America as Elder Statesman or Sour Loser?

The world is changing fast with new nations rising, other nations drifting sideways and still other ones declining if not in absolute terms, at least in relative terms. America which used to be the undisputed world superpower is on the decline even in the eyes of its own people who see their domestic lot diminish in absolute terms even if they feel that America is still holding relatively well internationally, but worry that the situation will not last long.

If all that is true, the questions to ask are these: what long term strategy should America pursue? Will it settle for being the elder statesman to whom other nations will turn and seek advice and guidance? Or will it become the sour old loser whose cranky behavior will make the people of the world shake their heads in dismay every time that the country strikes out pursuing another ill-advised international adventure?

China which – according to Edward Luttwalk – has been rising smartly economically yet behaving awkwardly in foreign affairs, seems poised to be the nation that will most likely occupy a great deal of America's attention in the future. Destined to become a superpower in its own right, China could certainly use American advice, but it can also become a source of irritation causing America to respond in ways that will damage its image in the world if not its commercial interests and the respect of its allies.

In an article that came under the title: “China's Military Adventurism is Ill-Timed,” Luttwalk makes the point that Chinese officers are encouraged to act provocatively towards America and its Asian allies. This would be in sharp contrast to the way that the relationships unfolded during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the American alliance in Europe. The Luttwalk article also comes under the subtitle: “Beijing's smart economic policies hardly guarantee wisdom in foreign affairs. Just think of Germany before World War I.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on December 30, 2013.

For China “Everything changed in 2008” says Luttwalk. From a policy of peaceful rise, Beijing revived its long-dormant territorial claims and started acting accordingly. This happened because the Chinese saw the global financial collapse of that year as a harbinger of collapsing American power, he goes on to say. But he laments that before 1914, Germany “had the world's best universities, the most advanced industries and the strongest banks” yet the country lacked a strategic wisdom. And this, he says, is what provoked the events that turned out badly for Germany and for the rest of the world. He hopes that China will avoid repeating that history.

It looks like the events of 2008 caught not only the attention of the Chinese leaders but also that of the American people who – like the Chinese -- changed their view of America in a fundamental way. You can see it in the article that was written by William Galston under the title: “A Decade of Decline in the America Dream” and the subtitle: “Today's volatile mood is a reminder of the early post-Vietnam years.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on December 19, 2013.

Galston who is co-founder of a bipartisan group called “No Labels” says that the “uneven recovery from the Great Recession [following the 2008 collapse] has left Americans discontented about the present and worried about the future.” This sentiment parallels that of the Chinese leaders as described by Luttwalk. Furthermore, quoting the Pew Research Center, Galston goes on to say that a majority of the American people assert that the U.S. should “mind its own business internationally.'” In this, they endorse the John Quincy Adams's vision of an America that “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” a sentiment that is also shared with an increasing number of people around the world.

So then, what happens when America retreats from the world? Do chaos and calamity result? Apparently not; something that can be determined from the article that was written by Vali Nasr and published in the New York Times on December 30, 2013 under the title: “Iran, Turkey's New Ally?” Talking about the vicissitudes of Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the author describes the unfolding parallel history, and the ups and downs of Turkey over a span of time that has lasted more than a decade.

And there never was anything in what transpired to worry anyone. Here is a flavor of that: “Turkey cultivated ties with the Arab neighbors. Turkish diplomats and businessmen … promot[ed] business and broker[ed] political deals. Turkey's spectacular economic success and democracy were a model for the whole region.” But because a good thing never lasts for ever, some things went bad for Turkey, and for its Prime Minister. But then, the tide of history seemed to change again.

Here is what is happening now according to Nasr: “On the foreign policy front, Mr. Erdogan's luck may have changed. Now that America and Iran are talking seriously, things could be different … Turkey sees benefit in serving as a bridge between Iran and the West.” What all this leads to is the fact that the world is unfolding as it wants whether or not America participates in the game. And so the question we must ask is what role should America play in a world that is reshaping itself before its eyes?

The truth of the matter is that the world wants to partner with America and work to improve the lot of mankind. It seems to have found a partner in President Obama. The problem, however, is that the American homestead is divided on itself with a Congress that has been taken over by the foreign influence of Jewish organizations bent on sabotaging everything the President does that is deemed to be good for America and for the world.

Right now, a group of senators is laboring like relentless dogs trying to subvert the regime of peace that the American and Iranian executives are working to establish for the Middle East. And so, it falls on the shoulders of the American people to tell those senators they are dead wrong in what they do because they will only manage to turn America into a sour loser.

Here are the abominable names:  Bob Menendez, Mark Kirk, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, Ben Cardin, John McCain, Bob Casey, Marco Rubio, Chris Coons, John Cornyn, Richard Blumenthal, Kelly Ayotte, Mark Begich, Bob Corker, Mark Pryor, Susan Collons, Mary Landrieu, Jerry Moran, Kirsten, Gillibtand, Pat Roberts, Mark Warner, Mike Johanns, Kay Hagan, Ted Cruz, Joe Donnelly, and Roy Blunt.

To my dear readers, have a happy new year. See you here again next year.

The Dimension Which Goes Beyond the Surface

What's the difference between an intellectual and a half-baked intellectual? The answer is one dimension, but it is a dimension that makes a huge difference in real life. Look at it this way, there is the proverbial black box whose outside can be seen by everyone. The half-baked intellectual will see two-dimensional patterns on it, and make a few interesting observations about them. As to the full fledged intellectual, he will see the same thing but then penetrate the box with his imagination. He will hypothesize as to what may be inside it, work out a strategy to get into it, determine what exactly is in there, and how that can be used to make useful things.

The same can be said about people who are usually considered having a little education. They may actually be highly educated, having gone through school and all that, but they lack the extra ability to penetrate complex intellectual constructs, and see beyond the two dimensions of what is obvious to everyone as much as it is to them. These would be the half-baked intellectuals who get themselves into trouble because they fail to see they are no match to the full fledged intellectuals whom they take on and injure themselves in the process.

You can see this drama play itself out when you read the latest column written by Bret Stephens. It is titled: “Obama's Envy Problem” and subtitled: “Inequality is a problem when the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. That's not happening in America.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on December 31, 2013. The author tells us it is about a speech that President Obama gave on inequality.

Stephens says the speech is awful because the President said that ordinary folks do not have the money to hire the lobbyists that can even the playing field for them. So the folks sense that the system is rigged, and they turn apathetic ... which is bad for democracy. But you want to know what makes this an awful speech? And he tells you what that is. He says the President is the one who signs the legislation that comes into being because the high-priced lobbyists work on them.

Good work, Bret. But is it the work of a full fledged intellectual? No, it's not. In fact, any half-baked intellectual or less could have made this observation. What Stephens has shown himself to lack is the ability to see that the difference between himself and President Obama is that Obama drove the system and found it wanting whereas Stephens looked at it from afar and thought to himself, there is nothing wrong with this thing. But the thing is that the President has the duty to drive the system the way it is handed to him. If not satisfied with how it works, he talks about it as a first step to getting it fixed. What he cannot do is veto everything he does not like, thus contribute to the gridlock that is already paralyzing the nation.

Stephens now gets into the inequality part of the discussion. He begins it by quoting Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote almost 200 years ago that democratic institutions awaken a passion of equality which they can never entirely satisfy. We know why de Tocqueville wrote what he wrote; he was an explorer who described things as he saw them. When someone like Stephens uses that sort of work as a tool to reach out and make a political point; it is like a monkey who steps on the Mona Lisa to reach out and grab a banana. It is a pathetic sight.

With a mind that is incapable of penetrating a concept as simple as this, Stephens goes on to say: “That is the background by which the current hand-wringing over inequality must be judged.” Well, let me tell this kid something: No one alive is wringing their hands, but two dead people could be doing just that in their graves. They would be de Tocqueville and da Vinci.

Stephens now quotes a few statistics to conclude that the President made a “factual error, marred by an analytical error, compounded by a moral error.” You ask: How is that? And he says that the President spoke of the year 1979 when the top 10 percent of the population took in one third of the national income whereas it now takes half. No, says Stephens, it is the top 20 percent that take “just over half.” What? This writer does not realize that “just over half” is not half. Thus, it could well be that 10 percent take half like says the President, and that the other 10 percent take a few crumbs to bring the total to “just over half.” Stephens does not give the actual numbers so that we may determine who is making the factual and analytical errors, but when it comes to the moral error, Bret Stephens has just made one that is ocean size.

All his other statistics are just as suspect. But more suspect than the numbers is his ability to understand that the comparison is not only about what A earns compared to what B earns; it is also about how much each of them produces compared to what he earns. Thus, if A produces 10, and B produces 10 but then A takes in 19 while B takes in only 1, there is here an inequality that is totally objectionable. And this is where the discussion about the financial class comes into play because it produces near nothing and takes in nearly everything. And this is a discussion that has nothing to do with Volvo America or S-class America.

I'm afraid Bret Stephens is far from being a full-fledged intellectual. And one would have to be generous to call him half-baked.

Ambiguously Clear and Clearly Ambiguous

Although I now live in North America and have for the last half century, I have no more appetite to talk about, write about or think about Israel than they do in the Middle East. I would rather think of that place as an Arab domain made of something like two dozen countries with one spot called Palestine where marauding squatters from everywhere in the world backed by an American Congress of jerks, have settled, and are refusing to leave. They call themselves Jews and pretend to descend from the nomadic Hebrew tribes that roamed the region even though they physically bear no resemblance to the Hebrew race.

To understand how this situation came to be, we must know something about an international movement called World Jewry. It is one that has been causing mankind heart burns for something like four thousand years. Its adherents have popped up almost everywhere on the planet at one time or another, and have caused trouble everywhere they went. It was trouble that ranged from minor skirmishes between ethnic groups to wars of the most horrible sort between nations. One day, the leaders of the movement decided they needed to have a place of their own from where they could operate in a more deadly manner, and so they settled on stealing Palestine and making it their own after considering and discarding a few other places, one of them being the African nation of Uganda, for example.

Needless to say that while roaming the planet, the Jews were received warmly everywhere they went because this is how human beings greet and receive strangers. But when they started behaving in a manner that disturbed the locals, the people that welcomed them began to tell them how unwelcome they had become. Instead of adapting to the local conditions, the Jews tried to force the locals to conform to their own conditions for coexistence. Not once did any population accept this deal even though it appeared for a while that some of the European leaders were going along with the Jewish ideas. But as surely as night follows day, a popular movement arose each and every time, and the ordinary people, taking matters in their own hands, did away with the leaders that betrayed the sacred trust, and the Jews that tempted them.

The way things stand now is that you have a chunk of what used to be the nation of Palestine occupied by those squatters where they live (1) on donations they do not deserve which are begged for and collected from everywhere in the world, (2) on compensation that does not belong to them – which is fraudulent and exaggerated to begin with, and (3) on a steady stream of aid they milk from the United States of America with the help of the Congress of jerks – the characters who will surely meet the same fate as the European leaders when the American people will have had it up to here with them and with the Jewish masters whose commands they slavishly follow to the detriment of the country.

But how and why did it get to this point without the American people revolting a European style revolt long ago, and putting an end to the ongoing madness? Well, it got to this point because the Jewish leaders have mastered the game of preaching clarity while talking ambiguity, and preaching ambiguity while pretending to talk clarity. It was doubletalk from each corner of the mouth, and they seemed to have four corners to each mouth. You will get a flavor of this when you read: “Israel's Undeserving Poor” an article that seems to be a regular column of the New York Times written by one Shmuel Rosner, and published on December 28, 2013.

The reader must first understand that up to the time that this website was launched, no article was ever written, and no word was ever uttered associating Israel with poverty. In fact, to hide the fact that the artificial contraption they call Israel was living on wealth that was sucked-in from around the world, the Jewish leaders made it sound as if the contraption was a regular country living on a regular economy that was super, super performing. But when the mask was brought down by this website, and the truth was seen for what it is, characters like Rosner began to justify the reality of poverty in Israel by blaming it on the people with whom the government regularly neglects to share the wealth that is sucked from around the world.

So let's see how he does that. First, he states the facts as revealed by some agency: “Israel's poverty rate is 23.5 percent – one-fifth of families, one-fifth of retirees and one-third of children are officially poor.” There is also this: “Israel's income gap is one of the highest in the world.” He then finds a way to stick in there a doubletalk: ”Israel manages to be a start-up nation with high economic growth; yet remains a backward nation with many extremely poor families.” What does that mean?

To answer this question going by the conventional definition of the terms which the author is using, it means that start-up Israel has a glowing economy except that the extremely poor families it contains render it a backward nation. In fact, it is the marriage of the terms “start-up” and “high economic growth” that conjure up the image of a super duper Israeli economy. But why the poverty on this massive scale? Well, the truth as unmasked by this  website is that “start-up” as applied to Israel means something different from the conventional sense.

The worldwide convention is that the term start-up is associated with innovation. Any new idea – most likely in technology – for which a company has been set-up, and seems to run normally is called a start-up. That's not the case in Israel where a kid starting a lemonade stand at the beginning of Summer and taking it down at the end of it qualifies as a start-up. The same goes of a grocery store, a fruit and vegetable store, a bicycle renting shop and what have you that open up and last for a while or close the next day.

The Israelis also delve in the realm of technology but in their own charming way – if you can call what they do charming. The applications for social media which are normally done by kids in North America who like to do something better than flip hamburgers, have their counterparts in Israel. The kids in North America send their ideas to existing companies and get a few thousand dollars for their troubles. The kids in Israel, however, go to firms staffed with lawyers and accountants working for so-called angels (fake donors by another name.) They start a company with a fictitious million dollars that qualifies them to list on the American NASDAQ where they milk unsuspecting American investors for millions of dollars after which they close shop and start another one. These are the people who live the high life while others in Israel remain dirt poor.

Who are those others? Rosner tells us who they are: “ultra-Orthodox Jews [known as Haredis]  and Muslim-Arabs.” What's wrong with these people? That's a funny question to ask because at a time when Jews with lots of children living in Europe or America are paid handsome sums by European and America wealthy Jews to go live in Israel; and at a time when Netanyahu himself is asking Israelis to have many children, Rosner writes this: “[Haredis and Arabs] are poor because Haredi Jewish men choose to have many children. Muslim Arab women stay at home and have many children.”

Is there an explanation for this? Yes there is. The Haredis are the Jews who have lived in Palestine since the beginning. This makes them as close as a Jew can ever get to the Hebrew tribes that lived in the region in biblical times. And the Arabs are, of course, the original Semites that never left the region. Thus, what the wealthy European and American Jews and Netanyahu are doing is encourage immigration of Europeans and Americans to Israel while discouraging local pro-creation by non-Europeans. It is a page out of the Nazi book of selective breeding. It is criminal racism through and through.

Shmuel Rosner has come up with an ambiguously clear name for this policy. He calls it “compassionate cruelty.” It is cruel alright. But more cruel is the fact that the jerks in the American Congress are dismantling the American nation to promote the horrendous regime they see in Israel. Among these jerks are the following senators: Bob Menendez, Mark Kirk, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, Ben Cardin, John McCain, Bob Casey, Marco Rubio, Chris Coons, John Cornyn, Richard Blumenthal, Kelly Ayotte, Mark Begich, Bob Corker, Mark Pryor, Susan Collons, Mary Landrieu, Jerry Moran, Kirsten, Gillibtand, Pat Roberts, Mark Warner, Mike Johanns, Kay Hagan, Ted Cruz, Joe Donnelly, and Roy Blunt who are preparing legislation to send American boys and girls to die so as to boost the ego of Netanyahu.

It is time for the American people to let them know they look like dogs licking the boots of their Jewish masters. It is political pornography that only America is capable of producing.

With Masters like These Who Needs Amateurs?

The more they complain that America is disengaged, the more they tell why America must remain disengaged. In fact, America must remain disengaged precisely because it is full of amateurs who think of themselves as masters, even when they cannot explain in what way America is disengaged, let alone draw up a strategy for re-engagement were they able to prove there is a need for such a thing.

Two articles will illustrate those points. The first was written by Michael Gerson and published in the Washington Post on December 26, 2013. It has the title: “Can Muslim lands learn to tolerate Christianity?” The second was written by John Bolton and published in the New York Daily News on December 27, 2013. It has the title: “As Obama dithers, North Africa unravels” and the subtitle: “Disengagement is having dangerous consequences.”

If you go by the subtitle of the Bolton article which asserts that dangerous consequences follow when America disengages, you must believe that safe or inconsequential things follow when America engages. So you look through the article to see where Bolton says America has disengaged, and where it has engaged. He says it has disengaged from these places: Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Algeria, Mali, Nigeria, Syria, Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt. Curiously enough, he does not mention Iraq or Afghanistan where America engaged, created a hell for itself and for the locals, and was then forced to disengage and flee, tail between its legs.

Where else did America engage if on a limited basis? Well, it did so in Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen where American made hell still rages and no end is seen on the horizon. And the end will not be seen till America fully disengages from there too, at which time the locals will take the time they need to lick their wounds, get back on their feet and rebuild their societies.

But look at Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt where the locals made sure at the beginning of their movement that America will not interfere. The result has been that these people had it pretty good compared to the way that things turned out in other places. As for Mali, the onus is now on the French to bring stability to that country. They were a colonial power that renounced its earlier incarnation and now seems genuinely interested in doing not what is good for the French but what is right for everyone. And what is right means, first and foremost, what is good for the people of Mali. And so, we wish them well and hope they succeed.

The French did, however, get involved in Libya where things are not going too well now. And that surely has to do with the fact that the French called on the Americans to join in. What happened then? Well, the adventure turned out to be one hell of a fiasco. You know why? Because the engagement plan was drawn up by World Jewry and presented by a French Jew who calls himself a philosopher.

The Jews of America took it from there, and guess what they did? They asked the question: Where is our interest? People thought they meant to say the American interest, but when these people say “we,” they mean we, the Jews or we, the Israelis. They never mean we, the Americans or French or Brits or any other nationality. And so they worked to deliver for themselves what they saw then, and what they see now as being good for them. And you know what, my friend? They delivered. Yes, they delivered for themselves because chaos is what is good for them, and chaos is what you see in Libya at this time. You also see it in all the places where America, under the guidance of American Jews, poked its nose. Let it be known that the American Midas touch is the injection of Jewish chaos where America goes.

We now look at the Michael Gerson article. Let me be clear at the start what I believe this is. It is gibberish. It is as if it were written by some mayor who is high on crack or something. I see a writer who gathered parts from here and there, and found himself unable to put them together in any coherent manner. And there is a reason for that; it is a reason that spoils many articles of this kind. It is that people who begin by saying America or Canada or Australia are showing the world how to build institutions that make it possible for pluralism to flourish are (forgive me for being impolite) full of shit. There is no institution in any of these places that does what they say is happening. The truth of the matter is that the people who leave their “old country” to go live in places that take in immigrants are the ones predisposed to accept pluralism. Nothing changes them, it is what they are, and what they come with.

To then use that reality and build on it a concept like this: “Democracy promotion – as embraced by the National Democratic Institute or the International Republican Institute or Freedom House – is about human liberty protected by democratic institutions” is to be not only self-serving but also (forgive me again) full of shit. As to the self-serving part, you can see it clearly in this passage: “It matters greatly whether America and other democracies can help pluralism survive and shape the emerging political order. This is a priority for … strategic reasons. As William Inboden notes, there is a robust correlation between religious persecution and national security threats.”

Gerson also makes this point: “Whether the Islamic world can move toward [a] democratic virtue is now one of the largest geopolitical questions of the 21st century.” Well, this may be a question in his head but not in the heads of the people who live in the Arab world whatever their faiths. These people know that when Jews such as John Bolton will be made to stop inciting the Americans, and stop ordering them to go kill Muslims, no Muslim kid will want to take on the Americans and fight them where he finds them. And no crazy ones among these kids will want to attract attention by harming the Christians, which they were taught was the surest way to get the American media to talk about them. Yes, Christians are suffering across the world, but this is only because America's journalists are unable to grow up.

Anyone that has a sense of proportion and propriety can see that the war on Islam has been institutionalized in America. They can also see that the war on all religions has been institutionalized in Israel where only Judaism is tolerated. And they can see that this Jewish tendency applies not only in Israel but also where the Jews are given free hand to do what they want such as in America, for example. This is why Jews hire only Jews, and why Jewish writers only quote other Jewish writers. You do this for two or three generations, and you end up with the Jewish domination of the institutions that Gerson says are good for democracy. How much worse can someone's confusion get to be?

Maybe Gerson should try to resolve in his mind this question: “Why is it that the American Congress is so paralyzed when it is the founding father of both the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute or Freedom House?” I have my answer; it is that they are all full of Jewish shit. No plea for forgiveness this time.

Shakespearean Quandary for Obama to Resolve

The American President, Barack Obama, has a quandary of the Shakespearean type on his hand, and he may be forced to resolve it soon. The current reality is that he has a group of people made of American legislators and their Jewish backers pushing him to gamble with the possibility of getting America involved in another Middle Eastern war; this time against Iran.

Pushing from the opposite side are the Iranians themselves who say they want to resolve their differences with America because they want to see neither their own people nor the Americans die in a needless war, and this happens to be the opinion of most Americans. So whose side should President Obama take? The folks at home who clamor for war, or the potential distant enemy that is calling for a peaceful solution to the standoff?

You get a glimpse into this quandary when you read the article written by Clifford D. May that came under the title: “Iran's Delays and Deceptions” and the subtitle: “At least 26 members of the Senate want to warn the regime against negotiating in bad faith.” It was published in National Review Online on December 26, 2013.

The most telling paragraph in the author's presentation is the one in which he goes over the head of the President that is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and the one into whom the Constitution has vested the powers to conduct foreign policy. There, you see how blatantly May instructs the potential renegade legislators – whom he says may now be sitting on the fence – how they must frame the questions about Iran in their own minds despite what the President may think or what strategy his negotiating team has adopted for the negotiations. Here is that infamous paragraph:

“Are you confident that Iran's rulers are negotiating in good faith? Do you think American diplomats will be helped or harmed if you give them additional leverage? … Are you convinced that the Iranian president and his foreign minister are moderates? Or do you suspect that they might be trying to play American diplomats like a Guadagnini [fiddle]?”

Thus, May and his cohorts who sit thousands of miles away from the negotiating table which happens to be in Switzerland, are telling the potential Congressional renegades who themselves sit thousands of miles away from the negotiating table, how to judge the sincerity of the Iranian negotiating team regardless of what the American negotiators who sit across the table from them may think.

Well, let me tell you something, my friend, ask any judge of the court of appeals what the thing is that humbles them the most when it comes to reversing the decision made by a judge in the court of first instance. Without hesitation, that judge will tell you it is having to decide on a matter where the appeal judges do not see the litigants, whereas the judges of first instance have looked the litigants in the eyes, and have sensed who was telling the truth and who was lying.

Thus, for Clifford May to pretend that he, together with his beguiling cohorts and the potential Congressional renegades can judge the situation better than the professional American and Western negotiators, sitting across the table from the Iranians, is more than an insult to the intelligence of the American people; it is an expression of the full contempt that these charlatans have for America's intelligence, and for the lives of the boys and girls who will be sent to die as a direct result of what the Jewish beguilers and their gentile followers are asking.

And this is why the American people must make it clear to those now sitting on the fence that they must not follow in the footsteps of the 26 senators of ill repute who sponsored that bill of dishonor. They should instead come out, denounce it, stand with their president and with their negotiating team – and most of all, stand to protect the lives of their own young men and women, and those of their neighbors who will be asked to die for one reason and one reason only; that of boosting the ego of Israel's Netanyahu.

As to the 26 senators who have already committed the most extreme form of prostitution; the selling of their country and its youngsters – what the American people should do is build a wall, plaster their pictures on it and let passers by spit on them. Here are those odious names: Bob Menendez, Mark Kirk, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, Ben Cardin, John McCain, Bob Casey, Marco Rubio, Chris Coons, John Cornyn, Richard Blumenthal, Kelly Ayotte, Mark Begich, Bob Corker, Mark Pryor, Susan Collons, Mary Landrieu, Jerry Moran, Kirsten, Gillibtand, Pat Roberts, Mark Warner, Mike Johanns, Kay Hagan, Ted Cruz, Joe Donnelly, and Roy Blunt.

As to President Obama, it looks increasingly clear how he is inclined to respond to the questions: Whose side should he take? The folks at home who clamor for war, or the potential distant enemy that is calling for a peaceful solution to the standoff? He is choosing to discharge his duty as Commander-in-Chief and President by preserving the most precious thing a nation has, the lives of its people.

Another Fake Semite Crying Antisemitism

It takes an American Jew with an American name such as Jeffrey, and a Jewish name such as Goldberg to show the world how this breed of fakes fit the bill of someone that has no face looking like that of a Semite, yet makes a good living in America crying antisemitism. He blurts out the cry upon hearing words that come out of a place like Egypt which is one of the oldest homes where the Semitic people took roots, and have lived since the beginning of time.

Jeffrey Goldberg's latest foray into this territory comes in the form of an article he wrote under the title: “Egypt's Jon Stewart conspiracy theory,” published in New York Post on December 25, 2013. In the interest of full disclosure, I must say that I was once fascinated by conspiracy theories, especially the one pertaining to the assassination of John Kennedy. But when the theory of tracking devices being planted in the buttocks of people made its debut, I thought the theories were getting too comical, and dropped them. But now, with the revelations about what the NSA is doing, I wonder if I should reconsider. But that's another subject for another time.

So where does Goldberg stand in this matter? Well, he says this: “the nature of Egyptian conspiracy theories (a subject that has interested me for a long time) is such that they are often not explicable.” Even though I follow the Egyptian media as much as I do the North American, I never sensed that conspiracy theories were big in Egypt. But what I sensed was that the Israeli media and their echo repeaters here in North America make a big deal about small events that occur in Egypt – the kind that escapes me most of the time. So I wanted to know why the Israelis and their cohorts do what they do.

What I discovered was that when the foreign minister of Israel says something about bombing the Aswan dam to flood Egypt like the bible says it happened before, and when some retired general says something about re-occupying the Sinai, someone in Egypt would comment on that – and Kaboom – the Israeli and North American media make a big, big fuss about it. And they basically say this: They talk about us! They talk about us! In fact, these Jews are so hungry for attention, they will do anything to get the Egyptians to say something about them so that the Israeli media and the Goldberg's of this world may write about it and say that the Egyptians are interested in what the Israeli nut cases are saying.

And Jeffrey Goldberg of America never misses the opportunity to stick in there his own Jewish shtick concerning his obsession with antisemitism. I could not find exactly where and when Zbigniew Brzezinski was dragged into this thing in connection with the Jon Stewart reference, but what I know about the Egyptian debates in general is that the debaters do not appreciate the American habit of trivializing everything; including some very solemn events. They see stand-up comedians make jokes about these events and about thoughts that were expressed by serious writers, and they don't like it. Thus, I must assume that the reference to something Brzezinski wrote must have come in that context.

I don't know much about the Amr Ammar that Goldberg is talking about, but if he was quoting the two comedians, Jon Stewart and Bassem Youssef, I must take it that the allegation he (Ammar) made – whatever it was – was no more than a joke intended to make people laugh or sneer at the American way of expressing things. For Jeffrey Goldberg to take it seriously is his business. For him to tie it to antisemitism is to make of antisemitism a laughable thing – what it was in the old days. He'll get paid for that, but I hope no one will laugh.

He Wants ObamaCare and Saving Face

John H. Cochrane wrote a piece that was published in the Wall Street Journal on December 26, 2013. It has the title: “What to do When ObamaCare Unravels” and the subtitle: “Health insurance should be individual, portable across jobs, states and providers, and lifelong and renewable.”

This is a remarkable piece in that it says two things about the author – maybe even three things. First, it says he is now convinced the single-payer system is the best way to go with healthcare. Second, it says he wrote this piece not to make the points he seems to be arguing, but only to pretend making them while exposing their absurdities. Thus, his possible third point would be that he wrote a parable which he hopes will reveal itself in the fullness of time.

To do this, Cochrane must have realized something he was not seeing before. He must have realized that life is the most precious thing we, human beings have, simply because we cannot get it back when we lose it. Yet, we also know that life is the most fragile thing we possess because it requires much care to maintain. And this is in contrast with say, a robot that can function without air to breathe, water to hydrate it or food to sustain it. If it runs out of energy, it shuts down but does not die. And when its batteries are recharged or replaced, the robot functions normally again.

As to us humans, when we are afflicted with a serious disease, or even a simple thing like an infection, we want it cured right away because we know it can spread or metastasize, and turn deadly. Thus, to obtain the cure and preserve the self or a loved one, we are willing to give the world away if that's what it will take. And this says that in the final analysis, healthcare is not a commodity we treat like any other. We may postpone buying a car, an education or a vacation if the price is not right, but we do not postpone treating a blow to the head; treating a heart attack or treating a cancer.

The healthcare providers too know all that. But because many are dedicated workers, they will not take advantage of the situation to enrich themselves. Other workers, however, are not as dedicated, and they will do anything to enrich themselves … as long as they do not cross the line. Unfortunately, there are those who will cross the line to appease their hunger for getting rich quickly. They will betray their oath knowing full well what risk they are taking. Some do get caught, pay a heavy monetary price, ruin their reputation and give the profession a bad name.

There is also the fact that the health delivery organizations and the health insurance companies do not have many scruples. They will charge what the market will bear, and because healthcare is not a commodity like any other, the most unscrupulous among the people in charge of those institutions will see an opening where they will do as much as they can get away with – what Cochrane considers unacceptable. But rather than place the blame where it belongs, he says this: “The U.S. health-care market is dysfunctional. Obscure prices and $500 Band-Aids are legendary. The reason is that health care and health insurance are protected from competition.” This is so laughable; it is like the father who says: My son is a good boy. It is just that when he does not get beat up, he tends to go on a rampage and hurt the neighbors.

John Cochrane must be convinced by now of what the advanced industrial nations have discovered long ago, mainly that a free, open and competitive market does not work for healthcare. Look what he says: “No other country has a free health market. The rest of the world is closer to single payer, and spends less.” Now look in what absurd and deliberate fashion he argues against that: “Sure. We can have a single airline too … a single-payer post office … government-run telephones and TV.” He also goes on to say this: “Thirty years ago every other country had all of these.” He does not come out and say it, but he knows that the reader knows the world does not have governments running these industries anymore because those governments discovered that the free market does a better job running them.

As to healthcare, the world has kept the single-payer system because the governments have discovered that this system works better for healthcare. So how does Chochrane argue against that? He says this: “That the rest of the world spends less just shows how dysfunctional our current system is, not how a free market would work.” This only adds to the absurdity of his argument which reinforces the view that the free market is good for many industries but that the single-payer system is better for healthcare.

And so, having argued his own points to absurdity not to admit he now believes ObamaCare is the way to go, what does he want to see happen? Does he want to go from the current system which he says is dysfunctional, to a brief experiment with ObamaCare which he used to say will collapse, to a system that was never tested? What else does he want? Does he want to reject a system that he admits is used by everyone in the world; one that was shown to deliver at a lower cost? Is that what Cochrane wants?

No, it could not be he wants a system that was never tested, having seen the country go through so many traumas already. It must be that he has something else in mind. After all, healthcare in America is worth 16 percent of the economy. If it collapses, it will bring about a depression, and no one sane wants to see that happen. So then what does he want to see?

Well, first of all, he says this: “The Affordable Care Act was enacted in response to genuine problems.” He later says this: “Health insurance should be individual, portable across jobs, states and providers; lifelong and guaranteed-renewable.” But what is that if not a definition of ObamaCare? Later, responding to someone who said: “This is why we need ObamaCare” he wrote: “No, this is why we need individual, portable, guaranteed-renewable, inexpensive, catastrophic-coverage insurance.” This is like someone saying “we need twelve” and Cochrane responding: “No, we need a dozen.”

This man wants ObamaCare but he wants it by another name to make it palatable to himself and to those who bet on the collapse of ObamaCare, and do not want to admit they were wrong.

A Scorched Intellectual Landscape in America

Six articles were published between December 20 and December 25 in the year 2013 that drew my attention. They inspired me to write the article that follows. If you are American and have not read those articles yet, read mine first then read them and you'll feel like being in a different universe. Depending on who you are, and what position you have taken over the years, you'll find it easy or difficult to decide who is right and who is wrong. That will be a good thing to happen because it will get you to think about the future of America, something that is badly needed at this time because if Americans do not think about their country, someone else will – which is happening right now, in fact.

When it comes to understanding the world, some thinkers argue there is not much to celebrate about the American intellectual landscape to begin with, so why lament about the lamentable state in which we find it at this time – now that the Jewish lobby has taken it over? There were trivial little things before; there are little trivial things now, they say, and this is not so much of a difference that we should concern ourselves.

But the reality remains that despite the fact America did not appreciate the worldwide Non Aligned Movement (NAM) of the past, it did accept the fact that it was here. This led to the view that not every country was either with America enjoying the good things in political life, or with the Soviet Union plotting against America. Thus, the nations that were said to be in the NAM were considered neutral but a little misguided, and in need to be worked on. Whereas today, America views the world through the dictum that the Jewish lobby stuffed in the mouth of George W. Bush, and had him regurgitate it repeatedly. It was this: You're either with us or you're against us.

That view made such a difference in the way that the world started to view America, the relationships that the country was having with the rest of the world turned upside down. But that's not all that the Jewish lobby was able to achieve. What it did in addition is inject the same principles into the American domestic scene. That is, it was able to draw a sharp contrast between the Left Progressive Movement and The Right Conservative Movement. It then instructed the Left that everyone who was not with it was against it; and instructed the Right that everyone who was not with it was against it.

Using the tools of divide-and-conquer, the Jewish lobby was thus able to polarize the country so effectively; it brought it to a complete halt. This can be seen by the way that the workers in the various departments – be they elected or appointed, political or bureaucratic – are handling the domestic business of the nation. But there is an exception; it is that the workers are made to fall over each other when it comes to delivering on the business that benefits the Jewish groups in America and everywhere else in the world.

And this has had the advantage of allowing the Jewish lobby to gain control of the Congress. Meanwhile, an election happened, the result of which was that George W, Bush was no longer in office, and Barack Obama was elected to take over. As revealed, Mr. Obama's agenda was to repair America's relations with the rest of the world, a development that prompted the Jewish lobbyists to implement a dirty plan they had become great experts at playing. What they did was manipulate the parliamentary rules so effectively; they were able to give the Congress – already under their control – the powers that the Constitution had given to the President. And so, for all practical purposes, the Jewish lobby has managed to usurp the power to conduct foreign policy, snatching it not only from the hand of Obama this time, but from the hand of the American presidency for all time.

Thus, in trying to repair America's image around the world, Obama is facing two huge problems. First, the situation according to which everyone in the world is viewed as being a friend or a foe – is causing a negative kind of backlash. The world now sees America as being an unstable and flaky nation that cannot be relied on in anything. Second, the Congress has intensified its own shameless behavior; that which made it look like a house of prostitution in the exclusive service of the Jewish lobby. What this means in practical terms is that the Congress is poking its nose in every business that has an international character, reversing or threatening to reverse what the President is trying to do that may go against the wishes of the Jewish and Israeli interests.

Now read the aforementioned articles; all of which were written by Jews or inspired by them. They will show you why America keeps getting it wrong. Here is the list:

1) “How to Stop an Inferno in South Sudan” by George Clooney and John Prendergast, published in the Daily Beast on December 20. These are the two most accomplished pyromaniacs of African nations. They worked with Susan Rice in lighting up the Sudanese inferno that claimed millions of lives in Darfur and South Sudan. The two maniacs then teamed up with the infamous Holocaust memorial in Washington – better known as the Jewish house of horror – and called on Google Earth to help them celebrate the crime against humanity they committed. But now that their scheme is unraveling, and they stand to be exposed for what they are, they try again to blame the whole thing on Sudan which suffered greatly in the past, and stands to suffer even more as a result of the new developments.

2) “U.S. Scholars are misguided in boycotting Israel” by the editors of the Washington Post, published on December 22, 2013. These are the jokers who would call for a harsh disciplinary action to be thrown at a kid that was seen sticking a piece of cheese in his nose before serving it to them, but would consider a cup of urine handed to them by Netanyahu as heavenly water. And they would ask for another round of drinks if this will secure their jobs one more year.

3) “2017 and the end of Ethics” by Victor Davis Hanson, published in National Review Online on December 24. It also came under the subtitle: “Will the Obama-era hypocrisy continue when the next president takes office?” This is one of the most accomplished hypocrites; the kind that will shake heaven and earth to keep Guantanamo open then accuse President Obama of hypocrisy because he failed to close Guantanamo. Nothing can be more Judaically hypocritical than this.

4) “The Mideast's Unlikely Allies” by Ben Fishman, published in the New York Times on December 24. This is the kind of fantasy they get into when the current fantasy runs its course having yielded nothing to benefit the Jews, and having injured those who stood by them such as America. In addition, you see in that article how the author prepares to stab America in the back, powered by the false sense that the Arab Gulf States will pay the Palestinians for the land and the properties that the Jews stole from them.

5) “Between Kiev's Hope and Cairo's Chaos” by Matthew Kaminski, published in the Wall Street Journal on December 24. It also came under the subtitle: “As 2013 ends, the messy struggle for democracy continues in Egypt, Ukraine and Tunisia.” This is a rehashing of an essay written by Daniel Brumberg under the title: “Transforming the Arab World's Protection-Racket Politics.” Well, someone writing in America to say that Arab politics resembles a protection racket is like a girl writing to Jack the Ripper to complain about a boyfriend that does not always respect her.

6) “Increasing Sanctions on Iran” by Michael Barone, published in National Review Online on December 25, 2013. It also came under the subtitle: “Congress considers it, reflecting the will of the American people.” If you do not know who this guy is, and if you wonder whether or not you should believe him, consider that when an Egyptian airliner went down long ago, he was the only one to come out and blurt a blatant lie to the effect that the Egyptian airline company suffered frequent accidents. In reality, all Egyptian companies are among the safest in the world.

The Day I believed in the Miracle of Christmas

When we left Ethiopia a long time ago to go to Djibouti – what was then French Somali Land – I was carrying in my system the malaria virus. I was not sure I still carried it at the time because I had caught it several years before, and being a chronic disease, it struck me at Christmas time two years in a row. This is just about how long it will stay with me, said the doctor, before the treatment that I was receiving will get rid of it.

And so, while the other children enjoyed the toys they got for Christmas, and while they ate the sweets I knew were delicious, I was confined to my bed where I heard their laughter and all the noise that playful children usually make. All this while I was made to swallow a pill called quinine that is so bitter, it is to a child an affliction as bad as malaria itself, if not worse.

To add to a child's trials, I was not old enough in the Fall of that year to follow in my brothers' footsteps and receive my First Communion. I was told I shall have to wait one more year for that to happen; one other thing they were eligible to do without me joining them. So I hoped that when Christmas comes this year, I'll be able to join them and my younger sisters as well as the other kids when they will be playing with the new toys and consuming the delicious sweets. And I will not have to swallow the bitter pill anymore.

But despite my prayers, which I did every night at the foot of my bed, that was not to be as I was again stricken with malaria on time that year. And I had to spend a few days in bed unable to enjoy the toys I was given, but forced to consume the bitter pill I learned to hate so very much. The worst part was that I could only take it with water because the nausea made it impossible for me to take anything else.

Finally, the year ended and I was feeling better. I went back to school, did well, had a good Summer and looked forward to the Fall when school will start again; when the Christian brothers and the priests will be back, and I shall, at long last, receive my First Communion and be in league with my older brothers.

The month of October came and was followed by November when the ceremony of my First Communion will be performed in a few days – this coming Sunday to be exact. But the dreaded month of December was not far away; was hovering like a dark shadow and reminding me of the time I may have to spend in bed with a bitter pill, with toys I cannot play with and sweets I cannot consume.

Saturday night came and my father handed me the alarm clock he used to wake himself up every weekday and go to work. The trouble was that when the clock went off, not only my father woke up but so did everyone else in the house. The morning of the ceremony being a Sunday, I did not want to wake up everybody so very early given that I had to be in church at least one hour before the start of mass to rehearse the performance. How to resolve this dilemma?

I found away. I prayed as usual but this time I followed the advice of a Christian brother who used to talk to us in class all the time about the Virgin Mary. He would say she is the mother of us all, and like any mother, she never says no when we ask her for something. And so, I prayed to her directly this time, rosary in hand, and asked her not to let me be sick this coming Christmas. Then, as an afterthought, I asked her to wake me up before the alarm clock rings.

And guess what. I woke up ten minutes before the alarm was set to go off. And I did not get sick that Christmas or any Christmas after that. Was it a miracle? You judge.

Merry Christmas everyone. I'll see you back here again very soon.

Editors Protecting Congressional Prostitutes

When someone tries to force me to do something he says is good for me and I don't see it that way, I know right away this person is a trickster, and I stay as far away from him as I can. When he uses undue pressure to corner me and make it inevitable for me to do as he says, I know he has a hidden agenda that borders on the criminal, and he wants me to execute it for him. From now on, I take his actions to mean he has declared war on me, and I fight back with all I've got.

This is the kind of pressure that the editors of the Wall Street Journal are putting on Obama, President of the United States of America. They are doing it on behalf of what they hint with characteristic ambiguity may or may not be the Jewish lobby which they call by its new name, the Israeli lobby. Thus, the editors of the Journal have now joined their sister electronic publication, Fox News, in its never ending war on America. And they want to force the American President to embrace rather than veto a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran, an act that risks the derailment of the ongoing negotiations, and start a war that will sacrifice thousands of American young men and women to boost the ego of Israel's Netanyahu.

You see this in their latest editorial titled: “Obama's Iran Sanctions Veto” and subtitled: “He rejects a bipartisan attempt to strengthen his negotiating hand.” It was published on December 23, 2013. They begin by making the point that in this election season – better known in America as the season of political prostitution – 26 senators from both parties have sponsored a bill that prompted the negotiating parties on both sides to say it will make it impossible for them to proceed with the negotiations. And so, the editors say with a straight face and without a hint of shame that America and Iran have sided against the Congressional prostitutes and their sex masters at Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

And this is where the Jewish quackery explodes in the face of the observer. It is that these people say the legislation will strengthen the hand of Obama during the negotiations, but that they will be the ultimate deciders as to what constitutes an acceptable deal. In fact, when you look at the game closely and analyze it to its smallest detail, you'll find it to be the plan they suggested earlier which is to make the Israeli eunuch look like the stud he is not by getting Uncle Sam to inseminate the situation while the eunuch engages in the fornicating motion to project an image of him doing the insemination. Yes, the situation looks fully as pornographic as this.

And the reality remains that it will be America that will be screwed in the end because it will be American boys and girls who will take it in their behinds. Oh yes, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal will celebrate those who will survive the war and return home in one piece, or come back mutilated in one fashion or another to live the rest of their lives in that state. Fox news and the Journal will also honor the ultimate sacrifice made by those who came in body bags, and they will do so on behalf of “us” without saying that us means not America or the American people but Israel and its infamous Netanyahu, male madam of the American Congressional whorehouse.

What America must do now is fight those Congressional prostitutes with such force, it will put an end to their current activities, and more importantly, put an end to the criminal act of entering every election season by pulling their pants down, bending over and inviting the Jewish lobby to penetrate them in full view of a world that cannot help but be grossed by the disgusting spectacle. Enough, you animals, the world can no longer stand this filthy American ritual.

These are the prostitutes of the season, America: Bob Menendez, Mark Kirk, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, Ben Cardin, John McCain, Bob Casey, Marco Rubio, Chris Coons, John Cornyn, Richard Blumenthal, Kelly Ayotte, Mark Begich, Bob Corker, Mark Pryor, Susan Collons, Mary Landrieu, Jerry Moran, Kirsten, Gillibtand, Pat Roberts, Mark Warner, Mike Johanns, Kay Hagan, Ted Cruz, Joe Donnelly, and Roy Blunt. Call on them and tell them to straighten up, pull up their pants, and behave like American human beings not like hot to trot dogs at mating season.

Afflictions of American Journalism and Culture

There probably could not be two print publications in America as opposed to each other in political philosophy as the New York Times and the New York Post. The first is what you might call Liberal; the second what you might call Conservative. And yet, each of them ran an article on December 21, 2013 that clearly demonstrates how the deficiency in journalism from which they suffer, contributes to the general degradation of the American culture.

The article in the Times has the title: “What Iranians Say About 'the Great Satan'” and was written by Carol Giacomo. The article in the Post has the title: “Obama and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year” and was written by John Podhoretz. Clearly these are two different subjects, yet the articles have one thing in common which is that they try to sound interesting by going off line while describing the people they mention. Giacomo talks about the Iranian people and goes off the line a little; Podhoretz talks about President Obama and goes off the line a considerable distance.

When you read the Giacomo article, you cannot help but recall what happened when Hamid Karzai was first introduced to America. Not only was he billed as the great politician who will save Afghanistan, save America's honor and save the human race; he was also the best dressed man, the most fashionable politician whose flowing robe was the envy of every American male. Look at him now, he is a pariah that cannot do anything right. How could those journalists have been so wrong?

The Karzai saga developed almost overnight because by the time that he appeared on the scene, Afghanistan was already on the side of the West, if not in America's camp. But this is not the case with Iran at this moment, and so while exaggerating the character of the nation in one respect, Giacomo finds herself forced to exaggerate it in the opposite respect as well. In effect, she ends up describing an Iran that is suffering from a national bipolar disorder.

You can see this at the start of the article as she describes the old American embassy building “where they keep alive a paranoid narrative of American malice and deceit.” She also describes an encounter she had with three women at a prayer session. One woman was the mother of a soldier that died in the war 20 years ago. The second was a security guard that “delivered her version of the chant 'Death to America.'” As to the third woman, she “smiled and rolled her eyes ... dismiss[ing] the guard's tirade.” But we're not told why this woman was in that company to begin with, and the puzzling thing about her is that people in that part of the world do not roll their eyes – especially in front of a security guard.

Carol Giacomo goes on to discuss the reactions she received in the three cities where she traveled for 10 days. She says the reactions mirrored the current political posture of the country where “there is a serious, even eager, interest in reconnecting with the West” but where the Iranians still “struggle with three decades of poisoned relations.” This gives her the opportunity to talk about the internal politics of the country, mentioning that half of Iran's 80 million population is under the age of 35. And that's where she sees fit to report that “technology stores in Tehran are jammed with the latest Apple laptops and iPhones.”

Finally, it was at another mosque, she says, that she met with “two dozen male college students, all of them enthusiastic about speaking to an American … express[ing] remarkable affinity for the country some still call 'the Great Satan.'” It was an encounter with the two polar extremes of the Iranian character again.

Having read all this, you ask yourself, is there anyone in Iran that could not care less about politics because they are too busy making breakfast for the kids, taking them to school, going to work, earning a living, going to the market, buying grocery, coming home and cooking it for themselves and for the kids? What do these people say – if there are any of them in Iran – when they encounter a journalist from anywhere?

We now look at the John Podhoretz article. He begins it by doing something that is quintessentially a Jewish habit, and that is spreading throughout the American culture. It is that these people love to look at someone and say to them: you're not as good as that other person. Well, Podhoretz is not framing it exactly this way in this article, but he came up with a novel version of the habit.

What he did is imagine President Obama singing “Auld Lang Syne” this year and comparing himself with last year when he was having a “glorious” time. Glorious, you say? You mean 2012 was a glorious year for President Obama? Well, I'll be damned. It is just that you wouldn't know it if you were alive at the time tracking the venomous propaganda that was dished out by the likes of Podhoretz and company.

And this, my dear reader, should remind you of what happened with Egypt. For several decades these same characters denigrated that country by amassing a huge army of journalists, pundits, explainers, pontificators, think tankers, talking heads, charlatans, blabber mouths, farting mouths, their echo repeaters and what have you, all of whom were programmed to pour rivers of hate designed to make the skin of Americans crawl upon hearing the word Egypt.

But when the Egyptian people rose up against their own leaders, kicked them out of office, and told the new leaders to get that flaky thing they call America out of their faces, all of a sudden the huge army of Jews and their gentile followers in America began to call Egypt a staunch ally. What? A staunch ally? It looks like the mutilators of history have a mutilated sense of morality as well.

Nevertheless, armed with that sense of immorality, Podhoretz goes on to describe how good things were for President Obama last year, and how bad they have been this year. I tell you, my friend, these people have not changed in thousands of years, and they will not change now. The worry is not that they will or will not change. It is that they are contaminating the American culture with what has proven to be a culture for eternal losers. Is this what you want for yourself, America?

To Be Efficient and Do no Harm

I have done all sorts of jobs in my long life; from working on the shop floor to working in the executive suite of someone else's enterprise as well as my own. I also held every position you can think of between these two extremes. And now that I am retired, I spend my time pontificating on the events of the day, and what other pundits say about these events. This is why people like the editors of the Wall Street Journal and George Will bring a smile to my face when I read what they sometimes write.

Take, for example what happened on December 21, 2013. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial under the title: “Obama Repeals ObamaCare” and the subtitle: “Under pressure from Senate Democrats, the President partly suspends the individual mandate.” Also, the New York Post published a piece by George Will under the title: When the President rewrites the laws” which he began by quoting a passage delivered by the Supreme Court in 1838; something that clearly does not apply to the current situation.

This aside, George Will now wears the Republican hat and yells at the President: “I told you, I told you.” This is how he put it: “Republicans' dismay about Obama's offenses became acute when [he was] compelled to agree with them that the Affordable Care Act could not be implemented as written.” To make sure that the reader understands this is an idiosyncratic fault specific to this President, he brings up the subject of welfare reform and prosecution of drug crimes that the republicans say have been effectively altered by President Obama.

George Will now gets into the heart of his thesis which he says is not his own but that of a law professor who wrote about it in a piece that will soon be published. Will says the professor demonstrates that the Constitution does not justify Obama's reading of the “Take Care Clause” which says the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” So you want to know: Why is that? And all you get is that a president is not a king.

And this is where a huge gulf appears on the intellectual landscape; one that separates the mentality of the executives who have to make decisions at every moment of their waking hours, and the academic pundits who weigh abstract notions that may not always correspond to reality. Oh how I wish I had it as easy as I have it now when I was on the shop floor deciding if stamping this piece of work as having passed inspection would endanger the lives of the passengers who will someday fly on this plane. And how I wish I could delete a directive I issued yesterday from my executive office, as easily as I can delete a sentence I now write that does not sound as good as I thought it will.

And I tell you, George Will has it easy because after discussing the abstractions of the professor, he comes to his punch line which is this: “Price asks: 'If Obama may postpone enforcement of the ACA's insurance requirements and employer mandate, could a subsequent president ignore the ACA altogether?'” Well, my answer is no because an executive does not make decisions on a whim. His guiding principles are to be efficient and to do no harm. When he or she is required to execute something, they think of the best way and the best moment to do it. This is what Obama is doing now; it is not what a future president will be doing by ignoring the ACA altogether.

We now come to the Wall Street Journal editorial. Anyone that is familiar with the publication's editorial will tell you this is an unusually long and rambling piece. Still, the editors make a few points, the strongest being the one that appears in the subtitle. They say that the President responded to pressure from Democrats. The truth is that constituents wrote to their representatives telling them of the difficulties they were meeting because of the new law. What happened next is what should happen and does happen in every healthy democracy. The representatives wrote to the person in charge of the proper department – in this case Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

What the Secretary did upon receipt of the complaints was to look into the law, and the way that the regulations for implementing it were written. She saw deficiencies – this being a new and complex law – and she recommended that the approach be altered to minimize the chance of some people falling through cracks not of their making. You do not need a king to do this; you only need a Secretary with a good head and a good heart.

Which brings us to this observation: No one is asking the editors of the Journal to do likewise and develop a good heart; but the least they can do is try to keep an open mind and a clear head.

Funny Uncle Netanyahu Wants You

There comes a time when you cannot describe some things in polite terms, and must therefore describe them in terms that befit them however impolite such terms may sound. It also happens that in every language that I know of, the most forceful way to describe something that is forcefully offensive is to use sexual analogies such as, for example, “being screwed” which stands as the mildest of those analogies but means the violent act of being violated anally.

And so, the situation which calls for sexual analogies of the most descriptive kind to accurately reflect what it represents is the stand that is taken by 26 male and female bimbos who happen to be senators of the American legislative assembly. They stand not like the poster of Uncle Sam who stands during war times pointing a finger at the viewer and saying: “I want you”, but stand in front of every microphone and television camera that would accommodate them, and say in different words that funny uncle Netanyahu is hot again, and looking for a few hundred thousand American boys and girls in uniform whose rear end he is dying to penetrate and thus achieve the glory of Israel.

What happened in the real world for all this to come about was that the Executive Branch of the American government exercised its prerogative of negotiating an interim deal with the country of Iran with the view of negotiating a final deal within six months. Seeing that this will end the animosity that has been ongoing between those two countries for several decades already, the Netanyahu gang, which is known to have started every major war on this planet during the past several thousand years, infiltrated the American legislature and nurtured enough male and female bimbos in it to frustrate the American agenda of the Executive Branch and implement the Israeli/Jewish agenda instead.

And this is what brought out of the woodwork the shameless senators who got their own rear ends fixed by the Netanyahu agents, and professed to have liked it so much, they wish to send hundreds of thousands of American boys and girls to acquire the same experience, and perhaps die in the process or maybe come home missing an arm, a leg, a face, their genitals or their minds.

What follows is a list of the infamous male and female bimbos of the senate who sponsored that legislation. They are: Bob Menendez, Mark Kirk, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, Ben Cardin, John McCain, Bob Casey, Marco Rubio, Chris Coons, John Cornyn, Richard Blumenthal, Kelly Ayotte, Mark Begich, Bob Corker, Mark Pryor, Susan Collons, Mary Landrieu, Jerry Moran, Kirsten, Gillibtand, Pat Roberts, Mark Warner, Mike Johanns, Kay Hagan, Ted Cruz, Joe Donnelly, and Roy Blunt. Remember these names for, they are the face of infamy; they are an insult to the human species.

No matter what these characters or their mouthpieces say trying to justify their actions, there can be no justification for what they are doing because nothing will change the fact that their activity represents nothing less that being just a step past the pornographic scene of an Eric Cantor who took a group of American legislators to Israel, and had their rear ends fixed by the big honcho himself in his office, then took them to a lake where they stripped naked and cooled their asses.

These people are lucky they don't live in one of those countries where they don't treat their traitors with that much mercy, and would have called on their own grizzly mamma to do away with them with one pull on the automatic without having to reload 26 times.

Battling Enemies no Riskier than Windmills

The time has long passed when the world can continue to view these machinations as a case of the kid who cried wolf when there was no wolf around to do battle with. The machinations are clearly a concerted effort that is mounted by a well organized and well financed group with an agenda whose main characteristic is that it can be implemented only when the world is permanently on edge or preferably at war. It is time that we recognize this phenomenon for what it is so that we may put an end to it before it puts an end to us.

Another contribution to the already long list of submissions that have been feeding those machinations, was made by Clifford D. May when he added to the pile, a column that came under the title: “Failing to Know Our Enemies” and the subtitle: “Those committed to liberty are our friends for the long haul; those intent on destroying it are not.” Published on December 19, 2013 in National Review Online, the new leg of machinations begins with a quote from a speech that was delivered by John Kennedy during the Cold War. He promised then that America will assure the survival and success of liberty.

Without mentioning or even hinting that there is a difference between our time and that of the Kennedy era, the author defines the deficiencies in America's current posture by asking a series of questions that may have been partially relevant in the Kennedy era but are irrelevant today. Here they are: Are the Kennedy assurances our credo today? Are Americans committed to liberty? Can our friends rely on us? Do foes have reason to fear us? What are we to do about those that profess friendship but ingratiate themselves with our foes?

What this indicates is that Clifford May and those of his ilk have a mindset rooted in a Cold War that was a mistake to have been in the first place, and has vanished some time ago in any case. It was Winston Churchill who first realized that Britain will never again be a superpower, and that America was destined to inherit the mantle. To make sure that Britain will continue to cohabit the mantle with the newcomer, Churchill came up with the idea of warning the Americans about the danger that the Soviet Union was posing. America listened and the era of the Cold War was triggered.

As planned by Churchill, Britain played the role of piloting America through uncharted waters that were made dangerous not by the intent of the Soviet Union as falsely predicted by Churchill, but because of the random incidents that materialized by the very fact the Churchill Cold War was in progress. And so, Churchill turned out to be not a prophet but a real life incarnation of Don Quixote. He got America to battle enemies it thought were riskier than windmills but were not.

A decade or two later, seeing how well the Churchill trick had worked for Britain, the self appointed Jewish honchos decided to use the same trick to advance their own agenda. They told the Americans that the Arab countries were dangerous, and that Israel was willing to play a role that will protect America not from the non-existent Arab armies but from a possible rise in the price of oil. The song they sang continually was to the effect that Israel can help lower the already cheap price of oil.

The honchos of World Jewry added that in return for doing the work, Israel will need money, weapons and diplomatic cover to get on with the business of making the people of America enjoy cheap oil for ever and ever. America gave without restraint; Israel took without shame but delivered nothing to America. It did, however, deliver a great deal of heartache to the people of the region, a situation that forced the Arabs to respond by jacking up the price of oil from 2.6 dollars a barrel where it was to 28 dollars a barrel in a matter of months. And the price has been going higher ever since.

Because history never stops evolving, the Jewish players of the Churchill game found themselves compelled to constantly update the nature of the threat they say the Arabs – and later the Muslims – pose to America and to the West. This brings us to the following passage in the May column: “The ideologies most hostile to America and the West have arisen in what we have come to call the Muslim world.” It was a convenient shift because Islam was the nexus that allowed him to single out Iran – the current preoccupation of the Jews – and write about it. And so he discussed the Iran nuclear program.

He went on to say that these are the current real enemies of America. But he did not stop here. Instead, he did something that shows how much he is gripped by the mentality of a Cold War which used to place the nations of the world into one of two columns “friends” or “foes.” Apparently baffled by what he sees happening today which does not conform to that formula, he asks: “But what are we to make of those nations that are not against us – but also are not with us?” He names Russia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

I can only say to him that he should stop going in circles like the blades of a windmill which go round and round and round without ever stopping. Take a rest, Cliff, and then look at the beauty of the world that is out there. It contains no scary wolves and no monstrous windmills, just people who wish to live in peace with a neighbor that is not bent on skunking them to a stinky death.