The Treasure Trove that eluded them

Adhering to the Jewish habit of joining the chorus when a recital is announced, Lee Smith came up with a new idea that's actually an extension of an old idea. He discusses its formulation in the article he wrote under the title: “Paying Ransom to Iran,” published on August 8, 2016 in the Weekly Standard.

The article is about the exchange that took place when money (an initial tranche worth $400 million of a larger sum) that was impounded illegally by America, was returned to Iran in exchange for American prisoners that were held in Iran under spying charges leveled against them lawfully.

First, we look at a precedent that unfolded three or four decades ago, and must have given impetus to the current saga. At that time, the Jewish moguls had discovered they were not keeping up with the increase in the wealth that non-Jewish moguls were accumulating, so they did the very Jewish thing of sniffing around to see if they can extort compensation from someone.

To make a long story short, they found a few worthless documents which they nevertheless labeled a treasure trove, and used that to convince the American congress of moral prostitutes it can blackmail countries like Switzerland and Austria, and force them to pay ransom to the Jews or face difficulties doing business in America. The prostitutes did as told, and succeeded at getting the Jews a few billion criminally extorted dollars.

The Jews found this method to be so neat at getting something for nothing – being the very definition of getting a ransom – they tried to do it to other nations, especially those in the Middle East. But since the leaders of those nations cannot be blackmailed by an assembly of Beltway whores, they raised their middle fingers at them whereupon the whores capitulated, and the Jews ran to the courts looking for better luck there.

No, they did not go to an international court where such cases are usually settled, they went to an American court where they did the Jewish thing of arguing their side of the case and that of their opponent too. As predicted, they obtained the judgment they were seeking against Iran.

They asked for money, money, money – but as Lee Smith put it: “American victims of Iranian terrorism won judgments against the Islamic Republic in U.S. courts, and the Clinton administration promised that the settlements would be paid out of the $400 million. But the Clinton White House never reimbursed the Treasury Department, nor did the Bush administration”.

And this is why a Jewish chorus lamenting the unfolding of the events was assembled, and Lee Smith decided to add his voice to it. The chorus objected to the exchange that took place between the two nations, calling it ransom payment, and Smith came up with a novel idea to explain his point of view. Here it is:

“The administration argues that the $400 million was Tehran's money to begin with. That's not true. It was a payment received from the shah of Iran for a weapons deal that was never consummated because he was toppled. Washington held the money. It should have been distributed to Iran's American victims … The $1.3 billion of interest that the U.S. supposedly owes the Iranians is a fiction since the U.S. was under no legal obligation to pay Iran money that was no longer Iran's. It was ransom, billed to the U.S. taxpayer”.

To say that the U.S. was under no legal obligation to return the money is to say it was under obligation to distribute the money among Iran's presumed “victims.” This being the case, Smith is morally obligated to give a detailed account as to how much money is owed to the presumed victims, and how much should be returned to Iran. This done, he should say how much interest he believes had accumulated over the decades.

When he is done with all that, he should explain why the presumed victims did not try to enforce the judgment of the American court, and why the U.S. government judged it wise to settle amicably with Iran rather than let an international court impose a settlement it will have to honor, or ignore and be declared a delinquent … like any helpless Third World country.

Lacking the evidence to prove that the Iran treasure trove was no longer Iran's, Lee Smith has failed to legitimize – if only on paper – the Jewish habit of living the parasitic life at the expense of others. Not this time.

Amateurs in a World of seasoned Professionals

Do you think it is possible for someone to stand in Russia, China, Brazil, Japan, Portugal or maybe France, Iran, Nigeria, Sweden or Australia – and treat a press secretary of the government the way that White House and State Department press secretaries are treated in America? Not on your life.

That's because unlike America, the local and foreign journalists in those countries – as everywhere else in the world – know what will happen to them if they get out of line. They'll be told straight in the face: “Get your Jewish ass out of this building or I'll have security grab you by the seat of your pants and throw you to the hungry dogs out there who know what to do with the likes of you”.

But why is America treated by the Jews as if a colony of inferior beings? This is a good question, and so we look for an answer in a piece that came under the title “Iran's $400 Million Payoff,” written by the editors of National Review Online (NRO), and published on August 5, 2016. These are so-called journalists discussing a journalistic event that took place in Iran. Here is how they introduced the subject to their readers:

“The Obama administration delivered $400 million in cash to Tehran on the same day that Iran released four Americans held as enemies. Administration officials deny that this was a 'ransom' payment, but if not, someone forgot to tell Tehran. An Iranian general informed state media: 'Taking this much money back was in return for the release of the American spies'”.

What were these editors trying to establish with a half-assed remark of this caliber: “If not [a ransom] someone forgot to tell Tehran”? The fact is that the Iranian general was asked a question that must have gone like this: Why are we getting this money from America? And he responded that the transaction was part of a deal to settle outstanding disputes between the two countries. It included the swap of American prisoners for Iranian money.

This is how civilized professionals give and take with each other, it is how they show respect for their audience, and why none of them worries about being hit with a vague gotcha question aimed at making them look like inferior representatives of a helpless colony – which is how things unfold in America these days. In fact, this is the sorry state to which America's journalistic culture has deteriorated since it was taken over by the Jews.

Instead of exchanging ideas and generating new ones to sift through and choose the most relevant among them to organize in a coherent whole and reach conclusions that lead to a plan of action, the Jews have instructed America to discard the tried and proven old method, and replace it with the useless Jewish haggle of even older times. Here is a perfect example of Jewish inspired uselessness: “Obama's dealings with Iran have followed a grim pattern: American pusillanimity followed by Iranian provocations followed by American capitulation. Rinse and repeat … The U.S. government being in the business of paying off hostage-takers will come as welcome news to America's enemies”.

However, the fact is that no one but America has a Guantanamo-like camp where kidnapped innocent civilians and combatants are kept indefinitely without trial. Also, no one but the Americans impound money and property left in their custody by foreigners. Thus, no one but America gets to be in a position to engineer a ransom-type situation, and benefit from it. In fact, this happened in a number of occasions only because the government followed Jewish instructions and acted in a way that turned out to be very amateurish.

To get a sense of how this sort of thing happens in America and nowhere else, we look at the following passage in the NRO editorial:

“The administration abased itself. The release of Americans should have been a precondition for any negotiations on Iran's nuclear regime … In the course of the talks that led to the nuclear deal, Iran secured frozen assets, sanctions relief and the release of Iranians justly imprisoned in the U.S. for crimes, for hacking the U.S. power-grid database – and an agreement to drop 14 extradition requests”.

What on earth are the editors haggling about in this passage? They are saying, in effect, they don't care about the transaction looking like a ransom payment. What upsets them is that America did not conduct a hard nosed negotiation with the Iranians. Thus, we can only deduce that the Jews would not have called the exchange of prisoners a ransom payment if America had gotten a little something for Israel in the nuclear agreement.

This is hypocrisy that's seen by everyone in the world except the Jewish perpetrators and the American victims. And that, my friend, is how the Jewish cultural injection has debased America's own culture. This is why no one in America dares to tell the Jewish so-called journalists and their disciples: “Get your Jewish ass out of this building or I'll have security grab you by the seat of your pants and throw you to the hungry dogs out there who know what to do with the likes of you”.

Whatever occurs, their Advice is always the same

Imagine yourself driving leisurely on a deserted street in the middle of the night, and you see someone fallen on his face, severely smashed and barely alive. You stop to help and ask him what happened. He says it was no hit and run accident, but that a gang he is acquainted with beat him up.

At first, you wonder what sort of savages were those who did such a thing. A while later, you begin to wonder what he could have done to provoke this kind of response. You don't ask him, but take him to hospital and then go home to get on with your life, thinking you'll never encounter a situation like this ever again. But you turn out to be wrong because a few days later, you encounter the same man on a different street but in the same neighborhood, having suffered a similar treatment. This time, he says, a different gang did it to him.

For a while, you give up thinking about possible motives, but notice that something about you has changed. You no longer take things at face value, but wonder why the people you work with, and those you spend time with, behave out of character some of the time. You study the phenomenon closely and determine that they – and all of us, in fact – suffer from schizo-paranoia to one degree or another. And so you keep this in mind.

You go back to drive in the same neighborhood, and sure enough, you encounter the same man, having suffered the same fate yet again. You talk to him intending to accumulate as much knowledge as you can. You then spend some time studying the subject in depth, and you come to the conclusion that when schizo-paranoia reaches a high level, ordinary individuals become obnoxious whereas those who are in a leadership position display megalomaniac tendencies. Now you wonder if this can happen to a group such as a supremacist gang, for example, or an ethnic group or a religious one.

You apply yourself to the study of the subject and determine that yes; it can happen to a group. When it does, the individual displays obnoxiousness when separated from the group, and displays megalomania when acting in concert with the group. The most glaring examples of this reality are the Jews. Catch them alone, and you'll find them to be fearful and obnoxious; catch them in a group and they tend to be fearless and megalomaniac

For these reasons, human beings of every stripe have tended to persecute the Jews now and throughout history. And like the man who kept getting beaten up, humanity has placed no limit on what it will do to the Jews whose obnoxious megalomania is itself unlimited.

And because the Jews freely choose to behave the way they do, they fail to see how they can possibly rub humanity the wrong way. They don't understand why being who they are provokes humanity so severely as to wish punishing them as badly as it does. In fact, some people have pogrommed the Jews, others have holocausted them, and many wish to final solution them.

Two examples illustrate why this is the case. The first is an article that came under the title: “The case for (finally) Bombing Assad,” written by Dennis B. Ross and Andrew J. Tabler. It was published on August 4, 2016 in the New York Times. The second is a column that came under the title: “What Obama must do to get it right in Libya this time,” written by Benny Avni and published on the same day in the NY Post. All three authors are Jews.

What Ross and Tabler are advocating is made explicit in the title of their piece. The time has finally come, they say, to concoct an excuse and do to Syria what America did to Iraq and Libya, thus plunge the region into a situation that will make the current horror look like a vacation.

As to Benny Avni, he does not believe it is enough that “at the behest of the Libyan government, American planes will bomb targets in Sirte.” What he wants to see is “a strategy [that] includes sustained military effort, with some boots on the ground”.

And that's exactly the strategy that was designed by Holocaust psychos ten years before they were hired to run Dick Cheney's office; the place from which they executed the plan to destroy Iraq, thus set in motion the calamity that is unfolding in the region at this time.

And an increasing number of human beings are becoming convinced that nothing will put an end to the 4,000-year old calamity, but a final solution of some kind – be it humane or be it savage.

The agonized Gasp of a dying Movement

When you see the adherents of a movement vociferate to kill it, you know there will be no requiem for this movement when it takes a last gasp and goes silent.

That's what is happening at the National Review at this time. It is the publication where the Conservative movement found its voice and grew to become a major force on the American political scene. Actually, the publication has not turned against conservatism itself but against the Republican Party that spearheaded the movement. And that's the Party which the editors of National Review believe has gone so crazy, they can no longer associate with it, let alone support it.

What exactly happened there? It happened that a parasite abandoned the Democratic Party, which is the liberal camp standing as nemesis to conservatism. The parasite migrated to the conservative side of the political spectrum where it adopted the name 'new conservative' or neocon. It invaded the Republican Party, dominated it and gradually sapped it of its energy like the worm that consumes its host from the inside out.

With the demise of the Republican Party came the demise of the conservative movement in America, and the demise of National Review. Now a shadow of its old self, it is edited by a group that would not qualify as a shadow of its founding father … who died a decade ago. Unaware that the publication – as it stands now – has played a role in the saga that turned so badly, the current editors of National Review have determined it was time to distance themselves from the Republican Party because of what it has become.

But how did National Review play a role in the sordid saga? The best way to tell this story is to create an analogy. Imagine the heir to an enterprise muzzling and demoting the cadre that was put in place by his father. He hires his high school buddies – who have no idea what they are doing – and puts them in charge of the enterprise. When the thing sinks to a depth so low it cannot be recovered, he blames the failure on his father's cadre and fires everyone of them thus makes the situation even worse.

What happened in practice is that Rich Lowry who is the current editor of the publication, gave prominence to the writings of the neocons – those who have no idea what they are doing, – one of whom being Jonah Goldberg, himself an editor of the publication. This had the effect of drowning out the voices of the original conservatives who chose to move away. Confusion spread throughout the base of the conservative movement, and that's how the Republican Party started to go crazy.

In fact, the caliber of those who write for National Review is so low; you get distressed reading their articles. It happens that each of Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg wrote and published an article on the same subject on the same day, August 5, 2016 in National Review Online. Read them and see for yourself. Lowry's article came under the title: “The Ransom that Dare Not Speak Its Name,” that of Goldberg came under the title: “When Is a Ransom Not a Ransom? When It's Inconvenient to Call It That”.

The idea behind the two articles is that the writers wish to convince the readers that what the Administration did amounts to paying a ransom to get the American prisoners out. As devoid of merit as this subject may be, even if we pretend it is important to tell and retell in full detail, you would think that the writers first defined what is meant by 'paying a ransom,' and went from there to show that this is what actually happened. But you see none of that in either article.

Instead, Rich Lowry wants the readers to believe that the Obama Administration committed a horrible sin – saying that “the Administration paid Iran a ransom for prisoners, whatever they choose to call it. It's funny how coincidences work.” As you can see, this is so informative; you can't help but believe it wholeheartedly.

As to Goldberg, he chose to put his analysis in the form of an analogy, which is a legitimate approach. This is what he did, however: “One of my favorite lines is from Henry Thoreau: 'Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in your milk.'” But who is the trout and who is the milk? Goldberg does not say … which is why his entire presentation has turned into a fishy exercise.

If anyone out there still adheres to American conservatism, they will want to turn away rather than eat from this fish, or drink from that milk.

Legitimate and illegitimate Quids pro Quos

Look at this headline: “Lawmakers Slam Obama Administration For $400 million Payment to Iran,” that's actually the title of the article that Jenna Lifhits wrote for the Weekly Standard. It was published on August 3, 2016 in that publication.

So you want to know, why the slam? You look into the article and find reference to the operation that led to the payment made to Iran as being a quid pro quo. Now you wonder: Is this a bad thing? Or what exactly is this thing they call quid pro quo?

Believe it or not, quid pro quo is the single most important invention that nature came up with to make organic life possible. From the service that bees render to the plants they pollinate in exchange for their nectar, to the swap of vital goods and services between human beings, life depends on quid pro quo.

We constantly exchange one thing for another in transactions that go smoothly most of the time but not all of the time. They go smoothly when there is trust between the parties. That is, I give you something knowing that you'll “pay me back” because we have good relations, and have been exchanging goods and/or services for a time now. But there can happen at times that you need to conduct a transaction with someone you do not trust for whatever reason. How do you conduct a quid pro quo in this case?

Since the beginning of time, people have relied on the principle of an intermediary in a position of authority playing the role of witness or judge to insure that one party does not receive something and then break his promise of paying for it with something of equal value. Because this is sometimes a difficult thing to do in international relations, mechanisms were invented to facilitate such transactions.

The most familiar in commercial transactions is the letter of credit from a recognized bank that a seller requires from a buyer before the goods are shipped. That is, the buyer deposits the money with the bank, which releases it to the seller when the buyer receives the goods.

In political affairs, however, things can get a little sticky. The most telling of transactions in this realm was the bridge that used to connect a capitalist country with a communist country – a bridge on which the simultaneous release of prisoners used to be effectuated. Officials resorted to this method because each party feared that the other may get its prisoner and not release the one it is holding. The visual execution of the quid pro quo on the bridge solved this problem.

Whatever the merit of such cases, this kind of quids pro quos are legitimate. What is not legitimate – in fact, what can be as morally reprehensible as the repeated gang rape of helpless children – is the quid pro quo in which one party gives something in return for what belongs to a third party. The most notorious criminals practicing this sort of transactions are the Jews.

Their current game is to help American legislators get elected in return for the Americans paying them with a piece of Palestine. That is, the legislators get America to support the Jews financially, militarily and diplomatically for Israel to maintain the occupation of Palestine, and add more Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands.

And when you look at the names of the “lawmakers” who raise their hysterical voices as they “slam” the Obama Administration for doing what is common to human culture even before there were humans on this planet – you find them to be the same characters who make possible the gang rape of Palestine by criminals that have been condemned everywhere they went on this planet by everyone they met, now and throughout time.

Quid pro quo as practiced by the Obama Administration is legitimate. Quid pro quo as practiced by the lawmakers and their Jewish masters is morally reprehensible and criminal.

Will they ever understand this?

A Dictionary to serve all haggling Occasions

The intent of haggling conspirators is to create so much noise around a subject, they confuse the public and manage to insidiously inject into the debate dubious notions that no one will stop long enough to consider or do something about.

Because it is important to prevent these characters from getting away with the sort of dishonesty that can cause serious damage, we must take it upon ourselves to stop long enough and clarify matters which are increasingly acquiring momentous dimensions. To this end, we begin by telling a story in two different versions.

Version number one: You have a one-of-a-kind collector’s car, and a thief steals it. There is no price you wouldn't pay to get it back. The thief calls you and says he'll return the car for a sum you know you can afford. You pay up and get the car back. Did you pay a ransom? Yes you did. In fact, this exchange represents the classic definition of paying a ransom to get back something that is yours.

Version number two: You rent a car for the weekend and leave your credit card with the rental agency. Monday arrives, and you do not return the car. The rental agent in charge calls the police but learns that they have no information on you. After another week, the agent considers you a thief that stole the car and probably shipped it overseas to be sold there. He confiscates the balance that's on your credit card.

But then, on the eighth day, you call the rental agency from the hospital, and tell the agent you suffered a case of food poisoning while eating something in a cheap restaurant. You tell him you drove yourself to the hospital where you fell into a coma shortly thereafter. You came out of the coma a while ago and feel better now.

He says bring the car back and he'll refund you the money he confiscated. You take the car to the agency and exchange it for the money. You go away wondering if either of you paid a ransom to get back what belongs to him. The answer in this case is no; there was no ransom paid by either of you.

The difference between the two situations is that both the money and the car were yours in version number one. You exchanged one thing that’s yours for another thing that’s yours. This constitutes paying ransom. As to the case in version number two, you had in your possession the car that belonged to the agency, whereas the agency had the money that belonged to you. You did a swap that does not constitute paying ransom. And this is what happened in the exchange that took place between America and Iran. Money that was Iran’s was exchanged for prisoners that were America’s. No ransom was paid in this case.

But that's not how the haggling conspirators portray that event, as can be seen in the editorial which came under the title: “Obama's con air” and the subtitle: “When giving Iran cash for hostages isn't ransom,” published on August 4, 2016 in the New York Daily News.

This is a piece that's more than 500 words long. It is a typical representation of the noise that hagglers make by throwing all sorts of superfluous notions into the debate, thus confuse the audience. And while the confusion is gripping the debaters, the hagglers insidiously push ideas that would have been rejected in a normal debate because of what they represent on their face.

Take a look at the following 'jewel' if you can call it that, and see for yourself: “Even though the U.S. actually owed the funds to Iran, Obama exchanged money for prisoners – the classic definition of paying a ransom”.

Given that when someone says definition, they mean to say, “the dictionary says so,” we must wonder which dictionary these people consult. Could it be that they created a shifting dictionary which tailor-makes a definition to suit each of their occasions?

It would not be beyond them to do such a thing. They are after all a dishonest bunch that will stop at nothing to mutilate a historical event of consequence, yet spend days haggling about ownership of a single word. Look at the following passage and laugh or weep depending on your disposition:

“When a reporter asked Josh Earnest about a connection between the payment and the release, he answered, 'I think we've made it pretty clear that this is not a coincidence.' … Now, Earnest absurdly refuses to own up to the word ransom'”.

We wonder how the dictionary these people use defines the word absurd.

Having no Case, they start a Haggle

How do you know someone has no case, yet wants to get something for nothing? It might be difficult to make a determination in a case like this, unless that someone is a Jew in which case he'll unmask himself by initiating a haggle. And that's exactly what the editors of the Wall Street Journal have done.

In an editorial that came under the title: “Obama's Cash for Iran's Hostages” and the subtitle: “The payoffs encourage the ayatollahs to grab more Americans,” the editors of the publication have unmasked themselves by making the classic arguments known to lead to the Jewish haggling that goes on for an eternity. The editorial was published on August 4, 2016 in the Journal.

From beginning to end, he piece is peppered with clues as to who the authors are, and what they hope to get out of this “journalistic” adventure. But the way they end it is the grand spectacle that displays their true colors. Here it is: “Someone should ask Hillary Clinton if she thinks paying ransom for hostages encourages the world's thugs to take more Americans hostage”.

This is the same sort of question that the Pharisees were reputed to have asked Jesus Christ before they conspired to crucify him. They asked the paradoxical question: To whom do you advise that we pay taxes: God or Caesar?

The reality is that Iran is a normal nation, and the Iranians are normal people. The Jews have accused them of all sorts of things that turned out to be false. And when you look closely at those accusations, you find them to be valid only when leveled against the Israelis. The truth is that Jewish thugs from America and elsewhere are occupying Palestine and committing war crimes that make ordinary thugs look like saints.

Moreover, it is America that is paying for the activities of the settlers occupying Palestine. It is America that is arming them to the teeth. It is America that is making sure the Palestinians remain unarmed and unable to defend themselves. It is America that stands in world forums and defends the Jewish thugs. And that, my friend, is what makes America the only sponsor of terrorism in the world today. The culprit is not Iran; it is the Jewish-American satanic alliance.

Delving more deeply into the question that the editors wish to ask of Hillary Clinton, we notice that it carries the same tinge as the one they used to ask in the old days: Does giving Blacks a finger encourages them to ask for the arm? As it turned out, African Americans got not the whole finger but a section of it, and they were satisfied. They asked for no more after that.

On the other hand, the Jews got everyone of the fingers. This done, they asked for the entire hand and they got it. They asked for the arm and got that too. Now they want 50 billion dollars to continue their criminal activities in occupied Palestine, and no one is telling them to go jump into the lake or wherever it is they end up when they behave in this manner.

The saddest part in this saga is how the Jews were able to grow a crop of non-Jews steeped in the satanic culture that's eroding America ... and making these characters invade America's legislatures. One of those – known to be a pile of rotting meat put together in the shape of homo erectus – is named Tom Cotton. He made it clear by his pronouncements and his actions that he would sacrifice 320 million Americans if that will net Israel one more finger.

Here is what he is doing now: “Sen. Tom Cotton wrote to the Administration asking if the U.S. would pay to release the current hostages, and also whether 'you are willing to clearly state that the January release of the hostages would have occurred even if the Administration had not agreed to pay $1.7 billion to Iran'”.

This is the sort of approach that's meant to trigger a haggle of such intensity; it makes Satan proud of his disciple. As a consequence, you may expect to see Tom Cotton, the pile of rotting meat, earn his satanic horns very soon.