I would not have been offended

Here again, I find myself breaking the promise I made to myself that I shall not respond to something Bret Stephens writes for at least two months no matter how offensive will be what he writes from now until then. The thing, however, is that while the intent behind what he wrote in his latest column may have been to offend some people – as he makes it clear – it did not offend me. The column comes under the title: “To the Class of 2014” and the subtitle: “Students who demand emotional pampering deserve intellectual derision.” It was published on May 20, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

Let me begin by telling a story that will explain where I stand with regard to being offended by one thing or another. I was taking a part-time course in the decade of the nineteen sixties with a professor who was also running to be a member of parliament. He had a thirteen year old son who let his hair grow to the shoulders, and would not trim it despite the fervent pleas from his parents who worried that his appearance may sink the chances of the father to get elected. Of course, boys, even grown men let their hair grow to the shoulders nowadays, and no one gets offended by their appearance. The moral of this story is that what is offensive today may not be tomorrow.

Having lived through many cultural changes where the bearable became offensive, and the offensive became bearable, I learned to tolerate many of the things that other people find offensive. Thus, none of the insults that are thrown at the country of my birth or the one I have adopted bother me unless the insults are meant to distort the truth for the purpose of advancing an illegitimate agenda. For example, an insult that tells a lie about Egypt for the purpose of punishing the country would anger me. Likewise, an insult that tells a lie about the healthcare system in Canada for the purpose of attacking the system in America would also anger me.

It is for similar reasons that I get angry at the Jewish moves by which they make a cottage industry of being offended by the things that diminish the gains they make at the expense of the gullible entities they court. For example, they will call you antisemitic if you criticize Israel; and they will explain that to say Israel is to say Jewish, therefore to criticize Israel is to insult the Jews for who they are … and this is antisemitic. But then if someone they don't like runs for office and speaks of the Jewish lobby instead of the Israeli lobby, they call him antisemitic because he stands accused of not differentiating between Israel and the Jews. The truth is: these people get offended coming and going because they plan to get compensated coming and going. This is how they live; it is what they do to earn a living.

Over a period of four decades, they meticulously put together a comprehensive roster of Jewish sensitivities, and built a network with which to infiltrate the North American institutions of higher learning. Using these two as tools to implement a heretofore hidden agenda, they went after the Jewish and non-Jewish professors who rejected their roster of sensitivities, and shunned their network. They purged many of them, denied tenure to others and convinced a number of university administrators to ban the use of expressions like Israeli apartheid on campus.

This done, they took their success to Europe, mostly Britain, where they tried to duplicate the success there too. Luckily, they made the mistake of appointing the notorious Alan Dershowitz to lead the drive to conquer Britain. Once over there, the locals – Jews and non-Jews alike – took one look at him, and told him to turn around and get the hell out of there before someone decides to do serious damage.

The word spread in North America as to what happened in Britain, and those who did not know how to handle the situation previously knew what to do now. They told the likes of Dershowitz and the administrators who banned the use of the expressions that offended the forever-displeased Jews to go to hell because they now have their own agenda ... though not a hidden one; and they have a roster of sensitivities they want the whole world to know about.

And no one is going to stop them because to do so means to stop the likes of Dershowitz and the administrators who would ban what offends the Jews … which is what they themselves are doing now. Neat huh!

And so, while I would not have been offended by the Bret Stephens attempt to offend me, I would have marveled at the unfolding drama the same way that I marveled at the tension created by the standoff between my professor and his son more than 40 years ago.

Changing Rules in the Middle of the Game

There are times when it becomes necessary to change the way that we look at something; and there are times when the attempt to do so takes on the allure of changing the rules in the middle of the game. Even science – which is the most exact of the disciplines – is never definitive about anything because it recognizes that a theory that works for now may only be a part of a larger theory that will eventually be formulated when new instruments will make it possible to take more accurate measurements.

And given that economics remains one of the least exact of the disciplines, it stands to reason that people should want to modify the way they look at aspects of it when new information surfaces that seems to affect the way the system works. The problem is that unlike science which can usually be verified with an experiment, economics can only rely on statistical data that must be interpreted, therefore can be subjected to opinions that are bound to be colored by the prejudices of the interpreters.

And this is what has been happening lately when it came to measuring the wealth of different entities for the purpose of comparing the well being of groups of people living in the same jurisdiction, or comparing the well being of nations that follow different cultures while adhering to different political and/or economic systems.

It so happened that an arm of the World Bank conducting a survey called International Comparison Program issued its latest report, one that turned the figures for Africa upside down. Whereas South Africa was thought to be the largest economy on the Continent, it turned out to be number three after Egypt that was classified as number one by a wide margin, and Nigeria as number two. When you think that based on false information, South Africa – and not Nigeria or Egypt, or indeed any Arab country – was invited to join the G-20; you wonder what kind of dirty politics played a role in this selection.

You can get a taste of the games that people play manipulating statistical data to score political points. This time, the opportunity is presented in the form of an article by Neil Gilbert who wrote it under the title: “The Denial of Middle-Class Prosperity” and the subtitle: “Government data show that average disposable income has increased across all income groups since 1979.” It was published on May 17, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.

You can see the author establish the rules of the game early on to make it easy to present the arguments he has already formulated in his head. He begins by brushing aside the “countless reports” that “claim the middle class is being crushed by inequality, declining mobility and diminishing income.” He asserts that the middle class are better off than they were 30 years ago, and they live better than their counterparts in other places. This is something that was never done before in a country that used to consider itself so exceptional; it could not be compared to anyone else.

To make his point, Gilbert dismisses the research which he says is showing the middle-class stagnation because it looks at market incomes which exclude, among other things “government transfers … It overlooks the welfare state's enormous power to redistribute income.” What? Hold it buddy. Say it again. Are you saying that the marketplace would have left the middle-class in a state of stagnation if not for the welfare state that redistributed the income, gave the middle-class equality, an upward mobility and a rising income? The Left must be dancing and singing Halleluiah, welcome into the body of believers, ye blessed convert to our cause! But tell me, who else is talking like you? Is it Martin Feldstein? Yes it is. Look what he wrote lately.

Writing about Thomas Piketty who says that capitalism will lead to an increasing inequality of income and wealth, Feldstein who is an icon of the conservative movement wrote: “Picketty's comparing the income of top earners with total national income has another flaw. National income excludes the value of government transfer payments including Social Security, health benefits and food stamps that are a large and growing part of the personal incomes in low- and middle-income households.” He made that comment in the article he wrote under the title: “Piketty's Numbers Don't Add Up” and the subtitle: “Ignoring dramatic changes in tax rules since 1980 creates the false impression that income inequality is rising.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 15, 2014. Hey, look here my friend; they all say the same thing: Big government is necessary to achieve the equality that market income alone would have eroded.

Not realizing what image he is painting, Gilbert goes on to explain that the Congressional Budget Office has demonstrated how the tendency to the effect that the rich could have gotten richer at the expense of the poor, and that the Middle class could have stayed the same during the past three decades – was rectified with the tax regime and the social benefits brought about by big government.

The net result is that these people tried to change the rules of the game in the middle of it, but have managed only to cement the idea that a government big enough to stand up to big business will always be necessary to even out the playing field.

American suicidal Rush to self-Ostracism

By the time you have finished reading the first two paragraphs of a bizarre article that came under the title: “Into Africa: China's Wild Rush,” you'll be scratching your head wondering if the writer who goes by the name of Howard W. French, is not trying to screw you in the head – and if so, why? You don't know this journalism professor; you don't owe him anything, yet here he is pumping toxic sewage into your head as if you were an enemy he wants to snuff out. The said article can be located in the May 17, 2014 edition of the New York Times.

In general, it is mind boggling to read the works of Americans – be they journalists or journalism professors – and realize there is a big question left hanging out there that no one is answering: When these people write about foreign countries, who the hell do they write for? It is not too difficult to imagine that the foreigners they write about will want to use the print edition as doormat on which to wipe their shoes before entering a dwelling. As to the American audiences, the question remains: Why are they doing this to them?

Howard French tells his readers that “China has peppered the continent [Africa] with newly built stadiums, airports, hospitals, highways and dams.” Instead of saying that these are the infrastructures every industrializing country needs to achieve a good rate of growth – which by the way Africa has achieved – the writer goes on to say that “these projects have also left many countries saddled with heavy debt and other problems, from environmental conflict to labor strife.” He does not stop here but goes on to say: “As a consequence, China's relation with the continent is entering a new and much more skeptical phase.”

If you are an American businessman looking for opportunities overseas, this is the kind of talk at the start of an article that will scare you about Africa. And no matter how much the writer tries to backtrack later in the article to make the presentation look balanced, the damage has already been done, and Africa is left for the Chinese and other Asians to monopolize because the Americans love – just love – to do it to themselves and to each other.

Still, you go through the article looking to see how Howard French elaborates on what he says are the consequences of Africa's unhappiness with the Chinese investments. But you find very little about the debt, the environmental conflict and the labor strife he mentions at the start. Instead, you bump into a long and meaningless dissertation about subjects concerning Western foreign aid to Africa, interference in their affairs, democracy and universal human rights, the creation of civil societies, the Chinese form of government and so on and so forth … enough of it to tire you and confuse you.

Eventually, you bump into something that feels like the thing you're looking for. Here is the telling passage: “After a decade, China seems aware that it needs to improve the substance of its push in Africa. Last week, at the start of a four-country African trip, Prime Minister Li Keqiang acknowledged 'growing pains' in the relationship, and the need to assure our African friends that China will never pursue a colonialist path.” So, this is what the Africans are worried about. The Chinese know it and they are addressing the issues involved whereas the Americans have only people like Howard French to tell them fairy tales and repeat old stereotypes.

Nevertheless, he explains that this event came about in response to a sea change which began with an essay by former governor of Nigeria's central bank, Lamido Sanusi who wrote in the Financial Times: “In much of Africa, they [the Chinese] have set up huge mining operations. They have also built infrastructure. But, with exception, they have done so using equipment and labor imported from home, without transferring skills to local communities. So China takes our primary goods and sells us manufactured ones. This was the essence of colonialism.” French goes on to tell that the essay prompted critical assessments of China's involvement in Botswana, Namibia, Ghana, Tanzania and Senegal.

He also reveals something about Africa that has heretofore remained unknown to Americans. It is this: “Independent media have played an important role in demanding more scrutiny of government deals with Beijing. A recent article in a leading newspaper questioned whether a huge new investment in a railroad was truly a good deal. The project's first phase will increase Kenya's external debt by a third.” This was an article in which the African writer presented a balanced argument for and against the project. With people like him writing in media as independent as those you find in Africa, who needs the advice of outsiders?

This prompts our writer, Howard French, to try and balance the negative things he said about Africa by discussing the positive side of China's investments in that Continent. Thus, he reveals that: “I find the assessment in the [Financial Times] too pessimistic … The booming, fast-changing China offers potentially extraordinary upsides to Africa. Without question, the continent is badly in need of more and better infrastructure.”

Still, because an American article about Africa must have the obligatory “but” stuck after every positive remark made about the Continent, Howard French maintains the tradition. Here is his but: “But because China is often seen to be looking out for itself, the potential downside for Africans have begun to stand out: the stalling of the continent's democratization … This isn't simply a matter of Beijing's doing business with odious dictators ... From Zaire to Equatorial Guinea to Rwanda, the West has its own acknowledged history of doing much the same.”

He explains that the problem is corruption at the top of the governing body. But then, ignoring what he said earlier about an alert and independent press in Africa questioning what the leaders are doing, he goes on to offer the American solution to Africa's corruption problems. He says Washington should encourage the foreigners who invest in Africa “to abide by higher transparency standards.” Does he believe that those foreigners will restrain themselves from landing a kick at the rear end of the American envoy who will utter those words to them?

French goes on to explain that there is no substitute to America's direct involvement in the “deepening of African democracy.” This means he wants to teach the Africans how to gridlock their system by boiling everything down to Left vs. Right; supply-side economics vs. demand-side economics; big government vs. small government; laissez-faire economy vs. command economy. At which time the American envoy who will take this message to the Africans will get a taste of what an African boot feels like when applied with force to his rear end.

Skunks protesting their own foul Smell

The Wall Street Journal, its audio-visual affiliate; the Fox News Network – together with a bunch of other New York publications – all of which may be classified as being run by neocons, are getting louder in their whine about something they started, and is now boomeranging on them.

The neocons are the new conservatives – given this name because they once had a liberal bent but have turned coat to now look conservative. And no one turns coat more often than the Jews, something they do, not when they become convinced that the color of the coat no longer suits their stance, but when they deem it more profitable to display a new color. And they will stay with the new till such time they deem it more profitable to turn the coat back to its original side. The truth is that these people are of the forever-rotating turncoat variety, not of the type that adheres to a principle of any kind.

As liberals, they stank the North American Continent with the foul smell of an absolute sort of autocracy at which time they indoctrinated the public to what they called Jewish sensitivities. And this meant that (a) no one but the Jews could talk about the subjects they monopolized; one of them being the Holocaust; (b) no one could say something political about Israel except to praise that piece of dog poop in the Mediterranean; (c) no one could talk about Israel's enemies except to say something bad about them … and so on and so forth. They started a movement that came to be known as “political correctness”.

They made their autocratic rule stick by getting the feeble minds in the existing democratic apparatus take up their causes for them. To do this, they convinced the suckers in the relevant institutions that they had a glorious mission to accomplish. They added that everyone was welcome to become a part of the effort and share in the glory of the great accomplishments to be realized. They infiltrated the press and used it as a weapon to intimidate the legislators, blackmailing them into coming to their side. This done they went after the people occupying the strategic positions in the executive branch and blackmailed them into submission.

By the time the Jews had accomplish all this, their reputation as a people that never lose had spread everywhere in North America. They could now walk into any courtroom, tell the judge what they wanted, and the judge would give them twice what they asked for. As well, every televangelist with a hand in the pants of a woman that was not his wife, or had a hand in the pants of a man or those of a child – dropped to their knees not to pray to God but to genuflect in front of their Jewish masters, promising to tell their flocks that the Jews were their gods. They did that eventually on the air for their flocks to learn, and for the world to see and hear. This is how the Jews became the exclusive owners of North America in less than three generations. Now the Christian children of America grow up believing that to be successful in their own country they must position themselves to be an appendix to a Jew. Otherwise they might as well learn to live under a bridge, and eat from garbage cans.

What the Jewish organizations running the propaganda machine and hatching the conspiracies did not count on – given that it takes the IQ of at least a monkey to make this kind of judgment – was that ordinary people were going to say what's good for the Jew is good for me. In fact, the people wanted the things that the Jew was getting, and they went after them. Thus, to have started “political correctness” became the legacy of the Jews; one that is now the very thing that the Wall Street Journal, its audio-visual affiliate; the Fox News Network and a bunch of other New York publications – are whining about. It is the story of the skunk that complains about the stink he spread everywhere on this Continent.

You can see a sample of the moaning they do by reviewing the Daniel Henninger article which came under the title: “Bonfire of the Humanities” and the subtitle: “Christine Lagarde is the latest ritualistic burning of a college-commencement heretic.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 14, 2014. After citing recent examples of people that were barred from giving commencement speeches at universities, Henninger explains the history of the phenomenon not as it happened but as he wishes it did.

He tells the story of a Leftist German philosopher he does not name, one that was supposed to have taught at Brandeis University. He accuses him of saying things like: many Conservative ideas are immoral and deserve to be suppressed. After that, the idea gathered unlimited energy, says Henninger, and spread to all campuses like wildfire. Well, my friend, this is a typical cheap trick employed by the Wall Street Journal to hide the truth. And the truth will be found on this website by those who will spend the time to go as far back as 2007 and search in the archives. It was the time I joined the ongoing struggle to eradicate the Jewish autocratic disease of political correctness from the face of this Continent.

The Jews were barring people like Desmond Tutu from speaking in America. They dissed at least one former President – Jimmy Carter – when he tried to speak his mind. They were barring universities from publishing books that did not praise the phony achievements of Israel. And they were barring the publication of books that did not badmouth or belittle the achievements of the Arab and Muslim countries. In short, their autocratic movement had borrowed the worst of Nazism, Fascism and Communism, rolled all into one, and made it the law of the land – some of which was coded into statutes, and some of which was adhered to by force of habit and by tradition.

Now look at the gall of Daniel Henninger – that said not one word when Norman Finklestein's application for tenure was mauled by the likes of Alan Dershowirz – who writes the following in his current article: “The ability of aggrieved professors to concoct ideas and words that violated political correctness got so loopy that the phrase itself became satirical – though not so funny to profs denied tenure. Offensive books were banned and history texts rewritten to conform.” Do you believe that as witnesses to history, Daniel Henninger and the Wall Street Journal as an organization have shown they harbor even a shred of integrity?

No. These people are the mutilators of history. Anything they say must be looked at with suspicion. Anything they write must be dealt with like toxic lies.

World Scale Theater of the Absurd

Progress being the ideal situation in which we seek to find ourselves at all time, we do not mind being in a steady state condition once in a while if it lasts for only a short period of time. What we do not tolerate is a state under which the conditions around us begin to shrink. This is when we spring into action and do what we can to offset what is diminishing around us.

And nothing is more true about that set of preferences than in matters concerning the economy of the nation. Steady growth is what we seek for the economy at all time; a short period of stagnation is what we can accept once in a while; shrinkage of the economy (better known as recession) is what we do not tolerate. When this happens, we hurry to do something about it, something like stimulating the economy using the monetary and fiscal tools at hand.

There are other ways to stimulate the economy, one of them being trading with foreign countries. But it can happen at times that a dispute arises with a country we have established a two-way flourishing trade, and something political – having nothing to do with trade – gets in the way. A decision must be made to put pressure on the other party, and it usually comes in the form of using the existing trade relation to punish them. The trouble with this form of punishment is that it happens to be a double edged sword which normally hurts both the intended victim and the perpetrator.

We have an example of this in that we live at a time when the world is abuzz about the economic center of gravity shifting toward the East, and China overtaking the US in economic output. Yet, despite all this, there are voices in the West who call for the further disruption of their own economies by applying economic sanctions on Russia, an important trading partner of Western Europe. The dispute that arose to trigger such calls has to do with Ukraine, a one time province of the old Soviet Union, now an independent state that the New Russian Federation seeks to bring back into the fold. To this end, Russia seems to be employing methods that do not conform to acceptable international norms.

America being the Western nation having the least economic interaction with Russia, it harbors the most vociferous voices calling for the punishment of Russia with forceful economic sanctions. Europe, on the other hand, has the most elaborate set of interactions, thus displays the least inclination at using the double-edged sword of trade to punish Russia.

It is inevitable that when a set of conditions accumulate in which the stakes are this high and this varied, a human drama of epic dimensions should arise. We have a glimpse of one such performance as it plays itself out in the form of a Wall Street Journal editorial that came under the title: “Putin's European Enablers” and the subtitle: “France moves ahead with a $1.6 billion arms sale to Russia.” It was published on May 16, 2014.

The Journal editors set the scene: “U.S. officials and Russia's neighbors are protesting France's plan to sell Putin's navy assault ships, and rightly so.” As if this were not enough, the editorial continues: “But the French are hardly the only Europeans who want to continue business as usual with Russia.” It goes on to paint the character of the current French President as being the most enthusiastic for doing business with Russia, and chides the previous French president for setting the stage that made the current scene possible.

With a sense of bitterness, the editors tell the story of the French who thought that Russia had become one of them after the events of 1991; of the Americans who pushed for Russia's entry into the G-8, the WTO and the OSCE among other Western clubs, only to discover that Russia is stuck in a pre-1991 mentality.

The editors lament that Britain's prime Minister has ruled out trade sanctions against Russia, a situation that makes them remark: “Neither Mr. Hollande [president of France] nor Mr. Cameron [PM of Britain] will be mistaken for another Winston Churchill.” But having said that, they suggest that France emulate something Churchill did by trying to sell those ships to Canada or someone else so as to deny them to Russia.

The editors see this as the best denouement for the unfolding drama; the French are saying: Mais non, c'est pas possible.

Stay tuned.

What if Father Confessor is a Pedophile?

The discussion that follows has nothing to do with the Catholic Church or the scandals that have plagued it of late. The image of a confessor or someone demanding that others “fess up” to their sins is the analogy being pursued here. What made this presentation necessary is an article that was written by David Albright and Bruno Tertrais which came under the title: “Making Iran Come Clean About Its Nukes” and the subtitle: “What is the point of striking an agreement with Iran if Tehran will be able to hide its weapons work?” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 15, 2014.

The two authors discuss an announcement made by Iran's Atomic Energy Organization in which the latter said it will compile a document listing all of the country's nuclear work. Instead of waiting for that document to be tabled before blabber-mouthing it, Albright and Tertrais engage in a long discussion that is useless at its core then say the following to end their presentation: “If the West fails to demand that Iran verifiably fess up to the military dimensions of its nuclear program, the odds are that Ayatollah Khamenei would be able to build the bomb without fear of discovery.”

Now, this is the same David Albright who participated in the witch hunt for the fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq after the demolition of a country that did not have such weapons, and made repeated statements to this effect. But despite the fact that other non-American experts in the field, equal in stature to David Albright, who analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that Iraq was telling the truth – Albright said nothing of the sort before the demolition of the country, then participated in the witch hunt for the weapons with the zeal of a true believer in their existence.

When his team found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and he was interviewed to explain this colossal American crime against humanity, Albright put the blame on the Iraqis themselves. He said, in effect, that he did not believe the Iraqis when they said they did not have such weapons because the Iraqis were snooped on by the Americans while talking among themselves, but knowing that the Iraqis lie to each other, the Americans – he included – came to the conclusion that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction ... a logic that is Jewish through and through and through.

This man, therefore, is the father confessor of the analogy – the man who seeks to commit a mistake equal to the previous by insisting that Iran “fess up” which means “confess” to him its sins before he will do what he did previously which is to declare that he does not believe the Iranians because they are known to lie to each other. He will then allow America to proceed with the demolition of Iran the way that a sick priest comes out the confessional booth to go rape an innocent child.

You can already see Albright and Tertrais plant the seeds of future rapes in what they are asking for at this time. This is what they say in the article: “It is critical to know whether the Islamic Republic had a nuclear-weapons program in the past, how far the work on warheads advanced and whether it continues.” Having this under his belt – if they manage to get it in the form that they want – Albright can then do what he did with Iraq, and say that because the Iranians lie, the West must not believe a word they say, therefore America must be green-lighted to commence the demolition of Iran.

If you want more convincing evidence that this is the outcome Albright and his co-author seek before they even get to see the document, consider this passage: “The announcement in April by Iran's Atomic Energy Organization about a 'comprehensive document' may well be part of the stalling strategy. They go on: “Iran has claimed all along it has never had nuclear-weapons aspirations … but these denials are not credible.”

They are already casting doubt on the veracity of the Iranian statements, and there is only one reason for this: to repeat the disastrous history that turned America from a beloved superpower to a hated war criminal.

It is time to put these sickos to pasture where they will live a quiet life, and let the world evolve as quietly as possible after the turbulent century we have had.

New Tricks to make Israel America's Priority

At the very moment when it is discovered that America has been neglecting her veterans, the Israelis are getting together with World Jewry and the American Jewish lobby to fleece what is left in the military budget of the superpower. They plan to hatch their plot by telling the congress of low life disgusting animals in DC that their priority must never be America's wounded children, but the ability of Israel's terrorists – posing as a defense force – to kill the children of their Arab neighbors.

                     

The Israelis who, not long ago, were asking for something like 600 million dollars to develop a fictitious anti-rocket shield they once called the Iron Dome, have stopped vaunting this piece of garbage in favor of adopting the old trick of crying that Israel ran out of money to train its recruits, and will soon find itself in danger. So the question: How much money do they need to protect themselves? And guess what – it happens to be just by coincidence, the hefty sum of 600 million dollars.

But the truth about Israel is told in a recent report issued by the Taub Center in Israel which says that poverty in that wretched place has reached the 35 percent level. This is because the money coming into the joint from worldwide donations (and made to look like the GDP of a “viable” state) is no longer used to feed the population but used for two other purposes. First, the money is used to commit the criminal act of confiscating Palestinian land on which they build settlements to acquire more freakish Jews who can no longer make a living in America or elsewhere in the Western world. Second, super luxurious dwellings are built in what is called Israel proper to serve as cottages where the Jewish moguls who usually live in foreign lands go to spend their vacation time.

And when those freakish Jews reach Israel where they discover a situation different from what they were promised, they take matters in their own hands. They discover that the promise they were given to the effect that they will be looked after when they get there was – not about manna from the sky but a pie in the sky. And so they react in the typical criminal fashion of taking it on those who cannot defend themselves.

Their latest acts of criminal mischief made use of the occasion that the Pope will soon visit the Holy Land. They defaced the offices of the Vatican in East Jerusalem with hateful graffiti, proclaiming among other things: “Death to the Arabs and to all Christians.” And they staged mass riots during which time they attacked the Notre Dame Center – which is also a property of the Vatican – as well as mosques, Arab owned cars and their other properties both in Israel proper and in the occupied territories.

And while all of that is happening in the Middle East, the American veterans of wars that were planned for and executed by those who call themselves “children of Holocaust survivors” have come home with physical and mental wounds that cannot be cured by Jewish sorcery. They need money – large sums of money – that would bankrupt the Pentagon if it had to budget for it. The consequence is that something extraordinary must be done for these veterans, and you see a suggestion of that ... an opinion piece written by Betsy McCaughey who has had a checkered political past of her own.

While the Israelis are preparing for a big push in the congress of disgusting animals to appropriate 600 million dollars for them, the piece by McCaughley calls on that same congress to do the right thing, but she presents her ideas in a manner that rivals the congress in sheer disgust. The article has the title: “Give veterans the care they earned” and was published in the New York Post on May 13, 2014.

McCaughley suggests that congress pass a one-page bill that would add a “red/white/blue plan for vets only, with no premiums or deductibles for any vet who has been in combat.” This is the right thing to do but look how this lousy as congress creature starts her piece: “Leave it to President Obama to enact comprehensive health reform and overlook the plight of 8.5 million veterans.” Well, my dear lady, Obama brought them home alive. It is now in the congress that the next chapter of this melodrama will play itself out.

Look closely to what will develop, and you'll see a congress gridlocked as usual when it comes to doing something for Americans; and see those dogs bite each other's backs to be first at genuflecting in from of their Jewish master, overdoing one another at trying to send the largest sum of money to those who deface and attack Vatican properties in the Holy Land, and kill Arab and Christian babies in their mothers' arms.