––like the typical Jew that he is––he paved the way for shooting himself in the foot.

Having said at the start that, “The clerics felt the pressure to risk their citizens' lives to relieve the economic pain,” by which he meant to say that Iran's economy was collapsing, he then went on to say that, “A $5 billion loan would only go to finance new nuclear and ballistic missile development.” And he ended the article saying that, “There is nothing to be gained by letting Iran evade the choice between military [preparedness] and providing for its people. The international community must do the right thing,” which means that Iran's economy is not collapsing, and that the world must do what it can to help it collapse.

And that's not the only big contradiction you'll encounter in the Daniel Hoffman article. He said that America withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal but did not abrogate it because there was nothing to abrogate, given that the deal was not ratified by the American Senate. It was a deal that never came into effect according to Daniel Hoffman and all those like him. But he went on to damn Iran for violating the deal, which he says never was. Here is how Hoffman told the world about Iran's misbehavior:

“Iran began exceeding the limit on its stockpile of low enriched uranium set under the Nuclear Deal, citing the US withdrawal from it. Iran also tripled its stockpile of enriched uranium in violation of the deal. Its current stockpile brings it close to the amount needed to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran has claimed every measure was reversible if the US sanctions were lifted”.

So then, why not lift the sanctions and see Iran change its behavior, maybe even become a friend of America the way it was during the Shah years?

Until we get an answer to that question, here is another question: Does the secret that Hoffman is hiding, have anything to do with the Jewish wish to instigate a war between the US and Iran?

Finally, this being the level of smartness that the American intelligence agencies are hiring to help them understand the world, it is no wonder those agencies are not rising above the level of Jewish understanding.

The Battle between Coherence and Realism

Going through life as individuals and as a society, we constantly update our stance in regard to our philosophy of life as well as the worldview we hold of what we believe is happening around us.

If and when we fail to do this, we find ourselves lagging behind the others, and so we choose to catch up with them or choose to live in a bubble of anachronism that keeps widening the distance between where we stand and where we ought to be.

The reason why, from time to time, we stubbornly refuse to update our stance, is that we are programmed to prefer coherence over chaos. That is, every time that we change something in our system of beliefs, we feel the need to reconcile the change we took in with the core of what's already there to maintain coherence. But this also means that we need to alter the core of what’s there to accommodate the newcomer.

This causes the chaos that we dread, even when we know it will only last for a short period of time. Thus, depending on how well the core has served us, we prefer to hang on to it anachronistically, which means that we resist the change imposed on us by society for as long as we can.

Unless we are a young rebel going through that phase of life during which we thrive on chaos, we all reject most of the changes that come our way till we cannot resist anymore. We finally accept the inevitable reality that's around us, and work to reconcile the old that's a part of us with the new that's heaped on us.

However difficult such decisions may turn out to be for the individuals that have to make them for the self, they become even more difficult for those that have to make them on behalf of society. This happens mostly in the cultural field, such as the performing arts when a director is faced with the choice of preserving the integrity of the work as put together by the author of a bygone era, or tweak the work to make it conform to the demands of the time.

In fact, having to decide between the available options can be difficult to make everywhere you look in contemporary life where taste, fashion and woke considerations are deemed so important, they can give rise to lawsuits in some cases, even riots in the streets in other cases.

But the hardest decisions to make come in the field of justice. They fall into the lap of the Supreme Court Justices when the choice they must make is between the “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, which is coherent by definition, and the “living Constitution” approach that seeks to impose an altered system of beliefs––which may be chaotic to the status quo––but coheres with the reality of contemporary life.

One such case was recently adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States with a surprise and a controversy that will be the subject of discussions for a long time to come. It was discussed by Kyle Sammin in an article that was published on April 22, 2020 in the online publication, The Federalist.

The article came under the title: “Three Lefty Supreme Court Justices Affirm Originalism In Unanimous Jury Ruling,” and he subtitle: “With three conservatives and three liberals signing on to the originalist ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, we see more evidence that the 'living Constitution' school of thought is in decline”.

Because it is a complicated case, I cannot do justice condensing it into a paragraph. And so, I urge those who are interested in such matters to read the Kyle Sammin discussion of the case in The Federalist.

The surprise that the readers will encounter is that liberal judges came on the side of what is essentially a conservative choice. The reason for that is simple, but the beauty of it is that it widens the discussion with regard to the subject of having to make a choice between Constitutional Originalism and the principle of a Living Constitution. In this case, both the liberal and conservative judges came down on the side of preserving freedom as defined originally by the framers of the Constitution.

What this says is that when it comes to jurors and the Justices of the Supreme Court, they do not show absolute adherence to one school of thought or the other. Looking at the merit of each case, they discriminate between what is serious and what is frivolous. They reject the frivolous and make the best decision they can on what they consider to be serious.

Thanks to those jurors and Justices, there is a whole lot that can be said and will be said about this matter today and in the future.

On this occasion, the case involved the serious subject of freedom, and so the jurors as well as the judges after them––liberals and conservatives alike––did not hesitate to serve the cause of freedom above all other considerations.

If only the legislators could learn from them and display a modicum of sobriety.

The day they discovered that the new Sheriff was a Blimp full of hot Air

Not only did they discover that the sheriff was as inert as a door nail, they discovered that his second in command was as much a disciplinarian as a prison superintendent. The poor yahoos that trumpeted the arrival of the so-called sheriff like they would the second coming of the messiah, discovered that the only thing second about him is that he is second fiddle to his second in command.

This is the story of AIPAC and Company who believed that Donald Trump was going to put the American military under Israeli command, and sit back to enjoy watching an Israeli general lead the American soldiers to one victory after another. Unfortunately for them, things did not unfold according to this fantasy. And so, this prompted one of AIPAC's company named Clifford D. May to fire off a verbal attack against China, the supposed second in command to Sheriff Donald J. Trump.

Clifford May wrote his article under the title: “China's Communist rulers made the world sick, with help from, you know, WHO,” and the subtitle: “World Health Organization praised President Xi Jinping while COVID-19 exploded.” The article was published on April 21, 2020 in The Washington Times.

It might surprise some people to know that at a time when Israel is desperately seeking to cultivate a close relationship with China, AIPAC would commission Clifford May to attack China. But the reality is that Israel and America's Jewish establishment have pushed themselves into a narrow space that happens to fall between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand, AIPAC and Company discovered that after all what Trump has done for them, none of it bore more or better fruits than before. For example, closing the American embassy in Tel Aviv, and calling the consulate in Jerusalem an embassy, saved America some money but did nothing to feed the rapacious appetite of the Jews for eating more of someone else's lunch. They had already eaten that lunch.

As well, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over Syria's Golan, did not make the Golan produce more cotton or more grapes for Israel. As to the policy of paying Israel to kill Palestinians while ending humanitarian payments to the Palestinians, turned out to be flops that will tell future historians something disgusting was happening at the start of the twenty first century. It was the thing that made America and Israel smell like the sewer, while making the Palestinians smell like the noble rose of human endurance and dignity.

In addition, AIPAC and the World Jewry have discovered that the stern face of the Chinese officials is not a phony facade they put on to fool others. It is that when you look at the face of a Chinese, what you see is what you get. These people do not play politics, and they do not say one thing to mean another.

If you want to be successful when dealing with them, you shoot straight, you act with utmost rectitude, and you don't bullshit in order to get more from them than what you deserve. Since the Jews are incapable of behaving at this level of intellectual honesty, AIPAC and the World Jewry do not see how Israel's relationship with China will blossom into something that will be useful to Israel or to the Jews anywhere in the world.

This despair is what you sense when reading Clifford May's article. Note that it happens in America all the time that when something goes wrong, lying and cover-ups ensue throughout the chain of command, with everyone trying to make the matter look stupid but not maligned. To prevent the Chinese from behaving in this same manner, Clifford May started the article by describing what happened in China as a maligned act that was followed by a deadly cover-up.

Here is how Clifford May put it: “The virus destroying lives and livelihoods around the world began in a laboratory in a Chinese city. The evidence that has come to light so far suggests that the pathogen was due to incompetence. Chinese officials deny that.” From then on, May proceeded to throw into the basket a hodge podge of ideas that brought him to the point where he felt comfortable. It is the following:

“Don't expect the International Criminal Court to take up the case. The ICC is too busy accusing Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Nor is it likely that the UN Human Rights Council will say or do anything. You'll be unsurprised to learn that Beijing this month secured one of five seats on the panel that makes appointments to the UNHRC”.

For the first time, Clifford May referred to what he has described as: “What we used to call the Free World.” In fact, he mentioned it twice in his current article. Free World being synonymous with Democracy, imagine the agony that is wrenching Clifford May, founder of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and for two decades its president.

He and his colleagues of the Jewish establishment who pinned their hopes on America rising and China falling, reversed course when they discovered that China was also rising and rivaling America.

They thought they could play the game with the Chinese and stick with them the way they did with the Americans. But that's when they discovered that the Chinese do not play games. Now the Jews find themselves at a loss yet again, which has been their conditions for thousands of years.

A 'serious' Plan that's Way out of the Box

Everybody seems to have fun trying to solve the problem of grotesque inequities plaguing our time. The latest is Tim Worstall who wrote an article to respond to something that was said by Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Pramila Jayapal. In so doing, Worstall mentioned L. Randall Wray who formulated a theory of his own some time ago. In any case, since no one came up with a good solution while having fun, it behooves us to get serious and see where that will take us.

Like Tim Worstall says (in the article he wrote under the title: “Stop telling the government to make money out of thin air,” published on April 21, 2020 in The Washington Examiner) Zimbabwe and Venezuela tried to solve the problem by printing more and more money, but look where that got them. In fact, long before those two, there were other countries that faced the same problem and tried the same solution ... the most prominent being the Weimar Republic. What they all had in common, however, is that after going through a number of difficult years, they recovered and did well economically.

How did this happen? Simply put, what happened is that an economic Armageddon was triggered by the grotesque nature of the existing inequities, and destroyed the system that was maintaining the bad economy. The result has been the opening of the door for the rise of a new economic system. In practical terms, it meant that those who had little or nothing to lose, lost little or nothing. On the other hand, those that had much to lose, lost most of what they had. This is how the field was evened out, giving everyone the chance to start from scratch, with all of them having to deal with the same advantages and disadvantages.

Does that mean we should prepare our institutions for the worse, and root for an economic Armageddon to happen, then sit back and wait to see what develops? No, it does not mean we should do anything like that, because we can achieve the results that we want by controlling the process from start to finish. To do it right, we recall a lesson that nature has forced on us, and what we did in response. The lesson is to the effect that, when left to themselves, the forests accumulate too much fuel and burn out of control. To mitigate the danger of forest fires, we burn some of the trees from time to time, thus put ourselves in control of the process. We can do the same thing with an economy that has developed grotesque features. Here is how that will work in practice for a country like America:

There are approximately 110 million households in America that are not millionaires. There are approximately 20 million that are millionaires. And there is something like 550 billionaires. All together, they own wealth estimated to be worth 100 trillion dollars. If that wealth were distributed evenly among all the households, each one would be worth 770,000 dollars … and there will be no millionaires or billionaires.

The Treasury, the Fed or both working together, will first create a new currency called the new dollar. They will instruct the banks and brokerage houses to open an account for every household, and deposit in it as many new dollars as the household has old dollars in its old account, but only up to 770,000 dollars. This will not change the worth of 100 million households but will reduce the worth of the other 30 million. For example, those that had 10,000 or 50,000 or 600,000 dollars in cash or securities, will still have that much in their new accounts. But those that had more than 770,000 will see their worth diminished to that value.

The treasury will then create a holding company called “Sovereign Fund,” and temporarily take into it the 4,000 or so publicly traded companies while leaving untouched the 30 million or so small businesses in America. Meanwhile, the Central Bank will cancel the old dollar and designate the new dollar as the official currency of the country. For now and for a while, there will be no millionaires or billionaires.

What is left to consider is what to do with the 4,000 publicly traded companies and the 40 million Americans who live below the poverty line. Well, the government should reassure the owners/executives of the large companies that there is no intention on anyone's part to punish them or discriminate against them. In fact, whether they decide to remain on the job or retire –– out of the sovereign fund, the government will work out a compensation package for them and their families, as far into the future as three generations.

What the government wants the executives to do, however, is imagine that the 40 million poor Americans are citizens of a Third World country whose leaders have asked the American executives to help them develop their country and raise the standard of living of its people. The executives have done it many times before with countries around the world, and there is no reason why they cannot do it in America.

Of course, in a plan such as this, many loose ends –– we cannot begin to think of at this time –– will surface during the implementation. They will have to be dealt with as they appear. In fact, the success or failure to the plan will depend on how well we’ll deal with the details that elude us at this time.

They attack the Life-affirming IfNotNow

For reasons of nobility and self-preservation, a number of American Jews formed an alliance and called it IfNotNow. Its ultimate purpose is to end the ongoing crime of occupation committed by Israel in Palestine.

Conscious of the reality that Israel could not maintain the occupation without the massive financial, military and diplomatic help it receives from America, IfNotNow concentrates its effort on the unmasking of the work that's done by the Jewish establishment. Note that this is a monumental work whose purpose is to maintain the uninterrupted flow of help to Israel so as to perpetuate the crime of occupation.

For obvious reasons, the Jewish establishment that projects the image of the octopus with tentacles reaching into every aspect of American life –– where it lobbies for the maintenance of the existing maligned relationship between America and Israel –– does not like the work done by IfNotNow. Depending on the circumstances, the establishment will use one tentacle or the other to attack IfNotNow.

One of the tentacles is named Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA). One of the places from among the many where CAMERA operates on behalf of Israel and the Jewish establishment, is the college campuses. It has an adviser there, named Jonathan (Yonie) Michanie, where he regularly attacks IfNotNow and other organizations working to liberate Palestine.

Michanie is the embodiment of the demonic America-Israel relationship that the Jewish establishment has created and maintains at any cost. Michanie has dual citizenship, is a veteran of the Israeli military and still a reservist in it. Right now, he lives in America where his primary effort is directed at bringing America's system of education under Judeo-Israeli domination. But he also finds the time to attack IfNotNow when the latter does something noble in the service of freedom for the people of Palestine.

In fact, this is what happened when IfNotNow tweeted something that Michanie did not like. He responded with an article that came under the title: “IfNotNow Spreads More Lies About Israel,” published on April 19, 2020 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner.

It all began on the eve of Passover when the noble organization reminded its members as well as all Jews, of the following: “Will we harden our hearts to the daily suffering of those under Occupation, or will we stand in solidarity with the dispossessed Palestinians?” Michanie called that a sickening post, and argued that the uprooting of olive trees on Palestinian land by Jewish settlers squatting on that land under the protection of the Israeli army of occupation, does not mean that the occupation is responsible for the suffering of the Palestinians. He went on to elaborate on that thought as follows:

He said that blaming all Jews for the actions of one Jew or that of a non-Jew or that of Israel is an old trick. He gave the example of the Jews being blamed for the Crucifixion of Jesus when in fact, it was the Romans who carried out the crucifixion. By that, Michanie means to say that when a group of noble Jews such as the members of IfNotNow remind the other Jews of the reality that supporting Israel no matter what it does is bad logic, that group––however noble it may be––violates the definition of antisemitism as cooked up by an organization calling itself the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Michanie's message is that Jews must never be noble because when they are, they violate a definition that should be regarded as more of a dogma than the words of God and Moses expressed separately or in unison.

Having said this, Mechanie went on to blame the uprooting of the olive trees by the settlers, on the Palestinians themselves. He gave two reasons, one being the Intifada of 15 or 20 years ago. The other being that the Palestinian Authority (PA) refuses to cut-off the aid it gives to the families of the young men and women whom Israel does not like. The point is that even though the PA does not squander the little money it has on buying weapons or anything like that, it could still give more money to everyone else if it lets those whom Israel hates and their families, die of starvation.

Of course, the expectation––maybe even the intent––is that having no income, some of these people will be forced to commit crimes to survive. When they do, they will be shot by the Jews or the Palestinian security forces who will catch them in the act of stealing food to feed themselves and their young. What can be more demonic than this? What can be more Jewish than this? Now you know why there is a need among the Jews for an organization like IfNotNow whose work palliates the horrifically ugly face of the princes of darkness that make up the bulk of the Jewish leadership.

Finally, what would be the worth of a Jewish article in which the author does not shoot himself in the foot? Look what Michanie has said:

“The Palestinian Authority spent approximately $14,000,000 on payments to jailed [Palestinians] and the families of those killed. Based on figures from the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, that figure could buy 387,143 coronavirus test kits, or 465 low-cost MIT ventilators”.

Well my friend, this is Palestinian money that does not contain one American dollar, going to feed Palestinian families, most of whom are children. Now consider this, the $4 billion (that's a B) which Israel receives from America every year to buy weapons is 286 times larger than Palestine's $14 million. Applying that to the purchase of test kits and ventilators, you get the staggering numbers of 110 million test kits or 133,000 ventilators.

So, the situation is this: The Palestinian Authority using its money to feed its hungry could have done nothing to save American lives. By contrast, Israel using American money to kill Palestinians could have relinquished that practice for a year, and it would have saved the life of at least one America in a million tested. That would have meant saving at least 110 American lives.

But the reality is that some very sick people, both in America and Israel, are okay seeing dead Americans as long as the result is the possibility of seeing dead Palestinians. What a true story to tell to posterity!

Thank you, Yonie Michanie, for pointing it out.

He identified himself as being a warmonger

Suppose you suddenly became very wealthy, and you decided to start a philanthropic organization. You want to hire someone to run it for you, and you want to be sure you'll get the right person.

To that end, you design a questionnaire made of ten questions. Seven of them are of the kind you'll find in any questionnaire. The other three are meant to tell you what thoughts go on inside the head of the applicant; thoughts that he or she may not even be aware they entertain. Here are the three questions:

1.         A retirement home says it cares for two dozen patients, and needs $24,000 to buy a number of new items on the market that will make the lives of the inmates more comfortable. But you discover that the home has 25 patients and not 24. Will you give it the $24,000 it asked for? Or will you raise the amount to $25,000? Or what will you do?

2.         Your relationship with a municipality in which the headquarter of your business was located before you became very wealthy, and whose administration you had extensive dealings with, soured some time ago, and you moved your business to another municipality. But the city hall that you left behind, and vowed will never accept anything from you, is now asking for a donation. What will you do?

3.         A country where you were sent to spend the Summer holidays a few times as a kid and a young adult, was not exactly a liberal democracy. Despite the many efforts to persuade it to open the autocratic system by which it was ruled, it remained closed for many decades. But it is beginning to open up now, and has not asked us for anything. How will you deal with its government and its people?

A number of candidates applied for the job and answered the questionnaire. Most of the answers were of the ordinary, run-of-the-mill kind and predictable, except for one candidate. His answers drew your attention for being weird and very much those of an outlier.

Responding to the first question, the candidate said he would give the retirement home nothing––not one dollar; not even one red cent.

To the second question, he said he would give the municipality nothing. Not only that; he would go further and contact all the other charitable organizations, whether they are near or far, and tell them they must stop helping that municipality.

To the third question, he said he would take advantage of the country opening up, and contact the folks down there –– not the government to encourage it to open up even more, but –– contact the rebels who were suppressed. He would pay them to terrorize the country and work on starting a full-blown revolution.

While the candidate is sitting in the guest room waiting for you to come and interview him, you call an ambulance and instruct the medics to drive this man to the nearest mental hospital.

Well my friend, while a scenario like that is unlikely to unfold in real life, you wish there was a way by which you could lock up the warmongering mental cases who want to treat the nations of the world, as bad or worse than the way the crazy candidate of the story wanted to treat others.

One such character is Jed Babbin who wrote: “The International Monetary Fund should not bail out Iran,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “IMF should not make a loan to the maligned country even for COVID-19 crisis.” It was published on April 18, 2020 in The Washington Times. Here is what Babbin said that corresponds to the sayings of the candidate in the story:

“Iran asked the IMF for an emergency loan to help it fight the coronavirus pandemic. The COVID-19 disaster in Iran, as the national Council of Resistance of Iran report indicates, is worse than the ayatollahs' regime admits. When Trump offered medical assistance, Khamenei rejected it. A letter to Ayatollah Khamenei from 100 Iranian academics and political and social activists published on an Iranian website accused Mr. Khamenei of being the number one culprit in the pandemic becoming an Iranian national disaster. A published statement by a female outgoing member of the Iranian parliament accused the regime of concealing the seriousness of the outbreak, of failing to take actions such as quarantine to slow the spread of the virus. We should be covertly aiding Iran's potential revolutionaries to overthrow the government”.

This is how Jed Babbin and those like him want America to interact with the part of the world that is not in its camp. You'll encounter this kind of characters only in America, and find that they are despised even by America's close friends and allies.

To the warmongers, humanity is made of two camps, which are permanently at war with each other, even if it’s not a shooting war. They believe that a final Armageddon will take place in which their camp will vanquish the other. It will score a decisive victory, thus extend its dominion over the entire planet.

Now you know how sick these individuals are, which is why you wish you could lock them up and throw the keys into a bottomless sewer.

An old Hater of America, a new Lover of Israel

To take advantage of a pandemic hitting the world; to rev up the machination engine to full throttle and have it siphon money from America to send to Israel, is something that was expected the Jewish establishment of America will do; and they did it as surely as night follows day.

To call on male bimbos, one Democratic and one Republican, and instruct them to start the “bipartisan” autocratic process of pushing for a law in the American Congress of moral prostitutes in the middle of the night and without deliberation––should not come as a surprise to anyone. The reason is that the process is meant to rob the American people of their hard-earned money and send it to the genocidal settlers in occupied Palestine. In fact, the process has already started and will move one shameless step after another through the Congress, like a horny Jewish media executive moves from one bedroom to another in a bordello whose owner was told to be absent for the occasion.

Having been inseminated with the virus of, “it is kosher to betray America for the glory of Israel,” expect to see $12,000,000 or more, sucked out of America's treasury and sent to Israel, the excuse being that Israel can do a better job than America in the effort to protect and/or cure Americans of the current pandemic sweeping the world with vengeance.

But how can you be sure that Israel will do a better job than America to protect and/or cure Americans of the pandemic? Well, my friend, that's easy to find out. Do you remember the day when the whole world was at a loss as to how fresh water can be used efficiently to have enough for a world population that was increasing?

What happened was that having spent fruitless decades in excruciating agony trying to find a workable solution, the world finally asked the Jew what to do, and in the blink of an eye, he found the solution. He said let the users of water pay for what they use, and that will force them to conserve water. So freaking brilliant! It was a solution that only a Jew could have thought about. No wonder God chose these people to be his favorite children. Well, in the same way they came up with a solution for the efficient use of water, it was expected they’ll come up with a solution to protect and/or cure Americans from the ravages of the pandemic.

In fact, we already have a Jew that goes by the name Dr. Manfred Green, giving Americans the good news. He did so in an article he wrote under the title: “What Israel did that New York did not: Comparing coronavirus responses and results,” published on April 17, 2020 in The New York Daily News.

As simple as it was for Israel to solve the problem of the impending water shortage, the good doctor is telling the Americans that Israel did better than America with the pandemic, because it was smart enough to recognize the need to implement the following policy:

“Israel, to its credit, sprung into early action to control the spread of the coronavirus. As early as Jan. 26, Israel advised against non-essential travel to China. Four days later, all flights to China were suspended. Then, in mid-February, Israel extended its travel ban to Thailand, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Korea and Japan. By March 9, a mandatory quarantine was put in place for anybody traveling from abroad”.

And that was enough for the two American bimbos to start preparing their Senate colleagues to being inseminated with the virus of, “it is kosher to betray America for the glory of Israel,” the act that will rob the American people of their hard earned money and send it to the genocidal settlers in occupied Palestine. That news was given to the anxious rank-and-file in a missive that came under the title: “Senators Announce Bipartisan Push for Funding to Enhance US-Israel Cooperation in Coronavirus Fight,” written by the staff of the Jewish publication Algemeiner, and printed on April 17, 2020. And here is what the article says:

“US Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced a bipartisan push on Thursday for a $12 million appropriation to 'enhance partnerships between companies in the United States and Israel to develop innovative medical project aimed at detecting, treating, and curing COVID-19.' The money would be included in upcoming legislation titled 'Phase 4/ CARES 2.' Coons stated, 'The US and Israel are world leaders in the medical technology industry.' Cruz noted, 'Israel is a global leader in medicine'”.

What the staff of Algemeiner neglected to say is that for several days, their sister publication, Jewish News Syndicate, has been singing the praises of Israel's genocidal army of occupation for taking control of all matters pertaining the COVID-19 pandemic. And this means that the money siphoned from America will be used to kill more Palestinians and harvest more of their internal organs to sell on the world market.

Another thing the staff of Algemeiner neglected to mention is that Chris Coons and Ted Cruz were chosen to be the lead bimbos in the American Senate because they are the two most emotionally disturbed characters of the treasonous lot.

Cruz is disturbed because he doesn't know where his roots begin or end: Is it in Cuba, Canada or America? And that’s the reason why, like a wandering obnoxious Jew, he cannot get along with anybody, even his Republican Senate leader. And so, the Jews made him feel comfortable by hammering into his head the idea that he has a family that loves him and will stand by him inside the Jewish fold where he can grow roots all he wants.

Coons, on the other hand, is disturbed because he first hated America, and went looking for a God to worship in the study of divinity, then in the worship of Marxism, then in the opposition to South Africa's apartheid –– all the while alternating between the embrace of the Republican and the Democratic political philosophy –– but finding neither God nor peace of mind anywhere. And that's what made of him plump material to be plucked by the Jews and inducted into the service of apartheid Israel.

He knows he is hopeless and proud of it

Can someone with impressive credentials commit an error of logic common to middle school teenagers, causing him to shoot himself in the foot? The answer is yes, this can happen if the character is a Jew and his credentials––authentic or not––are worth no more than a toilet paper.

This is what you'll come out with when you read the article that came under the title: “Despite COVID-19, Syrian Atrocities Still Matter,” written by Dr. Rafael Medoff, and published on April 14, 2020 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner. Note that the doctor says he founded an institute for Holocaust studies, and wrote more than 20 books as well as hundreds of essays about the Holocaust and Jewish history.

This sounds impressive but Medoff is a Jew and like the Jews of America who try to denigrate Arabs or Muslims, he proved to be an out of control one-man hate machine who shot himself in the foot trying to have it both ways. And like the time when Jews of his low caliber attacked the Arabs, falsely accusing them of behaving like Hitler who started WWII by annexing lands stolen from his neighbors, Medoff is now saying that Syria's Assad has created a situation resembling that of the 1930s.

But it happened that this website came along and argued that it was the Jews of Israel and not the Arabs who were annexing lands that belong to their neighbors. Faced with a well-known reality they could not refute, the Jews of America shut their foaming mouths on that subject ever since, and the world improved a notch as a result. In a situation that's beginning to look similar to that one, Medoff found himself vulnerable attacking Assad. The reality is that Assad has triumphed over the hundred or so terrorist organizations––including Israel's so-called 'White Helmets'––that were armed, financed and sent by foreigners to destroy Syria. They lost because in the end, it was Assad that destroyed the terrorists.

To denigrate Assad's triumph, Medoff decided to fall back on the Jewish trick of citing historical occurrences. He tweaked some of them when possible, mutilated others when necessary, and used them all in a way that means nothing in the context of the current discussion. In the end, he cited an incident that had to do with someone refusing to take in refugees … but that occurrence reflected badly on the Americans, not on Assad.

Still, Rafael Medoff went on to make a case for the use of violence, citing the example of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan whose bad regimes were ended because violence was used against them. Medoff also cited recent examples in which American presidents, that happen to be of the Democratic bent, used violence to put an end to bad situations overseas.

Rafael Medoff cited these examples to argue that it would be a perfectly good thing to use violence against Assad. But why do that? And why do it now? Here is why, according to Medoff: “The organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons last week announced that after an exhaustive study, it has concluded that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in its attacks on a rebel town in 2017”.

That was three years ago, so the question to ask is this: What happened then? Here is what happened according to Medoff: “Reports at the time about the use of sarin and chlorine were what prompted the United States to launch missile strikes against Syrian factories.” Well then, justice was done, so to speak, even before the truth was established. So, why be opportunistic now, and take advantage of a serious worldwide pandemic, to bloviate a sea of anti-Syrian hatred? Is it because Assad triumphed against the terrorists, including Israel's White Helmets? Can this be a case of Jewish revanchism? If so, it can only be a childish thing to do … which should not be surprising.

Aside from that slip up, Rafael Medoff committed a colossal error of logic; one that’s common to most Jewish writers. It is that they accuse other people willy-nilly of all sorts of sins, which they should know apply to Israel more readily than anyone else. And so, when the Jews suggest that others must be punished for such sins, they automatically imply that Israel too must be punished for committing the same kind of sins. And yet, Jews of the Medoff mantle do not seem to have the presence of mind that should alert them of the reality they are arguing against themselves as they inadvertently accuse Israel of committing horrible sins.

Thus, having argued that using violence against those who behave badly was a good thing, Medoff may or may not have realized that he was adding his voice to those at the UN and elsewhere who argue that it is not enough to condemn Israel for the sins it commits against the Palestinians; the little thing must be punished because only violence will put an end to its relentless criminal behavior.

A middle school teenager making a mistake of that kind would be sent home to his momma with a note that says this kid is hopelessly illogical. Doctor Rafael Medoff does not need such a note; he already has the Jewish credentials to prove he is hopelessly incompetent.