The Twilight Zone of a shriveled Democracy

This is in response to the latest column by Clifford D. May. It came under the title: “Obama's Iran experiment” and the subtitle: “His nuclear deal concluded a year ago has not encouraged the regime to behave.” It was published on July 12, 2016 in The Washington Times.

The topic he discusses is the Iran nuclear deal. It is also the sale of American passenger planes to that country. In fact, this is how May begins his presentation: “Suppose the Islamic State wanted to buy American airplanes and promised not to use them to support terrorists. Would you be okay with that?” He goes from there to say that because the answer is no, it should also be no to Iran, given that the two Muslim entities are practically identical. To prove it, he takes the next 5 paragraphs to draw parallels between them.

Because it is impossible to navigate through his parallels without conjuring up other parallels, the natural thing to do is to substitute names like Israel or America where you see names like the Islamic State or Iran. And the following is what you obtain:

1. “Israel is a terrorist entity. America is the world's most avid supporter of that entity therefore America is the most active state sponsor of terrorism”.

2. “Israel is engaged in the most terrorizing act of all – the occupation of Palestine. In fact, Israel slaughters the Palestinian people and persecutes Christians who proselytize in the land where Christ once lived”.

3. “The entire Israeli leadership has the intention and the capability to bring “death” to Palestine; maybe even Lebanon. American supporters of Israel have murdered dozens of Iraqis in furtherance of the Jewish agenda”.

4. “There are no stylistic differences between America and Israeli killers. They both take video footage of the family homes they blow up from the air, and proudly run them on television”.

5. “American and Israeli commanders – often described in the media as civilized – lay wreaths on the grave of their dead airmen whether or not the latter bombed innocent Arab families in their homes … millions of whom have died horrible deaths over the decades”.

Having drawn his parallels, Clifford May, turns his attention to the nuclear agreement. He attacks it using the talking points that were repeatedly refuted in the past. He remarks that even though “Iran's economy is recovering, Ayatollah Khamenei is dissatisfied. He charged that Americans were creating 'Iranophobia so no one does business with Iran.'” And so, Clifford May complains that “in response, Secretary of State John Kerry has been telling [the world] about the investment opportunities available in Iran”.

Enter Boeing, the American manufacturer of passenger planes and other things. It announced a $25 billion deal with Iran for planes that will be used in civilian transportation. This is where May reaches out to his drawer and pulls a few of the old talking points that were themselves refuted in the past. And he fails to make a lasting impact on the readers.

Then something happened in the House of Representatives whose office holders are usually on the road in the permanent mode of raising money for their reelection campaigns. Having left it to their office managers and internees (all handpicked by the Jewish lobby) to run the Iran file, they came back long enough to do this: “The House passed, with bipartisan support, two amendments to block the sales of aircraft to Iran”.

The author now climbs on his high horse and says: “Let's be charitable and consider the nuclear deal an experiment.” He surmises that President Obama showed the rulers of Iran respect to entice them to tone down their rhetoric and ambitions. Unfortunately, he says, the experiment did not yield result. He tells why, and this is when it occurs to you to draw a parallel between what he says he expects of the Iranians, and what you know the world expects of the Israelis. You do that by substituting Israel for Iran, and that’s how it all comes out:

“Given the Arab initiative and the opportunity for the Jews to make Israel a normal country, they would stop pursuing their expansion, and halt the construction of new settlements in the occupied territories. Feeling less threatened, they would choose to peacefully coexist with their neighbors and ease repression on the Palestinians”.

But then, something at the back of your head tells you this is not going to work. Why? Because in the same way that these characters believe Obama “considers the Iran deal essential to his legacy,” they also believe that the trashing of the deal is essential to the image of the macho eunuchs they have cultivated about themselves.

After all, they are the ones who brag they can swindle America's legislators as easily as they can shoot unarmed Palestinian kids and then ask for American aid because they feel they are being terrorized for doing nothing worse than engage in the peaceful exercise of looting the homes of Palestinians and ransacking what they cannot cart out. This is so very disgusting. This is so very Jewish.

What they dogmatize and what they reverse

A dogma is a religious belief that no human being is allowed to violate. To dogmatize (not in the dictionary) is to give the force of a religious belief to a secular idea. That idea is then imposed on the public with zeal and with penalties that may rival those of the medieval Inquisition.

As far as I can tell, there are two places on this planet where they dogmatize ideas, rules, regulations and laws. These are North Korea and the United States of America. In North Korea, the dear leader is considered the god for whom everything desirable is done, and for whose sake every annoying conception is reversed. In America, Israel is considered the earthbound heaven for whom everything desirable is done, and for whose sake every annoying conception is reversed.

For example, when the world decided that Zionism was the same as racism, America was mobilized and told to keep trying till that decision was reversed. When an inquiry found that Israel had committed crimes against humanity, America got the presiding judge to say something that was spun, thus gave the impression he had recanted. And so it goes in America where laws and bylaws are made or trashed to harmonize with Jewish preferences at the municipal, state and national levels.

While that story unfolds on one track, another story unfolds on a parallel track. In this case, the best example to look at is the aid that flows from America to Israel. To understand the nature of what's happening here, it will help to recall an American saying: It is the analogy of the third rail. That is, a system of mass transit that's powered by electricity has three rails, one of which transmits the electric current. Those who touch this rail die.

The tradition has been that politicians who touched Social Security died as if they had touched the third rail. This tradition has now been replaced by aid to Israel. Those who touch any of it die a sudden death. Thus, like religious dogma, all sorts of financial, military and diplomatic aid flows from America to Israel unimpeded, no matter how much it hurts the American people.

The latest occurrence, for which a herculean effort was mounted to compel America to reverse itself, has been the Iran nuclear deal. The last three postings on this website deal with the subject, and this presentation is the fourth. It is in response to the article that came under the title: “The Boeing Sale to Iran Runs Into Turbulence” and the subtitle: “The House is trying to stop the sale of jets to a state sponsor of terrorism – the one with a nuclear deal the White House is protecting.” It was written by Emanuelle Ottolenghi and Mark Dubowitz, and published on July 14, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

The immediate goal of the writers is to prevent America from selling passenger planes to Iran even though Iran has other sources from which it can buy comparable planes, whereas America will not have a client to replace Iran. Thus, America, its treasury and its workers stand to lose substantial amounts if the brain-dead zombies in the Senate follow their House counterparts and block the sale to satisfy the ego of Ottolenghi and Dubowitz as well as the other pundits and their Jewish bosses in New York and Tel Aviv. To do that, the authors are adding their voice to those that came before them in an effort to dogmatize hating Iran, thus keep America from ever having cordial relations with that country.

Will the Jewish group succeed? Maybe not. Look what our two authors are saying: “The amendments would prevent the Treasury from granting licenses to export aircraft to Iran. They are unlikely to become law. Obama will threaten to veto any legislation that would dent his nuclear agreement with Iran.” Why then do these people keep trying?

They try because stopping the aircraft deal is only their immediate goal. Their ongoing preoccupation remains the need to maintain a system by which everything that's desirable is done for Israel, and every annoying conception – if and when it happens – is reversed. The writers view this system as the only way that Israel will remain afloat. This is the bitter reality given that Israel produces nothing but lives on handouts from America and elsewhere as well as from the robbery of Palestinian property, food and water using donated American weapons.

Instead of seeing that it is becoming harder to dogmatize something in America, the Jews continue to fool themselves into believing that things are improving for them. Look what they say: “The amendments are a sign of mounting concern on Capitol Hill about the implications of the plane sale.” They are in for a rude awakening.

Splitting Hair to trash the good Work

Here is an example that shows the difference between being a hair-splitter and a sharp analyst.

Imagine a designer of ocean going ships that lived in the middle of the nineteenth century when aluminum and titanium were not known – predicting that in the future there will be ships made of iron and copper. They will fly through the air and take passengers from one continent to another faster than the ocean going ships can ever do, he wrote.

To be a hair-splitter today is to say that the designer didn't know what he was talking about because airplanes are not made of iron or copper. To be a sharp analyst is to say that the man was a genius who possessed great knowledge in science and technology. Combined with his powerful insight, that knowledge allowed him to see possibilities for a future he did much to shape. Yes, he did not foresee the advances that were eventually made in metallurgy, but this is a minor detail when compared to what he predicted.

Well, you must have guessed by now this is meant to be an analogy to illustrate a point, and you are correct. The point has to do with the Bret Stephens column which came under the title: “Truth Catches the Iran Deal” and the subtitle: “Obama trumpets an agreement that Tehran violates at every turn,” published on July 12, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

In his fanatic zeal to deny credit where credit is due, Stephens took up the business of splitting hair at every turn in an attempt to make it look like President Obama has failed everywhere. He asserts that Iran has violated the nuclear deal, a claim that is false anyway you look at it. The fact is that Iran will no longer enrich uranium to a level that exceeds 4 percent purity. Even then, it cannot stockpile more than 300 kilograms of it. As well, Iran will not produce plutonium in any quantity. And given that its entire supply chain is monitored, Iran will not be able to cheat – even if it wanted to – under a system that the IAEA has said is working well. This is success, not failure.

So then, what can Stephens do to counter facts on the ground that are constantly verified, and make it look like what you see is not what you get? Well, he could conjure up a magic trick known as sleight of hand, thus create an optical illusion that deceives the onlooker. And so, instead of comparing what Obama promised the Iran deal will deliver against what it delivered, Stephens opted to discuss matters that sound like forbidden activities under the Iran deal, but are in reality, legitimate nuclear pursuits. What follows is a montage of what he says:

“Iran procurement activities hold true with regard to items used in the field of nuclear technology. It also corroborates that Iran's nuclear procurement has increased. Seven German states have reported similar procurement efforts. This violates Iran's commitment to go through an official 'procurement channel' to purchase nuclear- and missile-related materials”.

In other words, Stephens admits that Iran did not purchase any forbidden material. And so, he splits hair by complaining that Iran violated – not a legal requirement – but a self-imposed commitment to go through an official procurement channel before buying even the permitted material. But what exactly does the official procurement channel consist of? And how was Iran supposed to go through it? Bret Stephens does not say. And yet, he expects us to take it on faith that Iran did something wrong.

Having played those tricks as much as he can, he now delves into a potpourri of other tricks. One goes like this: “The administration developed a narrative that Iran has met its obligations and deserves U.S. purchases of its heavy water (thereby subsidizing its nuclear program).” This is worse than a trick; it is a full blown deception. The fact is that there is always demand for heavy water, and the Iranians could have sold theirs to anyone. The reason why America bought it was to analyze it, thus determine how much progress Iran has made in this field.

Stephens goes on to complain about the steps that the administration is taking to honor the promise of normalizing relations with Iran. He then recaps by listing the sleights of hand he played throughout the article. This done, he asks: “Is Mr. Obama rationalizing a failed agreement or did he mean to mislead the American public?”

Poor Bret, he has difficulty seeing that to seven billion grateful earthlings the Iran nuclear deal has proved to be a resounding success. He said so himself: “the truth is catching up with the Iran deal”.

Two Jewish Principles leading to Calamity

The principle that human beings are evil by nature, and the principle that such view compels them to haggle over everything, made it impossible for the Jews to forge a normal sort of existence for themselves, and impossible for others to accommodate them for any length of time.

These two principles, the interplay between them and their consequences come out clearly in the article that was written by Dennis Ross under the title: “Preserving the JCPOA Means Sending Iran the Right Deterrent Signals,” posted on the website of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on July 6, 2016.

Ross begins his current argument by pointing out that “last year's arguments were intense and politicized … the claims for and against were exaggerated.” He goes on to describe a situation that clearly shows we didn't have an exercise in democracy last year; we had an indication as to how useless Jewish haggling can get. He goes on to make points for the current argument, and closes with a series of “Policy Recommendations” that amount to nothing more than the same old Jewish haggling.

In fact, Ross sets the stage early on for those recommendations with this passage: “Closing the path to a nuclear bomb depends … on U.S. readiness to make them [the Iranians] pay a high price if they cheat. It is essential that they understand the high price of violations.” Here, the writer depends on the principle that human beings are evil, and speculates that the Iranians will cheat. He thus resolves that they must be deterred from choosing that path. So you ask: What's wrong with this approach?

What's wrong is that it stands in contradiction to the Common Law practice – devised by civilized people and based on real life experiences – to the effect that you do not impose prior restraint on someone because everyone is presumed innocent till proven guilty. When you begin with this premise, you let the debaters probe for common ground among them, an approach that makes possible a compromise that should satisfy all sides.

In contrast, the Jewish way of tackling the issues reduces every argument to a haggle that leads to polarization because each side – fearing the other – is forced to hunker down and freeze in their corner. In turn, this development causes the paralysis of the business at hand instead of moving it forward … just like the Congress.

In fact, that situation is the reason why the Jews cannot live together without having a real or imagined enemy to “threaten” their existence, thus keep them huddled around their leaders. They either live in ghettos with concrete walls that keep them besieged the way they did in Europe. Or they live in an artificial enclave such as Israel while moaning they are about to be exterminated by the people they are themselves trying to exterminate.

The new experiment is to live in a tolerant society the way they do in America, a place where they hijacked the media and used it to maintain the country in a state of informational ghetto. It is a place where a physical wall is no longer necessary to keep the rank and file in line. Consequently, the Jewish leaders are expected to have it their way till such time that someone will run out of patience and do something no one can as yet predict.

This being the culture that animates the Jewish leader Dennis Ross, he asks: “Should Americans have confidence that everything is being done to signal Iran about the consequences of potential violations?” And he offers: “Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no.” In case it escaped you, this is a typical formulation of the Jewish method of haggling. Like he says, the answer “appears” to be “no” with regard to violations that are not real but “potential.” In terms of laying out the facts, nothing can be vaguer than that. And yet, the policy response that Dennis Ross recommends is definitive and threatening. Here is how he put it:

“The next administration will need to bolster deterrence ...It should toughen U.S. declaratory policy … It is essential that Tehran and the international community become accustomed to the reality that violation will trigger force, not sanctions … The basic mindset must be 'fulfill the obligation or face penalty'”.

This being the recommendation of Dennis Ross, the next administration should reject it and should consider that America and the world were lucky the current administration junked the Jewish mentality and governed the nation by relying on facts that were gathered by professionals, not on speculations expressed by ideologues whose ideas were fished out the cesspool of Jewish speculations.

Michael Makovsky is begging for a Holocaust

Speaking of the nuclear deal with Iran, otherwise known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), look what Michael Makovsky is recommending in his latest article:

“Begin undoing the JCPOA. Expand U.S. ballistic-missile defenses throughout the region, and threaten to shoot down any Iranian-launched missiles, even if only test-fired. Halt Iran's ballistic missile program and establish U.S. credibility. Pressure the IAEA even threaten to cut off its funding. Move beyond Obama's belief that Iran should 'share the neighborhood.' Instead, challenge and oppose Iran and constrain its capabilities. Adhere to the JCPOA only as long as it serves our interests. Commit that Iran will not develop its ballistic missile and advanced nuclear R&D programs. Confront Iran and ensure that its nuclear program is ended. It could get very messy and very dangerous”.

That's a condensed version of the last three paragraphs in the article that Makovsky wrote under the title: “What's the Deal with Iran?” and the subtitle: “A bad year for a bad agreement.” It was published on July 9, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. Whatever the logic that the writer employs to arrive at those conclusions, it must be said that he is an important opinion maker in the hierarchy of Jewish thinkers. He is, in effect, a player whose views influence the decisions taken both in Washington and Tel Aviv.

It follows that if the danger predicted by the writer materializes, the world will blame its aftermath – however benign or catastrophic it may be – on none other than the Jews. And there is only one way that the world has preferred to deal with these people: It holocausted them in one painful fashion or another. Therefore, we cannot escape the conclusion that Michael Makovsky – who is intelligent enough to know all that – is consciously begging for a holocaust that may, in effect, turn out to be the last such undertaking because this time, the Final Solution will certainly be the goal … and no one will oppose it.

To get to his conclusion and pronounce his judgment, Makovsky has jammed into the article the Jewish talking points that were used and abused over the years in the lead-up to the signing of the nuclear agreement, and has added a number of new points. He describes two of the latter as follows: First, “An even more important result of the JCPOA is the effective legalization of Iran's ballistic missile program.” Second, “Another key dynamic of the JCPOA is Tehran's redoubled radicalism”.

First, he advises that the U.S. objective should be to ensure that Iran will not be able to launch nuclear weapons. And he bemoans that Iran is legally testing missiles that could someday do just that. The suggestion he is making is that because every scientific and technological progress can ultimately be weaponized, Iran must be forbidden from making any such progress. But if it does, America must sprint into action and bomb the facilities out of existence, says Michael Makovsky the Jew.

Well, guess what. This is the attitude that the Jews have always adopted with regard to the Arab and Muslim nations. Without revealing their motives, the Jews first convinced the European colonial powers to join Israel and impede Arab and Muslim progress by every military and economic means at their disposal. The Jews then convinced the Americans to do likewise, and the Americans did.

The result has been that the Middle East developed into a source of so much worries, it caused those powers to look into the matter seriously. When they discovered that the Jews had taken them for a self-serving satanic ride, the Europeans and the Americans began to rethink their policies. In the end, they wisely chose to reverse their destructive decisions.

Second, Makovsky does what he does best which is to slander the enemy that the Jews have chosen for the day. This being Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Makovsky says that contrary to popular belief, he is not a moderate but a hardliner like all the others. Why is that? Because the man said that the JCPOA has achieved Iran's goals and interests, including the possible liberation of Palestine.

To the Arab and Muslim worlds, that pronouncement means to bring about a majority rule in Palestine. To the Jewish leaders inside and outside of Israel, it means to end the apartheid system that has served them so well. Hence, Makovsky's hatred for Rouhani, and his badmouthing of the man for doing nothing worse than being civilized.

You can be certain that there will be a handful of legislative zombies in Washington who will be mesmerized by what Makovsky is saying, and will work to undo the JCPOA. They will try to convince their colleagues in the House and the Senate it is a good idea to shoot down Iran's test-fired missiles, thus halt the program. And they will work to deny Iran a place in the neighborhood that the Jews wish to dominate. For this to happen, they will want to challenge Iran and constrain its capabilities by opposing its progress.

And the folks in Tel Aviv will sit back and watch the spectacle of those Americans as they bring the business of America to a halt while falling over each other trying to say and do the things that make the folks in Tel Aviv feel as if America's lips were gently caressing their Jewish behinds.

Mutilated Morality that mutilates History

Under the title: “Let's Debate the Iraq War. Let's Not Rewrite History,” David Harsanyi wrote an article that ends with this plea: “Let's debate the war. Let's not change history.” It was published on July 8, 2016 in National Review Online.

But guess what he does throughout the article. He changes history to justify having supported the war at the time – a stance he now says he regrets taking, having seen the aftermath of the war. And the way he manages to be on both sides of the issue is by doing this: “Believe it or not, you can simultaneously believe a number of things about the Iraq war and its aftermath,” which is how he begins his presentation. He goes on from there to exhibit his mutilated morality, and show its use in the mutilation of history.

But the one thing Harsanyi does not do – because he doesn't even realize there is something significant that needs to be done – is to address the mindset which makes the invasion of Iraq and all such adventures a crime against humanity that will hang around America's neck like an albatross for a long time to come. Here is the passage which tells that the man has no idea what's there that is significant and needs to be addressed:

“It's an incredible mess. It's irrational, though, to claim you know what the Middle East would look like had Saddam remained in power. Yet nearly every contemporary counter-history of the Iraq War tells us hundreds of millions of people would be living quietly under stable tyrannies that counteract each other and suppress terrorism”.

And out of that mentality has sprung an often repeated ominous offshoot. It went something like this: “We must get in there and change the regime because we don't know [this thing or that one.]” In fact, it did not matter what it was that we didn't know. All that someone had to say was that we don't know what will happen because we don't know the future. And this was enough to give America license to go into a place and create whatever criminal mayhem it deemed necessary to complete the job. All the while, no regard was given to how badly the exercise might affect the local community or humanity at large.

The first that this mentality played itself out in public was the time when the Jews tore their entrails out of the belly, howling that Yasser Arafat should not share the Nobel Peace Prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez because “we don't know what will happen to him.” Well, we know now what happened to him; he died a natural death, but the same cannot be said about Rabin.

The tantrum prone Jews would have denied Arafat what he earned because they said they didn't know what the future held for him. They didn't know what the future held for Rabin either but that was okay with them because Rabin was a Jew who did not have to submit an account of what might happen to him. This stands in contrast to Arafat the non-Jew who had to submit such an account to be treated the same as a Jew. Now you know why these people stand ready at all time to be final solutioned. They beg for it.

And then it happened that the diseased mentality of the Jews moved to America where it was detected during the debate about the Iraq civil war that followed the invasion. It happened that the folks at the Fox News network started to propagate the notion that when we don't know something, we must get in there and do what's necessary. The idea being that the horror we see in the Levant today is more necessary to the advancement of humanity than the calm we see in the places that America did not invade.

These would be places like Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Djibouti and Comoros Island as well as Iran and Pakistan. They are the nations where the Pax Americana loonies would have wanted to station American troops for as long as an eternity – the way that things seem to be shaping in Afghanistan at this time.

Because this is the kind of mutilated morality that mutilates history, Harsanyi has mutilated history in his article, believing he was stating facts. Look what he says: “Even if weapons of mass destruction were found on day one, and even if Iraq were a stable democracy today, they [the Left] would still have opposed the war.” He speculated and he drew a meaningless conclusion … typical Jewish haggling mistaken for democracy.

The truth is that the Jews are so debilitated by their religion they cannot be made to understand that to speculate about what might have happened is not the same as to state facts. They are hopeless in this regard, and there is nothing we can do to help them.

Political Correctness that's ruining America

When you read the latest New York Times editorial on the Iraq war, you can't help but wonder on which planet the editors who wrote it reside. The piece in question came under the title: “Iraq War Lies, 13 Years Later,” published on July 7, 2016.

Speaking of the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was launched by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and was supported by Britain's Tony Blair, the editors welcome the Chilcot report that shed light on Britain's participation in the war, and demand that a similar inquiry be conducted in America to shed light on how and why the Bush administration was persuaded to launch the invasion.

In fact, the editors appear to be so passionate about that idea, they conclude their piece with a lengthy and forceful appeal to hold such inquiry in America. Here, in condensed form, is how they put it:

“It was the Bush administration that falsely sold and launched the invasion. There has been no comparable inquiry in Washington into the origin of the decision to go to war. The public yearns for the full truth and deserves an investigation … The United States needs to understand how national policy can be hijacked by lies and ideology so that there's less chance it will happen again”.

Look closely at these two ideas: (1) “Bush falsely sold and launched the invasion,” and (2) “National policy can be hijacked by lies and ideology.” From this alone, a sane person can only deduce that the editors know something but will not talk about it. Instead, they did the cowardly thing of asking that someone else – a faceless inquiry that may never happen – reveal what they dare not talk about. Why is that, you ask? And the answer is that political correctness is chilling them.

There is ample evidence that the Jewish organizations around the world coordinated their efforts and pulled off the mother of all deceptions: the framing of Iraq. The truth that no one talks about in America is that the Jews deceived the Western political elites but not the intelligence communities that had doubts about the veracity of the evidence pointing to the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq.

The conclusion to draw from all that happened is that the European intelligence communities were intimidated by the fact that their American counterpart did not correct the record and so, they too remained silent about the fact that the evidence was bogus. The question is this: Why did the American intelligence community not publicly denounce the Bush administration's relentless effort to “falsely sell and launch the invasion”?

The answer is that a highly placed someone would have had to resign to do it, and there was no time for that to happen. The reality is that the worldwide Jewish coordination to hatch the plot was headquartered in the office of Dick Cheney, a place that was filled with Holocaust psychos who started to plan for the invasion of Iraq a decade earlier. When the opportunity materialized, they fast-tracked the preparations for the invasion and did something else. They convinced themselves and others that the Jewish controlled media will adhere to the principle of political correctness and never reveal the truth. They proved to be correct so far.

In the same way that the Israeli terrorist bombing of American embassies in Arab capitals in the 1950s has been kept from the public, in the same way that the truth about the 1967 Israeli sinking of the American spy ship is kept from the public, the treasonous connivance between the Cheney group and the Jewish controlled media, has kept the public in the dark about the how and why of the Iraq calamity.

It is this state of political correctness that allows thousands of political and media types to run around the nation – having adopted the posture that those who call themselves Muslim jihadists be identified as Muslim jihadists – while ignoring the reality that America is being ruined by a system that hides the Jewish doings; a state of affairs that reduces the stock of America while inflating the stock of Israel.

If the editors of the New York Times are sincere about wanting to do something useful for America, they can begin by telling some of the stories that the Jews are hiding from the public. This will have the effect of pulling the thread that will start unraveling the entire fabric. It is that everyone else will start pulling on something, and America will be on its way to cleansing itself of the Jewish toxicity that has been poisoning it for half a century.