Are These The People Who Can Defend Us?

People have obsessions. They have them as individuals, as a group, even as a society. The most enduring obsession of a society is the one that was created while struggling to become what it is today. In the Third World, that would be the fight against the colonial powers, hence the fear that these nations express when they think that colonialism is about to return to their country in one form or another – be it military, economic cultural or otherwise; what they refer to by the collective epithet neocolonialism. And that is the big word that the spin doctors use to advance their agendas.

The Americans too have a national obsession. It is called “freedom” because that is what society struggled to obtain originally. At the end of the struggle the American colonies were freed from the tyrant king in England who ruled over them with an iron fist, and taxed them without letting them have a say in the matter. In time, the idea of freedom became associated with other activities. For example, there is the expression “tax free day” which is the day of the year by which most people would have paid their taxes and start working for themselves.

Of course, the American people also want to be free of debt, free of harassment, free to travel, free to own a gun and free of many other things. In fact, these people dread seeing an infringement on any of their freedoms the way that the Third World dreads seeing neocolonialism raise its head. But that's not all because in America, the word “democracy” has come to be associated with freedom. This opened a whole new vista for the spin doctors to experiment while trying to advance their agendas.

The most belabored spin is the one that has tied American freedom at home with events abroad. This was achieved by the neoconservatives (known as Neocons) who say that an international conspiracy exists to battle against the West – especially America and Israel – with the aim of effacing all forms of freedom, and turning the world into one Muslim Caliphate ruled by a dictator. Thus, any progress made in a Muslim country, which happens to be the neighborhood where Israel was established, must be seen as a threat to freedom and fought against at any cost.

Once that idea was seen to have taken hold, and when it was observed to be scoring more than its share of successes, other individuals, groups, organizations, publications, think tanks, foundations and the like – not all of them conservative – jumped onto the bandwagon and joined the fray by echoing the neocon locutions whether or not they understood what they meant.

Leading the pack has been the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, established by Clifford D. May who still presides over it. He also writes a column for National Review Online; his latest being the one published on February 28, 2013 under the title: “The Sanctions Paradox” and the subtitle: “Economic warfare is absolutely essential – even though it will almost certainly fail.”

Speaking of the sanctions against Iran which he and others have agitated to see put in place by America and some of its allies, he now says these sanctions are unlikely to succeed though they are essential to any serious and strategic policy mix. And he gives 6 reasons why he believes this to be the case.

The first reason he gives concerns the bad things he has been accusing Iran of doing. But those who know their history know that even if true, none of these things existed in the Middle East before Israel came into being. They know that these things were started by Israel, and are still being committed by it even now. Thus, if Iran is doing the same thing, it is doing it to respond to Israel in kind.

But there is one thing that Israel did and still does that Clifford May did not mention. It is something that neither Iran nor anyone else did or will ever do. It is that Israel sterilized the Black women of Africa before taking them to Israel. It got all the praises in the world, and got money galore for the airlift which was thought to testify to Israel's humanitarian concerns.

And then the truth came out, and Israel lied about it for several decades until it could not lie anymore. It has finally admitted it did something worse than the Nazis ever did, except that the Nazis did not get praise or money for their deeds. Only a Jew would want to be paid for committing acts of horror.

Once you realize that something of this magnitude has been out there during all these years, and was hidden from the public, you don't care anymore what else Clifford May is saying in his column. If you continue to read it, you do so to reverse in your mind what he is trying to convey.

To this end you attribute to Israel all the bad things he says about Iran knowing that you are one hundred percent correct this time.

And you certainly don't want Clifford May or anyone like him to defend you.

Take your Foundation and go to Israel, Cliff. This Continent deserves to be free of characters like you.

This is the freedom that North Americans will be seeking from now on.

Let Not Barking Dogs Set The Agenda

The archives on the right side of this page are full of the responses I was able to deliver to the dogs of war who have been barking the Jewish wish to drag America into a never ending war against the innocent peoples of the world whom the Jewish leaders chose to be their enemies of the day, as well as the peoples they will choose to be their enemies of tomorrow and forever after that.

It is to be understood that for every article to which I was able to respond, there were dozens of other articles I knew about but to which I did not respond because I had not the time to do so. And for every one of those, there must have been hundreds of other articles written in English and in every language, and published throughout the world. This is not to mention what was published in the audio-visual media where the virulence of the Jewish bark has surpassed anything you can imagine.

This is the agenda of those who call themselves Jews when it suits them to project a certain image, or Israelis when they find it more convenient to do so, or Zionists when they seek to spin their message in a direction that will favor their agenda more directly. Their strategy at this time is to tell the world they own America not only lock, stock and barrel but also congress, treasury and military.

As to what they tell the American people, this is where their genius truly shines. They want the people to know they must worship the Jews because the latter own America. If the individual accepts this condition, he or she can praise the Jewish dominance of America and praise the Lord. If not, the individual will be punished if he or she will dare to point out disapprovingly that the Jews own America. The Jewish leaders call this approach, the creative ambiguity that spawns the Jewish sense of moral clarity. Don't ask me what that is, my friend, figure it out yourself if you can.

And they put this approach to work when President Obama chose senator Chuck Hagel to be his Secretary of Defense. They threw everything at the senator in a vicious attempt to derail his appointment. But they lost the battle when the Senate finally confirmed Mr. Hagel to be America's Secretary of Defense. What will happen now is not that these people will accept the outcome and change their ways. No, this will not happen and the proof is that it did not happen during the centuries that the Jewish leaders could have accepted to live like the rest of humanity and in harmony with it. Instead, they chose to reject that approach, and have always wanted to be singled out when praise was presented, yet wanted to be treated like everyone else when blame was handed out. It is the practical application of their ambiguous moral clarity, you see. Ask them what that is.

What they will do now is select those among them who did not bark too loudly in opposition to the Hagel confirmation, and have them build bridges with him under the guise of repairing the relationships that were frayed by the kerfuffle which erupted during the confirmation process. While this is happening, and he is busy doing his job, they will activate their insidious messaging machine to work on all levels so as to spread their message in America, in the Arab and Muslim countries, and in the rest of the world.

They will say to all those parties that things are back to business as usual because Hagel is now under their control, and through him they will continue to control the American military which they will use to do the bidding for Israel. And while that message will be made to seep through the subtle channels in the Arab and the Muslim nations, the Jewish leaders in America will ask the new Secretary of Defense to utter what appears on the surface to be a harmless message but will have a toxic effect in the Arab and Muslim countries.

You see how this process works in a lecture that was given by Eric Trager not long ago somewhere in America. It was titled: “What Every American Should Know about Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.” It is a long lecture in which he reports on the meetings he had with people in Egypt. He tells something about the history of the Brotherhood which says nothing startling about that organization. But the toxic element in the Trager lecture is the message that he says “Every American Should Know” and also “Every Arab and Muslim Should Know.”

Here is how he framed that message toward the end of the lecture: “Finally … I want to share a story that illustrates how we might do this … I met with a senior Brotherhood leader at the time the Brotherhood was saying it was going to put the Camp David Accords to referendum. I told him this was dangerous. He said, no, this is democracy. I said, no, democracy is electing you – what you decide to do with that power is another thing … we should not disagree about the importance of keeping a treaty that has prevented war between you and a much stronger country … And let me tell you something, do you want Egyptians to dies? He said no. I said, 'Then you'll keep the treaty' … That's the message that needs to come out of Washington.”

What Eric Trager did is go to Egypt and tell the people there that democracy in America has been smothered by the Jewish moral syphilis that has been ejaculated all over it. If they do not accept this filthy definition of democracy, the result will be that “Egyptians will die.”

All that is needed now to implement the agenda of the Jewish leaders and their barking dogs is for the American Secretary of Defense to come out and say there is no daylight between America and Israel or that America will make sure Israel has military superiority over its neighbors no matter what it does or how it behaves in the region and outside of it.

The Arab and Muslim governments will shrug it off but the self-made militias will spring into action and defend their country and their religion. America and the ordinary Jews will lose in the end, not the Jewish leaders who will convert to another religion, thus escape a horrible fate.

It will be, here we go again or it will be, never again. Watch what Chuck Hagel will do.

ObamaCare And The Engine Of Economic Growth

On February 23, 2013 the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial under the title: “ObamaCare and the '29ers'” and the subtitle: “How the new mandates are already reducing full-time employment.” This is a good article in the sense that it chronicles the extent to which some people will go to minimize the effect of a new situation they consider to be harmful to their interests.

If the stories reported in the piece are all true, and if the activities are widespread as claimed, we can only be saddened by the fact that young people are subjected to this kind of hassle when it comes to landing their first job and keeping it. On the other hand, we can also see the phenomenon as being an oddity of the modern age to which the young will have to adapt. It is an oddity that will, in many cases, help the young learn how to overcome the unexpected difficulties that come their way, and this will contribute to the shaping of their character.

But to stop here is to glance superficially at the phenomenon while neglecting the fundamental considerations that accompany a topic of this importance. If like the Journal editorial says: “These employment cliffs are especially perverse economic incentives,” we should ask ourselves if the phenomenon has any redeeming quality that would make it worthwhile for society to keep the law that is ObamaCare.

As we attempt to answer that question we realize that we're tackling a very large subject matter. This is due to the fact that employment is the important underlying consideration in the story. Since employment is related to the growth rate that can be achieved by a modern industrial economy, we are compelled to take a close look at how ObamaCare may affect the growth engine of such an economy. And this is a huge undertaking.

What is certain about economic growth is that it is important to have when there is a need to employ people. Not only that but growth also helps a great deal when trying to balance the national, regional or municipal budgets. In addition, growth allows for the implementation of new programs – be they of the social kind or any kind. In short, growth in the economy is a useful process that responds well to the needs of just about everyone in society.

We know that growth has happened to an economy when we see a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that is larger this year than it was last year. And so we ask: If this is the case, is there a mechanical model that would show how growth comes about? The answer is yes, there is such a model but before discussing it, we must define what an economy is and how it works. This done, we can then discuss growth, discuss how the economy may be stimulated to obtain it, what the cost will be and who might pay for the undertaking.

To begin with, we must recognize that since the beginning of time, there have been all sorts of economies that were based on a variety of resources, and based on the management styles that were ordained by the prevailing conditions. Even today, there exist all sorts of economies that look different from one another, each operating differently and yielding a different result. What is of interest to us in this discussion, however, is the modern industrial economy that is diverse and well balanced by the sectors that make it.

Such economy would have taken roots at the start of the original Industrial Revolution some two centuries ago, and would have evolved continually ever since. What differentiates it from the newly industrialized economies is that its growth has been organic and self-generating whereas the emerging economies experience a growth that is artificially produced. The organic growth rate of the old economy would be modest by comparison but more or less steady over a long period of time. This contrasts with the newly industrialized economies whose growth may be high but is often erratic, and at the mercy of developments beyond the control of the emerging nations.

If we look for an economy that satisfies the description of an old economy, we must look to the Continent of Europe because that is where the original Industrial Revolution started. If we look for an economy that is ideal, we may not find it on this planet. If we look for an economy that is close to ideal, we find one that is large enough and diverse enough to satisfy our requirement. This would be the economy of France which is well balanced by its sectors – most notably agriculture, industries, construction and the services. It also resembles the American economy in many respects but enjoys the advantage of having grown organically from the start.

The question before us is this: How did an economy such as that transform itself from being an agrarian economy two centuries ago to being the industrial economy it is today? To simplify the discussion, we make an assumption which, in reality, is not too far from the truth. We assume that for a long time, the trade that France was having with the rest of the world was negligible or non-existent. Thus, we can think of the ideal economy as being a self-contained and closed system.

The economy has two parts; the part that produces the goods and the services, and the part that consumes those goods and services. But we must also recognize that the two parts are made of one and the same society where everyone is a consumer and every able body is a producer unless it is looking for a job. The totality of what the economy produces in a given year is called the wealth of the nation – also called the GDP. It is customary in the modern age to assign a monetary value to that GDP, one that is designated in the local currency. It is also customary to convert that value into the American dollar, a currency that is traded internationally, and that is well received everywhere.

To take an example, let us say that France is populated by 50 million people and has produced 2. 3 trillion dollars worth of goods and services in a given year (call it year 1). The nation has also consumed all those goods and services which mean that on average, the people of France have lived at the per capita level of 46,000 dollars a year. If by some magic the same people produce 2. 4 trillion dollars worth of goods and services the following year (call it year 2); they would have produced 48,000 dollars on a per capita basis. This is growth. But even if they do not consume all those goods and services, we would still say they lived at that high level.

But why would a society not consume all that is produced in a given year? The short answer is that no society possesses the ability to grow the economy by magic. What it will do is produce and consume only 2 trillion dollars worth of the goods and services that the consumers buy everyday. And it would have produced 0. 4 trillion (400 billion) dollars worth of what is called capital goods such as production machines, and infrastructure projects such as research facilities, labs and others. It would also have produced investment services such as a program to inoculate the children of the nation against say, the possible return of an old disease – polio or meningitis, for example.

And that would be the investment that will help the economy grow next year – not the magic that nobody really has. Indeed, the society of our example will have gone through the trouble of producing capital goods and investment services to enlarge the base of its economy, and to make it possible to produce more goods and more services in year 3 than it did in year 2. To this end, that society will be able to boost its production of goods and services from 2. 4 trillion dollars to say, 2. 472 trillion dollars. This would be an increase of 3 percent – what is referred to as the rate of growth.

Thus, we see that to produce growth next year, we must allocate some of our human and capital resources this year to produce the capital goods and the investment services that will enlarge the economic base. We can repeat this performance year after year by deciding to produce consumer goods and services at less than full capacity. When we do this, we live below our potential but make sure that we and our descendants will live better next year and all the years after that.

This is a sacrifice that society will have to make. America must come to accept the idea that ObamaCare is an investment in the future whose purpose is to service the entire American population, leaving no one behind. Everyone should accept making a small sacrifice today so that tomorrow may be a better day for everyone.

ObamaCare is the law of the land, and will not be repealed anytime soon. On the contrary, it will be entrenched more solidly year after year, and will become as much a part of the American landscape as Social Security.

Learn to love it America, and spend your time and effort in search of ways to alleviate the pain of the young who will be looking for a steady and permanent job.

Looking At A History That Never Was

It is fitting that the Wall Street Journal should be the vehicle through which the clock is turned back on America to look at a history that never happened. No, this time the feat was not achieved by a work that was authored by the Journal editors; it was achieved by the choice they made from among all the material that is submitted to them on a daily basis.

The submission in question came from Mackubin Thomas Owens who wrote a piece under the title: “America's Kinder, Gentler Department of Defense” and the subtitle: “Cutting the military to fuel the welfare state doesn't instill fear in a nation's enemies.” It was published in the Journal on February 23, 2013.

You see immediately in the subtitle of the piece that the author's preference would be to spend the resources available to the nation on the military rather than spend them on social programs. And Owens would do this, he says, because he wants to instill fear in what he calls the nation's enemies. But this is not the only reason why he is upset at what he says is happening to the U.S. military; he cites two other reasons which he equates with shoes dropping at the Pentagon.

The first shoe to drop, says the author, is what appears to be the reason why General James Mattis was relieved of his duties. According to Owens, that decision came because “the administration … doesn't want smart, independent-minded generals.” And the proof of this, says he, is that: “White House officials … weren't happy with Gen. Mattis's advice … [He] thought we should be planning for what Iran is capable of doing – such as … attacking Israel – not just what we assume Iran will do.”

Hold it there, mister! Hold it there. For America to plan for the possibility that Iran may attack Israel because it can do so is not to be an independent-minded thinker; it is to be a fanatic mouthpiece working for the Likud-Neocon axis which links Tel Aviv with New York City and the Washington Beltway. Don't you ever forget it, mister, that years before the W was persuaded to attack Iraq, a plan was put in place by those same characters to deal with the possibility of what Saddam might do because he could do it.

And the rest is history; a bitter history that is never forgotten by those who do not blabber the Likud-Neocon song of American self-immolation. The truth is that nobody in this world gets scared by a Neocon that is running at the mouth. All what happens is that the clowns on Capitol Hill get impressed with the phony picture which results, and they vote like lemmings to rubber-stamp everything that AIPAC asks for while kicking down the road everything that America asks for.

Having seen this part of the article, you now understand why the author started it with this opening sentence: “The Department of Defense faces some stark choices [but] the sequester may be the least of its problems.” You see it clearly that Owens wants the Pentagon to prepare for an attack on Iran when so ordered by the Likud-Neocon axis whether or not it is under sequestration; whether or not it has enough resources to defend America against a real danger that may lurk out there. According to these people, Israel should not only be America's number one priority, it must become America's only concern.

And this allows Owens to segue to the second dropping shoe. Having established that Israel must be America's only concern, he returns to the theme he had in the subtitle, and advocates yet again that the military should have priority over social programs. This is how he put it this time: “the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of defense … the real problem is his likely approach to the defense budget.” And he goes on to lament that: “The Hagel nomination is a replay of President Harry Truman's appointment … Like Mr. Obama, Truman was committed to funding his domestic programs at the expense of military spending.”

What is wrong with that? you ask. But you find that he has anticipated your question and has supplied you with the answer. Here it is: “Like Truman … Obama and Hagel … look at the defense budget in the abstract … the danger is that President Obama has appointed Sen. Hagel … to take an ax to the pentagon in order to free up money for the President's expanded welfare state. This is alarming. National security strategy … should drive defense spending and force structure.” What strategy is that? Israel's aggressive designs that never take a respite? And what force structure would that be? Will it be made of units equipped with massive self-propelled guns called the “Crusader” to be unleashed on the Muslim World, and thus start a global religious war?

Now Mackubin Thomas Owens tackles the third shoe to drop. It is “the opening of most ground-combat billets to females ... a terrible policy change.” He gives three reasons why this is a terrible idea without once mentioning that Israel has had a similar policy in effect since it was recognized as a state by the United Nations – thanks to the efforts of Harry Truman no less. So why is it that Truman was right to work for the invented “Jewish people” and not for the authentic American people? Why is it that Owens and the traitors of his ilk call on Obama and Hagel to look after Israel and not after the interests of the American people?

To end his rant, Owens reiterates the things he said Messrs Obama and Hagel are doing wrong, and postulates that these “events will degrade the readiness and effectiveness of the U.S. military far more than sequestration will.” Here we go again with his ambivalence about the possible effect of sequestration.

I am under the impression that some people consider Thomas Owens to be a military historian. I would say he may or may not be a good one when it comes to military history, but when it comes to social and economic history, he gets an F in my view.

And that is because President Truman put down the structure for an economic expansion that made America the economic giant it became in the decades of the Nineteen Fifties and Sixties. What happened after that was the war in Vietnam which turned out to be an important factor in chipping away at America's economy.

That history unfolded under the horrified eyes of the people who fought in the war – one that should never have dragged as long as it did. Chuck Hagel was there, and he knows a few things that Owens will never know even if manages to shed his Neocon fanaticism and regain his sanity.

But don't count on it; he is a long way away from that.

The Internal Sabotage Continues

It happens at times that I get a memory flashback that takes me decades into the past – as far back as early childhood. I recently had a flashback that took me not that far back but only 45 years or so ago. It happened as I was reading an article written by Robert Kagan and Michelle Dunne. It is titled: “U.S. needs to show Egypt some tough love” and published in the Washington Post on February 21, 2013.

What happened as I was reading the article is that a reflexive shout of horror that used to engulf me as a young man hit me again at this age. No, I did not fear for myself or for anyone; it's just that I felt the horror which used to engulf me each time I created a work that people liked because, as they said, was “brimming with life.”

As it happened, however, a handful of other people who were associated with the Canadian Jewish Congress and one horrible newspaper, hated my success so much, they responded in a way that indicated they were shouting to each other: “It's alive, kill it.” And they did manage to kill most of my efforts for more than four decades, but I survived them. I even erased the shout that used to echo in my head every time that they made their cowardly move.

The memory of that shout was revived again, but rather than be alarmed, I am glad it did because I want to remember the past, want to write about it and want to relate it to what I see happening now. Thanks to the Kagan and Dunne article, I see the similarities between what they are advocating now, what used to happen 45 years ago, and what the terrorists do when a country in difficulty comes close to regaining its stability.

What those horrible characters do is use one and the same approach; it is that they create mayhem to keep the chaos going. They do what they do under the guise of helping the people whose lives they seek to destroy. Sadly, Kagan and Dunne have joined the terrorists who labor to kill a beautiful product now coming to life in a Middle East that is going through labor pain.

So then, what do Kagan and Dunne say must be done to help the people of Egypt? You get a sense of that from the way they have structured the article. They take a couple of paragraphs to say how bad things are in Egypt beginning with this: “Although Morsi won a narrow victory...” Take a good look at that word “Although.” It is how terrorists negate the democratic process. Normal people say: “elections have consequences” but terrorists like Kagan and Dunne – who used to be with the Carnegie Endowment for Peace but is no longer there for a mysterious reason – use the word although.

Having done this, they go on to cite what is happening in the country. And what they cite is what normally happens when politicians jockey for position. The two authors write the longest paragraph to emphasize this point: “Under Morsi's rule, Egyptian society has become polarized.” But society is polarized in America too. Did Morsi have anything to do with that? If not, I have a better explanation as to why societies become polarized at times. Take note of this, Robert and Michelle because you will not see it anywhere else. Here it is: People become polarized because some of them wear brown shoes on a Wednesday. Get it now? Stop this habit and people will never again become polarized. That's never again. Get it? It's never again, assholes.

Horror of horror, look what else they see happening in Egypt: “The … secular opposition parties have formed a 'National Salvation Front' … those who want to force Morsi to compromise and those who want to force him from power … the government and the opposition are locked in a game of chicken.” So then, how do Robert Kagan and Michelle Dunne propose to solve that logjam? Speaking for an American role, they say this: “It's time for a new approach.”

You ask: What is that? And they respond: “The United States needs to use all its options [including] U.S influence with the IMF and other international lenders – to persuade Morsi...” In other words, they want to do to Egypt what was done in the Nineteen Fifties which is to sever the relation between Egypt and the West, forcing that country to cozy up to the Eastern Block.

And when that happened, World Jewry started to work on monopolizing America's culture, wealth and military power – thus mobilizing all of its resources to serve the glory of Israel. And what the two authors want Egypt to do now to escape America's proposed destructive role is for “the Egyptian army ... to bring security to the Sinai,” a euphemism to mean that Egypt should stand like a sentinel to protect Israel's flank when it goes on a rampage and bombs the unarmed people of Palestine.

The two authors also talk about democracy which probably means to have an American style congress of pimps and prostitutes, madams and gigolos rule Egypt. Dream on, kids, dream on.

Finally, they are trying to repeat a success they had during the years of the W. What happened then was the sudden and dramatic increase in the power of the neocons in America. The Jewish organizations achieved this success when they persuaded the W to cut off his relations with the Palestinians by not inviting Arafat to America.

So now, our two esteemed authors – buoyed by the thought that President Obama has finally accepted to visit Israel – write this: “As for Morsi's planned trip to Washington, it would be better to hold that invitation until he demonstrates a sincere commitment to … resolving the status of foreign-funded NGOs.”

These people never give up. They will keep sabotaging America from the inside till there is nothing left for the other rising powers to compete against.

What Kind Of Sauce Is it, Bret Stephens?

Bret Stephens, who is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and sometimes editorial writer, wrote a column this week; one that is strange even by his standard. He gave it the title: “Filibuster Hagel” and the subtitle: “If Republicans refuse, they won't be standing on principle but capitulating to the president.” It was published in the Journal on February 19, 2013.

What is strange about the column is that it ends this way: “What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” Ordinarily, this would be a reasonable thing to say but not this time because of who is meant by goose and who is meant by gander. In fact, you find out who they are as you read the column from start to finish because the author pulls a Yiddish on the way to the finish.

What he does is accuse Chuck Hagel of pulling Buchanans. This would be Buchanan as in Pat Buchanan whom he nicknames “Pitchfork Pat.” He is the fellow who had something to say in 1990, something that did not go too well with the likes of Bret Stephens. According to the latter, Buchanan had an outburst to the effect that: “the U.S Congress was 'Israeli-occupied territory.'”

So you ask: What are the similarities between Buchanan and Hagel? And the answer is that Hagel said the following about the U.S. State Department: It is “an adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry's office.” But don't get confused, my dear reader, Buchanan and Hagel are not the goose and the gander of the story. You see, this story is not so much about Buchanan as it is about someone else, someone more unnerving to Stephens.

Oh yes, you do encounter the usual insult thrown at Rutgers University, the BBC and Al Jazeera – it would not be a Yiddish piece of work if it did not diss the impeccable and the innocent along the way  –  but the alarming character co-starring with Hagel in the story is an Iranian-American academic named Amirahmadi whom Stephens accuses of being one of the “Iranian influence peddlers.” So then, is Hagel the goose and the Iranian academic, the gander? Nop.

But the plot thickens in that Stephens goes on to interweave a number of Byzantine subplots of the kind you read about each time that a Jewish network of shady characters is busted in New York or elsewhere in the United States. All the while, however, no charge of any kind was brought against Amirahmadi except by the New York Post which quoted the man as having pulled what may be called an AIPAC. No, he did not say that Israel is not a terrorist state, but said this: “Iran has not been involved in any terrorist organization.”

Aha! you exclaim, there is the goose and there is the gander. Wrong again. You would be wrong if you thought so because you did not pay close attention to what was said in the title and the subtitle. Here they are once again for your convenience: “Filibuster Hagel … If Republicans refuse, they won't be standing on principle but capitulating to the president.”

So you ask: What's this all about? And he tells you what it's about. He tells the story of the “Democrats who effectively filibustered John Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador in 2005 by refusing to vote for cloture.” And there it is. There is the revelation. The goose and the gander in the metaphor are the Bolton and the Hagel in real life. The fat lady has sung but the moral of the story is yet to come.

Here it is: Okay, Bret, okay. I'll make you a deal. Either you and the rest of us accept all your metaphors, or we reject them all. This means you admit that Israel is now and has always been the number one terrorist state, and we admit that Chuck Hagel has pulled a Buchanan on the State Department. He should apologize to John Kerry before the Senate confirms him to be Secretary of Defense.

If you reject the deal, the confirmation goes through without an apology.

The Minimum Wage And The Credit Rating

It may not seem like it but the considerations associated with the setting of the minimum wage for an industrial nation are closely related to those associated with the setting of the credit rating for any nation. The way things are done now is that both the minimum wage and the credit rating are determined by glorified accountants called economists who employ methods that were devised decades ago when the economies of nations were different, and so was the international setup in which they operated.

What we need now to make a more meaningful determination of those matters are economic scientists who will employ methods that take into account realities heretofore neglected by the economic accountants. What the economic scientists will recognize is that a national economy is not the static picture which is reflected by a balance sheet but a living entity that is continually evolving in lockstep with the demography of the nation.

The difference between what the accountants see and what the scientists will see arises from the fact that scientists have a greater appreciation for the concept of time. Whereas the accountants normally decide on something that will probably not be there when the time will come to implement their decision, the scientists will tend to see the moving parts of the economy, and work to determine their position at the time when, for example, a debt will come due.

In the old days when a handful of nations were industrialized and the rest of the world was not – thus considered backward – an accounting economist would look at the balance sheet of a few representative enterprises and determine from them what the minimum wage ought to be. As well, he would look at the balance sheet of a national economy and determine a credit level for it. As to the backward countries, they lived and perished by the volatile value of the commodities they sold, and they existed at the mercy of the industrial nations which sought to acquire their commodities by hook or by crook. No minimum wage was determined for these countries and no credit rating was applied to them.

But the world has changed in that the new industrial revolutions – which are happening all the time and everywhere on the planet – are moving ten times as fast as the original Industrial Revolution. This is true in the sense that what took the first industrial nations ten generations to accomplish is now being accomplished in a single generation by the emerging industrial economies. Of course, science and technology are still evolving, and so are the industries of the first industrial nations. However, the newly industrializing ones are catching up not only to what they missed in the past, but are keeping abreast of the new developments, and in some cases leapfrogging ahead of the old industrial nations.

Even if we miss all the details pertaining to this subject, what comes out clearly is that every method employed in the past to assess an economic condition or to measure its impact, must have been voided by the realities of the world in which we now live. The one thing we can be certain about is that a ton of tomatoes produced in a highly industrialized farm will have to command a price that is different from a ton of similar tomatoes produced by a farming family laboring in an economy that may now be industrializing but is still backward. And this is the reality that both farmers will have to face when trying to access the same international market.

In time, a new dynamic will have been created and will fundamentally alter the relationship between the industrial economy and the one that is emerging. For one thing, if the farming family in the backward economy can produce enough tomatoes to satisfy the needs of its own community and that of the industrial economy, the mechanized farms of the latter will stand a good chance to go bankrupt. This will happen if and when the industrialized farmer will lose the ability to pay for the equipment, the fuel and the fertilizer he needs to continue farming. This reality will ripple through the rest of the economy with dire consequences which is the reason why the industrial nations subsidize their farmers.

But how can this happen if it takes 5 farmers or more in the backward economy to produce as much as one farmer in the industrial economy? The answer is that the person on the mechanized farm would have as many as 4 or 5 other people working away from the farm to produce the equipment, the fuel and the fertilizer that the person on the farm uses to be able to farm. And because he must pay for all that, he has to charge more for his tomatoes than the backward farmer.

When those two show up in the same marketplace to sell their products, a new situation will begin to unfold. The industrialized farmer will find himself selling less and less of his, while the other farmer will sell more and more of his. As long as the backward farmer has enough land, water and people to increase his production, he will supply his market in full and take an increasingly bigger share of the other market. But if he runs out of any of those, and he is compelled to resort to the methods of his industrialized counterpart, he will have to raise the price of his products. He will continue to do so till he matches the price of the other farmer who, if lucky, may still be in business. If unlucky, he would have gone out of business ceding the entire market to his counterpart.

It may take a generation or two for that scenario to fully unfold. In the meantime, several upheavals will have beset both economies on their way to that finale. To see how this may happen, we must broaden our view from thinking in terms of two competing farms to thinking in terms of two competing nations. One will be fully industrialized; the other will be at the start of its industrial journey, and still relying on farming, mining, some local crafts and perhaps tourism as well.

Each nation will have its own currency. To make matters simple, let us say that the industrial nation uses the Dollar which will buy a pound of local tomatoes. And let us say that the backward nation uses the Kwaillar which will also buy a pound of local tomatoes. At the start of their interaction, the inhabitants of both nations will realize that the industrial economy has a great deal of goods and services that the other does not have. For example, it has the car which sells for 10,000 Dollars as well as appliances and a variety of other gadgets; and it has the facelift which sells for 100 Dollars as well as a few other services.

At first, the people of the industrial nation will buy from the other a few pounds of tomatoes, other produce, some natural resources and the local crafts; and they will travel there as tourists. To pay for this, they will convert their Dollars into Kwaillars at the rate of one Dollar for one Kwaillar. In the meantime, the people of the backward nation will want to buy a few small things from the advanced nation, and will use the Dollars they earned to pay for them. They will not as yet buy a facelift or a car because they could not sell enough of what they produce to pay for such luxuries. And depending on the supply-demand situation for both currencies, the exchange rate between them will fluctuate in a narrow band because the two-way trade will at first be more or less balanced.

In time, a handful of people in the backward economy will have accumulated enough Kwaillars to want to buy big items such as appliances, cars, facelifts even medical care from the advanced economy. To do this, they will convert the Kwaillars they hold into Dollars. They will buy the Dollar in large quantities and send it soaring which will devalue the Kwaillar. This will make the goods and services they produce sell cheaply in the advanced nation. In turn, this very idea will make the business people in the advanced nation decide to move their plants and other facilities to the developing one so as to produce cheaply and sell at a high price in their home country.

This new condition will continue to prevail till the backward nation becomes as advanced as the other. In the meantime, the upheavals that the two nations will experience will seem unsolvable. The politicians will adopt small solutions to solve small problems but will throw their hands up in the air when it comes to solving the big problems because the politicians will have realized that the real solutions lie somewhere else.

The most destructive upheaval affecting the emerging economies is the gap that opens between the rich and the poor; a gap that happens because a lucky few will find themselves interacting with the advanced economies, and paid wages and salaries of that level. At the same time, the remaining masses of the population will find themselves toiling as hard as ever, and paid at the level of the backward economy. The inequity will create a great deal of pain among the masses, and the government will want to alleviate it. To do so, it will subsidize the poor through one program or another.

After a while, the government will find itself crafting a budgetary deficit that will keep increasing year after year. This will prompt the accounting economists at the credit rating agencies to lower the rating on that nation. This will compound the problem because it will make borrowing even costlier for the government. And while this is happening in the backward economies, the advanced economies will have developed a problem of their own. They will have created in their midst a permanent underclass of young citizens who cannot land a first job because they cannot produce enough each hour to cover for the minimum wage that the antiquated law forces the employer to pay them.

So then, what solution is there to the problem of the credit rating? And what solution is there to the problem of the minimum wage? The answer to the first question is simple: it is for everyone to get together in a world forum and decide to ignore the credit rating agencies. The argument for this is easy to make: The emerging economies have young populations that will be in a position to pay back the money borrowed now, especially if some of it is used to build the infrastructure they will use when they take over the nation. The static balance sheet that the accounting economists look at may not shine, but the economic scientists who look into the future will see that the economy will be in a different place when payment on the borrowed money will come due.

As to the second question, we answer it by first defining the term regular job. This done, we say that anyone doing a regular job must be paid at least the minimum wage especially if the job requires that a certain level of physical exertion be expended such as it is with material handlers and construction workers.

There can also be a category called apprentice where the minimum wage will be lower but cannot be maintained for more than a year. After that, the employee will graduate to receive the minimum wage.

And there can be a category to encourage the employment of those who would otherwise be unemployable not because of a physical disability but for another reason – having gone to jail, for example. It will be possible to pay these people at the apprentice level for more than a year if they do not show progress.

The government may also contribute to what the employer will pay these people. This will give it the right to send an inspector once in a while to make sure that things are done correctly, and that no one is abusing the system.

Thus, the problem facing the advanced economies, and the one facing the emerging economies – both of which exist as a result of their interaction – do have solutions that can be implemented with some ease. But the will to solve them must be there which is not always the case.

Good For Dow But Not For America

It used to be said that what's good for General Motors is good for America. It was a metaphor that meant to convey the notion: what's good for any American business is good for America. In turn, that notion was supported by another saying that went this way: The business of America is business. Thus, the image that emerged from all this was that of an America so interlinked with business, the two are one and the same, and cannot be separated.

But something happened lately that revealed there was another side to the story. What has emerged is a story whose consequence could not be ignored even by the likes of the Wall Street Journal. It is that the revelation has caused a profound change in the way that the Journal now perceives the relationship which exists between business and the state. It is a reality that has proven to go contrary to the situation which the Journal thought existed; the one it thought was going to remain intact and last forever.

To be sure, the Journal is not advocating a paradigm shift with regard to the way that business ought to conduct itself. On the contrary, it wants business to adopt the ideal precepts it believes were good for business and for America in the past, and would still be good now and in the future. What happened to the Journal, in fact, was that it discovered the truth about business not always following those precepts because if it did, America would not have prospered the way that it has up to now.

With this truth out in the open, the Journal now finds itself in the awkward position of having to choose between one of two alternatives, each being as hard to swallow as the other. It is that the Journal will have to soften its stand with regard to the idea of the state regulating business, or will have to be satisfied with calling the current situation embarrassing, and hope that this will cause business to see the light and change its ways. But even then – change to what if the revelation has shown that the ideal precepts were never embraced in the past, and would ruin America if embraced today?

You get a sense of all that, and you gain more insight when you read the Journal's editorial that was published on February 15, 2013. It had the title: “Business Against Exports” and the subtitle: “The self-interested campaign to bar LNG sales abroad.” As you can see, when words such as these are lined-up in a row, they can only be thought of as oddities standing out to say something. In this case, they tell of the profound change that has taken place in the way that the Wall Street Journal now perceives reality.

Never before was the self-interest of business mentioned negatively by someone at that publication. And never before was the word “bar” used to describe what business was doing. It used to be that self-interest was thought to serve the interest of everyone, and it used to be that business did not launch a campaign to bar something; it only suggested an alternative course to the one taken currently.

And that's not all because the first words of the editorial's first paragraph hit you on the head like a two-by-four: “Everyone loves American exports, or at least claims to,” they shout. Upon reading this, the first thing that we, as readers do, is assume the word “everyone” to include all the people and all the businesses. But the Journal warns that someone out there does not love export while claiming that they do. Who could that be, you ask? And the editorial tells who it is: “it's worth highlighting the big business lobbying underway to limit the export of U.S. natural gas.” Whoa! Can you believe this? Can you believe that the Wall Street Journal is pointing an accusatory finger at big business? That's big business, my friend, not just any business.

Not only that, but the Journal goes on to describe big business as being destructively hypocritical without using these words. This is how it does it: “Couched in the usual language about 'energy security' and domestic jobs, the effort is as pure a special-interest play as you'll find.” Here again, the words lining up as they do, point to the change that has taken place in the perception of the Wall Street Journal with regard to the way that business is conducted in America.

And the editors give an example of that; one that has stirred their bile no doubt. Citing Dow Chemical, Nucor and Alcoa who lobby under the banner “America's Energy Advantage,” the Journal says the following: “these companies want the Obama Administration to limit or block exports of liquified natural gas [LNG].” Why do they do that, you ask? And the editors tell you that these companies “use [the gas] as feedstock and to power their plants.” Thus, what they do wrong is that they “trash exporters for putting a 'quick buck' ahead of U.S. manufacturing jobs.”

But why is that so bad, you ask? Because it is hypocritical, they say. They go on to explain that when U.S. gas prices were climbing in the year 2000, Dow relocated its manufacturing to the Middle East and Asia. But now that the price of gas is coming down in America, Dow has rededicated itself to manufacturing in America. However, it wants to maintain the price of gas down, so it seeks to block its sale abroad. And to the editors of the Journal, this proves that: “Dow's lobbying secret is that it supports LNG exports when it suits its bottom line.” Which, to their ears “Sounds like a quick buck.”

Knowing something about those writing these words, you shout to yourself: I'm astounded because this is what the Journal used to say was good about American business. It used to be that what was good for business was good for America no matter what the businesses chose to do. And so you ask: What happened to that principle? Surprisingly, the Journal responds by lamenting that the Vice President of Dow said the company was pro-free-trade but that it was looking for the sweet spot in the export market. And this is what made the editors whine: “He means sweet for Dow but sour for everyone else.” Bang! You feel it right there on your head. Get this, my friend; the editors of the Wall Street Journal are shamelessly using the collective “everyone else.” Are they turning socialist or something?

In fact, they seem to have gone banana because they are now advising their readers to remember something. Believe it or not, this is what they wrote: “Remember what Lenin said about businessmen and the rope to hang themselves.” So then, are we to believe that the Journal wants the businessmen to think not in terms of what is good for their shareholders but what is good for the country? If so, why did they go on to say this: “The last thing American business needs is politicians deciding when and where companies can sell their goods.”

And so you ask: Who is better at looking after the interests of the country: the businessmen or the politicians? You look for an answer in the editorial and find none. But you find something weird. It seems that the editors are saying none of these people are good enough to make this sort of decision, even though it is their job; even though it is what they get paid to do.

And because they are not good enough to do the job, the Journal will tell them what to do. It does so at the end of the piece with the following advice: “Dow and friends would do more good for themselves and U.S. job creation by lobbying Mr. Obama to stop … trying to regulate … drilling to death. Their plea for government limits on export is … embarrassing.”

What? Have these people come full circle to now ask for what they have been rejecting? All along, they have been making the point that when business is left to itself to pursue its interests, it can hurt the business of the nation. This being code words to mean that in some cases, regulation is called for, you ask why are they urging business to go tell the President to stop regulating what they say has gone wrong?

Maybe when they went banana, they ate all the bananas and got hungry again. Let's throw them a few more bananas and see if they'll get back to their senses.

If Obama, Rubio And Paul Only Knew

President Barack Obama gave the customary annual State of the Union Address to a joint session of the United States Congress on February 12, 2013. As per tradition, Senator Marco Rubio followed a few minutes later with the Republican rebuttal. But then something new happened this year; a second Republican rebuttal was delivered by Senator Rand Paul in the name of what was called the Tea Party even though no party by that name exists officially.

These were long addresses that touched on many subjects and covered a great deal of territory. I did not see anything in them that was jarring, but I encountered in each a point about which I felt the need to say something. The point in the Obama address deals with climate change. The one in the Rubio address deals with the economy. And the one in the Paul address deals with foreign relation.

President Obama spoke about “our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet.” He went on to cite observations concerning the weather which he attributed to “climate change,” and dared the audience to “choose to believe [they are] all just a freak coincidence. Or ... choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it's too late.” And when he said act, he meant act to curb “our emissions of the dangerous carbon [dioxide] pollution that threatens our planet.”

Let me tell you what I choose to believe. I believe that nothing is more active at producing unpredictable occurrences than the daily weather at the local level. When you apply this to a climate at the planetary level, you can have four or five occurrences that will look like freak coincidences or that will not. And you will find that they may repeat themselves in the exact same way or they may not. And that it will all happen in the same spot or happen in many places all at once. This is why respectable science classifies the coincidence as being a subset of all possible outcomes. Anything can happen whether you believe it to be random coincidence or believe it to be a cause and its effect.

And where the observation of a phenomenon is the first to knock at the door of science asking it to explain, it stops at the door and lets science apply the “scientific method” to find out what is true and what is false. This is because an observation is only an observed fact and not a scientific fact – and there is a huge difference between these two. What produces a scientific fact in the end is a law that is put in the form of an equation; a formula that is used to predict future observations whether they have to do with the local weather, the planetary climate or a phenomenon of the atmosphere in-between.

So then, how to go about applying the scientific method to find out what it is that we want to find out? Well, this is it – this is the relevant point: What is it that we want to find out? Is it that the planet is warming? No, it would be too soon for that. We ought to walk before we run. Well then, is it that human activities have something to do with climate change? Again, the answer is no because we would be wasting time and effort not knowing what it is that we're looking for. But carbon dioxide (CO2) has been identified as the culprit that is causing climate change. In fact, President Obama has said this is where the effort to curb climate change has been directed. And this is where we should begin to reconsider what we're doing.

We need to start the process by doing a scientific experiment. And guess what, my friend; it will be one of the cheapest experiments to conduct for the purpose of settling one of the most vexing questions of our time. When done, the experiment will determine if there is a relationship between the concentration of CO2 and heat in the atmosphere. In fact, we should obtain an easy curve – like one of those we draw when discussing the economy.

And this will lead us to write down the equation we can use to show how much CO2 will cause the temperature of the planet to rise by how much now and in the future. This point settled, there will be no disagreement as to whether or not the planet is warming, whether or not the cause is human activity, whether or not the use of hydrocarbons (large emitters of CO2) should be regulated. It can't get any better than that.

What follows is the description of an experiment that will cost no more than 10,000 dollars, and can be conducted by a university physicist or a high school science teacher with the help of one or two students. You construct two identical cabins the size of a fish tank or a little bigger. Unlike a fish tank, however, the top of the cabin will be closed, and the whole thing will be made of glass. There will be a thermometer in each cabin; and each will be equipped with a valve through which small amounts of CO2 can be let in.

You take the cabins out on a sunny day and write down what the thermometers say is the temperature. You let a trace amount of CO2 into one cabin, and write down the change in temperature if any. You keep increasing the amount of CO2, and write down the corresponding pairs of numbers. They will indicate that this much CO2 has caused this much change in temperature. As to the other cabin, the thermometer in it should remain stable. But if not, it will have indicated that the ambient temperature has deviated due a natural cause such as a cloud eclipsing the sun or a gust of wind upsetting the local temperature. The deviation should be noted and taken into account when doing the math later on.

What you have now is what you will need to draw the curve and find the equation. To be certain that the equipment did not cause any error, you may repeat the experiment by reversing the roles played by the cabins. That is, you let the CO2 into the other cabin, thus ascertain that you have a set of results identical to the previous set. And this should settle the argument one way or the other once and for all. A rational course of action can then be drawn up and followed by everyone without meaningless arguments getting in the way.

We now look at the Marco Rubio speech. He says the following at the start: “For much of human history, most people were trapped in stagnant societies, where a tiny minority always stayed on top, and no one else even had a chance. But America is exceptional because we believe that every life, at every stage, is precious, and that everyone everywhere has a God-given right to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them.”

What he makes no allusion to anywhere in the speech is that the stagnant societies where a tiny minority always stayed on top, were the societies that followed the kind of economy he is advocating. It happened that even in ancient history, some civilizations came to a point where they could mass produce the goods they were consuming. This left them with a surplus that allowed a more equitable distribution of the wealth. In turn, this gave everyone the opportunity to reach for the top. Thus, without having what we today call a liberal democracy, these people had at least a democratic form of economy.

By contrast, the societies where everything produced was a “one of a kind” something, only a handful of people at the top were able to acquire that something. This left just enough for the masses at the bottom to live on and stay alive. And these people kept producing the little that was taken by the few at the top. In modern days, the kind of economy that Marco Rubio is advocating has been explained and justified with the image of the masses at the bottom laboring to build one-of-a-kind yachts for the people at the top. When this happens, said the Rubios of this world, the wealth will trickle down to the bottom and make everybody happy.

This was tried but things did not work out as predicted, and there was a reason for it. Obviously Marco Rubio does not know what that reason is because he volunteered to give one that was incomplete. Here is what he, the politician, had to say about the matter: “Many [problems] are caused by the moral breakdown in our society … challenges [that] lie primarily in our families and our faiths, not our politicians.”

No, Marco, what happened was that the distribution of the wealth went out of whack due to the behavior of the politicians. Increasingly, the masses at the bottom found themselves losing the strength to lift their heads up and see the top, let alone reach for it. We can't all have yachts, and those who get them have neither the time nor the inclination to mass produce what the masses need to lead a life at the middle class level. Clearly, a new paradigm is called for.

Now to the Rand Paul speech. He said this: “...we could start with ending all foreign aid to countries that are burning our flag and chanting death to America … The President could begin [with] the radical Islamic government of Egypt.” Every word in this statement being at variance with reality, you cannot escape the conclusion that the statement was made not for its content but to achieve another objective.

When you look closely, you see that the Jewish organizations are attempting to duplicate the success they had with the Bush family. It is that they hated the father so much, they took revenge by recruiting his feeble minded son, and making him carry water for them doing what they love most which is to insult someone Yiddish style. Similarly, they hated Paul the father so much, they are grooming his son to carry water for them by insulting someone in that same style.

These people never give up, and America always ends up paying the price for the adventures they initiate.

They Wish Upon A One Sided Armageddon

On February 12, 2013 the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) did something, the range of which they could not have foreseen at the time they did it. What they did was publish an article that was written by Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the United States; and they published a column by their own Bret Stephens.

The Oren article has the title: “Iran's Global Business Is Murder Inc.” and the subtitle: “Bombings in capital cities, kidnappings, trade in drugs and guns – Iranian exports, all. Now Tehran wants nukes.” As to the Stephens column, it has the title: “Obama's Nuclear Fantasy” and the subtitle: “The president is setting the stage for a world with more nukes in the wrong hands.” As can be seen from the subtitles, the combined message is clear: Tehran wants nukes … and [Obama] is setting the stage for nukes to fall in the wrong hands.

Well, this is the message of the WSJ which is also the message of Israel, of the Jewish leaders in America, and of World Jewry. Upon realizing what the message says, the question that comes mind is this: What do these people want? As soon as you start reading the Oren article, you realize that Israel considers itself to be at war with Iran; and what these people want is that America gets on the side of Israel to do to Iran what it did to Iraq.

Seen from their point of view, it all makes sense because the Iranians are evil people while the Jews are saints. What the Iranians do is objectionable; what the Jews do – even if they are of Iranian origin – is good. Thus, if Israel does something that is surreptitious or spectacular, it is proof of Jewish ingenuity. If Iran responds in a similar fashion, it is state terrorism. Simply put, Israel is engaged in a legitimate war against Iran, but Iran is engaged in acts of terrorism against Israel.

This is not the first time that a warring nation has demonized the other side. A war of words running parallel to the hot war has been the norm in every case. It has also been the norm that a nation at war has tried to secure the help of other nations, inviting them to join in the effort to vanquish the evil opponent for the good of all.

Perhaps the most notable of these moments came when Winston Churchill called on the Americans not to let their guards down following the victories of the Second World War because the Soviet Union – an ally up to now – was going to pose the next big threat. He urged the Americans to keep their powder dry, they did, and the consequences have been enormous.

The group formed by Israel, the American Jewish leaders and World Jewry are duplicating this approach but with a difference. It is that they play the game while maintaining three variations. The first is that the world circumstances have changed but the Jewish group is refusing to take that into consideration. The second variation is that the group is playing the game in a way that is making Churchill turn in his grave. It is that you can demonize the opponent all you want but when you lament that your soldiers and those of your allies are being terrorized by the enemy in a war theater; you insult your soldiers and those of your allies.

The third variation is that unlike Britain, Israel is not now and has never been the empire upon which the sun never set. It is not now and has never been the industrial power that invented, built or equipped its military with the weapons that would sustain it in a war for some time without the need to be resupplied by the ally it has enlisted on its side. Thus, Israel could start a war and drag America into it within days, or see its people perish in what will be called the holocaust that America let happen. The image that emerges, therefore, is that of an Israel which is holding its own Jewish population hostage, and forcing America into a horrendously demonic situation. Come to think of it, Churchill is not only turning in his grave; he is also throwing up.

So you ask: How did it happen that America got tangled up in a situation like this in the first place? And you get the answer by reading the Michael Oren article while subjecting it to a simple mathematical trick called function. It is the power of inversion. That is, where you see the author mention that Iran has done something bad, you think of it as Israel doing it. For example, he begins the article like this: “A bomb explodes in Burgas … it is Iran.” Right away, you think of it as: A bomb explodes in the King David Hotel, and another bomb explodes inside the American embassy in Cairo … it is the work of Jewish agents.

You keep going and get to read this: “...ammunition kills countless Africans in civil wars … it is Iran.” And you think of it as: ammunition kills countless Africans, South Americans and Sri Lankans in civil wars … it is the work of Israeli and Jewish agents who sell weapons to both sides in the conflicts they start themselves, and whose flames they fan in conjunction with shadowy figures they recruit all over the world.

Then you encounter this passage: “Hezbollah chief says his organization was founded to forge 'a greater Islamic republic governed by the Master of Time [the Mahdi] and his rightful deputy, the Imam of Iran.'” And you think of it as: The Zionist dream is to provoke the Armageddon that will bring about the Rapture that will summon the Messiah who will make the Jews the owners and masters of all creation. But for this to work, it will have to be a one sided Armageddon where Israel will have all the weapons it needs, and everyone else will be unarmed like the Palestinians are now.

As to the traffic in “drugs, ammunition and even cigarettes,” nobody does that more often and more professionally than the Jews who used to work for the Mossad or the Israel military, and have forged connections in many places around the world. Not only do these people smuggle drugs, ammunition and cigarettes; they also traffic in human organs, human beings and child prostitutes.

Having completed the laundry list of Iranian mischief, Michael Oren puts his conclusion on the table: “Tehran is enriching uranium and rushing to achieve military nuclear capabilities … [it] needs only nuclear weapons to complete the horrific picture.” And you think of it as: Israel wants the world to believe it has military nuclear capabilities. True or false, nobody cares but the Americans who are constantly threatened with the use of these weapons if Israel does not get what it wants from America.

This is the horrific picture that Oren ought to be talking about, not what the Jews say Tehran is doing – having said the same thing about Iraq, an act that cost America thousands of dead soldiers, tens of thousands of injured soldiers and trillions of dollars in direct and indirect cost.

And this, my friend, is how America got tangled up in this demonic scheme.

Now you read the Bret Stephens column in which he says what he says in a way that is less subtle and more honest than Michael Oren. Instead of beating around the bush to say things in reverse, Stephens comes right out and puts the argument honestly upside down. He basically says that by working to have less nuclear weapons in the world as did the many presidents from Reagan on to this day, Obama will end up having a world that contains more nuclear weapons.

His conclusion is that America should build more nuclear weapons to end up with a world that has less nuclear weapons. It is the Jewish version of rape in the name of virginity.

Sweet Dreams Of The Weekly Standard

There was a time not long ago when I wrote about the Jewish moral syphilis being ejaculated in the heads, the hearts and the souls of the unwary American people. I was criticized so severely for going “over the top,” I felt uneasy about it, and wondered if I had not said more than I should. But then the Weekly Standard came to the rescue and relieved me of my unease. It did so by demonstrating in concrete terms that I had not gone over the top but was on the money.

I owe my thanks to Lee Smith who is a senior editor at the Weekly Standard. He was the one to buttress my theory about Jewish moral syphilis – something he did by publishing an article in the February 18, 2013 edition of the magazine. The article comes under the title: “Egypt against Itself” and the subtitle: “A society on the edge of chaos.” It is a compilation of everything that a writer can do wrong to show how the Jewish propaganda machine can score big at the start of every campaign, but then fumbles the causes it champions and brings about the nefarious consequences that follow.

Smith takes two paragraphs at the start of the article to paint the background upon which he will draw a sketch of Egypt. It is a sketch that will scream: “Jewish moral syphilis” with every stroke of the pen. Here is a taste of the first introductory paragraph: “...now Egypt … is toppling. Street violence has pitted various groups against each other – anarchists against Islamists, policemen against protesters … and has left scores dead.”

Given what you see in the world nowadays, and given what you know about revolutions – bygone and contemporary – you expect that the author will elaborate to show how the confrontations in the streets of Egypt are causing the unprecedented death and destruction of which he seems to allude. With a population that is 4 times the size of Iraq and 3 times the size of America at the time it had its own revolution, you expect to be shown that the confrontations in Egypt are causing more deaths than the triple car bombings taking place in Iraq on a weekly basis, or the hundreds of thousands who died during the American civil war.

But the fact is that the number of dead in Egypt during its two years of revolution has been a fraction the number who still die in Iraq every week – ten years after the American-led change of regime in that country. And the number in Egypt has been a fraction of a fraction the number that died in the American revolution where 564,000 Americans perished on both sides in a population that totaled 32 million people at the time.

Had Egypt had the same ratio, it would have lost 1.5 million dead people, not the 1000 or less that it did. This means that, all factors being equal, there have been 1,500 dead Americans for every dead Egyptian. This is a fifteen hundred to one ratio. Thus, you can see that Lee Smith has done a marvelous job at forcing these facts to come out, however clumsy may have been the process he employed.

To go further in assessing the impact of the Egyptian revolution, we see that the American city of Chicago alone murders more people today – in peace time – than all of Egypt murders in a revolutionary time even though it has nearly 30 times the population of Chicago. To be clear, Lee Smith could not have done a better job to show what the ejaculated Jewish moral syphilis can do to the mind of gullible Americans, be they the ordinary people in the street, the journalists or the politicians. And there is still more to be said in this regard because there is a second introductory paragraph to discuss.

Here is how that one goes: “The economy is hemorrhaging reserves and incapable of securing foreign investment, while Egypt's currency tumbles to record lows.” Well, I would need to write a ten thousand word essay to show why this is the fantasy of economic illiterates. But having published several articles on economics making this point and a few other ones, I leave it to the interested readers to look at them in the archives of this website. All I would say now is that the economy of Egypt is not hemorrhaging reserves because the banks are flush with money in the local currency. As to the foreign reserves, a great deal remains in the country in private hands while the Central Bank uses what it has to regulate the exchange rate, and to maintain the desired balance between the various national objectives. It is what central bankers do all over the world.

And the one thing that the world is certain about is that Egypt is not suffering from a fiscal cliff the way that America is, and it does not need a bailout the size of Greece to come out of its ditch. Do you know how and why the world knows this? It knows it because Egypt has 8 times the population of a Greece that required 300 billion dollars to be rescued. At that rate, Egypt would have required 2.4 trillion dollars – but to do what? Nobody has an answer to this question because Egypt does not need to be rescued. In fact, all that Egypt has required so far was exactly equal to zero dollars.

The remarkable thing is that despite its ongoing revolution, the country has not had a recession. Yes, the economy did slow down a bit as did the rest of the world. It is now picking up again, and doing so in tandem with the rest of the world. To the sane people who know how to avoid the Jewish moral syphilis, there is nothing alarming in this situation. To be brutally honest about it, life is more normal in Egypt than it is in the US Congress or on the streets of Chicago. Think about it; think how the Congress would look like if it stopped kicking the can down the road and solved the fiscal cliff problem once and all. And think about it; think if the murder rate in Chicago dropped down to one murder every two and a half years. That's one murder every two and a half years not the 650 of them each and every year. Would this not look good on you, America? Well, my friend, this is the true image of Egypt, not the Jewish syphilis that the Weekly Standard is ejaculating with every stroke of the pen.

With this in mind, you go through the rest of the article only to realize that the author uses the same approach to pick what he sees as being good in Egypt, and spin it in such a way as to make it look like a bad thing. For example, he makes it sound like the IMF suspended the talks on a 4.8 billion dollars loan when, in fact, it was Egypt that asked for a postponement. Also, after spending 30 years hammering on the previous regime to denigrate Egypt, he and those like him are now lauding the old regime – but for what purpose? To denigrate the current regime which they see as the proxy that represents Egypt. More about this later.

Another thing the author does is continue to repeat a fallacy that everyone else has dropped. They dropped it because it was shown that of the three most obese countries in the World; Egypt was one – the other two being the United States and Germany. But Smith continues to say that Egypt cannot feed itself while conscious of the fact that the Judeo-Israeli begging machine continues to beg the Christians of America, asking them to donate 25 dollars each to feed the poor in Israel. And the author of the article says what he says without mentioning that the Muslim countries surrounding Israel, including Egypt, are the ones now feeding the Jews of Israel the way they have done it throughout history.

Another thing that Lee Smith does in the article is show how adept he is at picking up on a new trend when it is started by people of his ilk. What has been happening lately is that the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine began to engage in the formation of idle daydreams in the hope that this will bring about what Smith and his likes could not realize by another method. What these people do now is suggest to those they hate how they can do it to themselves and why they must. If the people of the propaganda machine can do so, they will talk directly to the person they have targeted, which is what they did with Chuck Hagel. They told him to take himself out of the race. When he did not, they told the President to withdraw the nomination.

But if they are talking to a people, such as the Egyptian people, who could not care less about them, they switch to daydreaming the idle dreams. Here is how Smith is doing it this time: “...the last two years have shown that ... a coup might leave the army split ... and fighting itself ... Muslims against Christians. The regime and its security services against its own people. Urban against rural. Secularists against Islamists. Muslim Brotherhood against Salafists.” He makes it sound like this is happening now but if this were true, there would be as many dead people in Egypt as there are in Chicago. And Lee Smith would be drinking champagne with his buddies – yet, they are not.

Seemingly bored and tired of himself by now, Smith does something that no one has done before. He comes right out and admits that the attacks conducted by the Jewish propaganda machine against Egypt's former and current leaders were not really directed at these people. He now says that the attacks were directed at the “Egyptian society itself.” The truth is that every Jewish attack conducted against someone has been an attack against all of humanity. It is the irrefutable truth that Judaism cannot coexist on equal terms with the human race. The Jewish leaders always made sure that when there was an encounter, one of them had to be vanquished. So far, the Jews were the ones to be vanquished; and there is nothing that says it will ever be different.

He is so tired by now he is ready to go to sleep. It is time to down a warm glass of milk and hope to dream an idle dream that is so pleasant he could write home about it when he wakes up. He hopes it will be a dream of this kind: “...a friend from Cairo laments ... that everyone else is gradually acclimating himself to chaos and failure on a massive scale.”

Sweet dream, Lee Smith, have a sweet dream and tell me about it in the morning.

It Is Karl Rove Versus The Iron Dicks

As I see things, it took three days to unveil something crucial about America's march into history. If you believe – like I do – that the way a nation makes history depends on the ideas it generates and sticks with at a given moment in time, you will find that the three days between February 7 and February 9 of the year 2013 should be saying something important about where America stands today, and where it may be headed.

It happened that on February 9, 2013 the Wall Street Journal published an editorial which added a meaning to a couple of articles that were hitherto unclear. Both were published on February 7, 2013 in National Review Online (NRO). The Journal editorial has the title: “The Ayatollah Always Says No” and the subtitle: “Khamenei rejects another U.S. offer. Maybe he wants a bomb.”

As to the NRO articles, one was written by Daniel Pipes, has the title: “Is Turkey Leaving the West?” and the subtitle: “The NATO member's prime minister if flirting with a dictator's club.” The other article was written by Joseph Raskas, has the title: “Cut Egypt Off” and the subtitle: “Until Morsi's government supports U.S. interests, we shouldn't send military or economic aid.”

What the three articles have in common is that they urge the American government to antagonize the three giant nations in the Middle East: Egypt, Turkey and Iran who have a combined population of a quarter of a billion people, making them almost as large as the United States of America. The thing is that all three nations had been good friends with Israel at one time or another, but are now pursuing a relationship with the Jewish state that ranges from the lukewarm to the antagonistic – whatever the reasons for the change of heart may have been.

It is clear, however, that the three published pieces are urging America to turn itself into a lackey that will tend to the needs of Israel – the supposed honored guest in this artificial drama. Is this something new, or has it been like that all along? Well, it has been like that at least during the George W. Bush presidency. And the architect of this dastardly policy was Karl Rove who has been recognized by most observers as the effective “Brain” for a W that was otherwise brainless.

But the history of America did not start with Rove or the W; it started long before that, close to five centuries before. It started, in fact, when Christopher Columbus rediscovered the continent that had been discovered thousands of years earlier by people who are now collectively referred to as Natives. But in the wake of Columbus came hordes of European settlers to what they called the New World, and the outcome was that a series of wars erupted between them and the Natives who regarded the settlers as invaders. The outcome of the confrontation was tragic for the Natives because the invaders possessed inventions that the Natives could not have imagined, the deadliest being the gun.

And the gun has played a major role in America's history since that time. To understand that role, we first need to understand something about all inventions. It was Marshall McLuhan who first observed that most inventions are used by us, humans, as extensions to (a) supplement, supplant or enhance the function of our limbs such as the hands or the legs (b) supplement, supplant or enhance the function of our sensory receptors such as the eyes or the ears (c) supplement, supplant or enhance the function of our other organs such as a kidney that is failing.

By the time that the observation had permeated the popular culture in America – as it did during the decades of the Nineteen Sixties and Seventies – and by the time it had become a part of our psychological makeup, the view of the gun as being the extension of the phallus had solidified. Consequently, the handgun that was dubbed “Saturday Night Special” and was used to commit the bulk of murders in America at the time, had taken on the image of the iron penis.

This is not such an odd thing because the attribution of a characteristic belonging to one class of objects to another class has been common to all human cultures since the beginning of time. In fact, this is how and why hieroglyphic writing was developed. In modern times, the most famous attribution has been the calling of the railroad train an iron horse.

For a long time, the gun culture was viewed as being an American phenomenon spurred by the history of a continent that was conquered by desperate men and women who fled their respective homelands in Europe for one reason or another, had nowhere to go, but had the opportunity to confront the native populations of the New World. Gun in hand, they faced off the natives and decimate them given that the gun was the weapon of mass destruction of its time, and given that the Natives had nothing with which to defend themselves against it.

Eventually, the Europeans took possession of what used to belong to the natives, made several colonies of the lands where they settled, and in turn feared that what had become theirs could be taken away because the King of England – who also had guns, and bigger ones at that – was preparing to take it all from them. The deal he offered the settlers was that they accept paying him a tax without having a say as to how the colonies were to be governed. In the event that they refuse the offer, he warned he will attack and take the colonies. The settlers refused to pay, he attacked as promised, and they defeated his army.

But then, they feared that someone they elect to govern them – even if he would govern with their consent – may someday evolve and become as tyrannical as the King of England, and seek to take away what they viewed as being the “freedom” they fought for and secured for themselves and their descendants. They came to regard the gun that made it all possible as the instrument with which they will guaranty the maintenance of that freedom now and forever. Thus, it was ingrained in their psyche that if the iron penis was not here to create new life; it was here to protect the existing life – theirs and that of their descendants. And so, they stuck to their guns as dearly as they stuck to life.

And while the paradigm of the gun culture in the Nineteen Sixties and Seventies was slowly fusing with the paradigm of free love and easy sex, Hollywood was setting the stage to usher in a new paradigm; one that was to take effect in the decade of the Nineteen Eighties. What Hollywood brought then was the glorification of horror and the depiction of indiscriminate violence. It was a culture that the advocates took pain to justify on the grounds that horror and violence were true expressions of the Judeo-Christian culture as can be seen on every page of the Bible.

In short, death and destruction were said to be the will of the God who is depicted in the Bible; a war-ridden God that never ceased to lead “his people” to battle however bloody and horrifying the battles were. What made this argument palpable, and made it difficult to counter was the fact that the Hollywood actor, Ronald Reagan, had become President of the United States of America and was becoming more popular by the day, if not for the quality of the movies he made; for his ability to talk in simple terms to simple folks.

This is when the Jewish leaders who, up to that time, were adhering to a philosophy of liberalism and a gun free society, began to turn coat and embrace a more right wing philosophy. But instead of melting into the pot of the existing Republican Party which flew the banner of conservatism, they outflanked the mainstream Republicans by creating a wing at the extreme right; one that came to be known as the New Conservative wing or Neocon wing of the Party. And they embraced the gun culture.

Moreover, these people came with a fully developed agenda. But this was an agenda they did not spell out in writing or record by any of the available means lest they produce a paper trail that would reveal their plan in detail. What they did instead was to let the agenda spell itself out while being implemented one atrocious step after the other. As it turned out, the agenda of the Neocons was an exhaustive plan that was meant to involve America in a never ending war against Islam, and against what they called “the Arab core.” The Neocons also promised to do battle with everyone else who will refuse to toe the line of the Pax Americana they were putting together.

That Pax would have been the precursor to the eternal kingdom they believed God had been promising them since the beginning of time. And what this meant in practical terms was that the gun culture which used to be restricted to America was now being transferred to the world stage by the Jewish leaders. This was done in accordance with the Jewish habit of going into a new place, selecting what is odd about it, transferring it somewhere else and shoving it down the throat of those who would not swallow. If you want to know what this habit has brought the Jews, review the events surrounding the Spanish Inquisition.

And then came the election of 2012 which demonstrated how wrong the Neocons have been in their understanding of the Jewish electorate in America, let alone their understanding of the general electorate of America, let alone their understanding the world outside America. These people proved to be as far removed from understanding anything they look at as a cockroach would be from understanding the difference that may exist between it and their Neocon mentality – however minimal that difference may be.

The result of all this has been that a civil war has erupted inside the Republican Party between the old guard – now headed by Karl Rove who wants to get rid of the Neocon influence in order to rebuild the party – and the non-Jewish disciples of the Neocon philosophy who have embraced it and have refused to let go of it. As to the Jewish Neocons, they did what comes naturally to them; they ran for cover into the dark spots as they always do when the light is turned on.

Two archetypes of the non-Jewish Neocons would be Stephen Hayes and Tucker Carlson who are middle aged men clearly going through a mid-life crisis. They realize that their life accomplishment has consisted of absorbing the Neocon nonsense and regurgitating it. The result has been that at the end of the last election, they were themselves regurgitated by both the Jewish Neocons who pumped into them the nonsense that caused their demise, and by the population they tried to impress with that nonsense.

Even then, it is doubtful that these two or any of the others in the same boat will surrender to Karl Rove because having surrendered their manhood to the Jewish Neocons, the chances are that they will respond favorably to the kind of articles published around the three February days discussed earlier, and will try to emulate them in their own writings.

And so, the non-Jewish Neocons will continue to fight like the dickens to maintain the right to show – not to the American people that already rejected them – but show the world that they still have a dick as hard as iron.

And Karl Rove has his hands full.