War Mongers Employing New Tricks

For centuries the Christians of Europe have understood that the Jewish leaders benefited from pitting people against each other, thus sparking the conflicts and the wars that made them wealthy and powerful. To escape detection in America – once they had decided to turn to it looking for new feeding grounds – those Jewish leaders made it a priority to outlaw the observation that Jews were responsible for starting this war or that one.

But because the First Amendment of the Constitution forbade them from legislating the notion into an actual law, they did the next best thing which was to call an act of antisemitism, the making of that observation in public. This being a defamation, a libel or a slander, they threatened people left and right with lawsuits, thus shut them up effectively – an exercise known as the chill effect and self-censorship.

This done, the Jewish leaders pulled another gimmick from their bottomless hat of tricks; to whisper hateful messages in the ears of the American legislators and executives, thus turning them against the enemy they chose for the day. After a period of time during which they set Christian against Christian, Protestant against Catholic an do so – the way the used to do things in Europe – they got another idea which they hoped will support their effort to outlaw Christmas and the Christmas tree with the view of replacing them with Chanukah, the Menorah and the Festival of Light.

While this was going on, the Jews remained true to their nature; that of working on several levels at the same time. Thus, while they had declared war on Christianity in America – pitting one Christian denomination against the other, and all against Jesus and his Nativity – they had in the pipeline other projects that would pit the Christians of America against two other groups that happened to live outside of America. They were the godless Communists and the Muslims.

The fall of the Berlin Wall took care of the Communists, and this left the Muslims standing alone in the Jewish line of sight. This prompted their leaders to come up with the idea of toning down the attacks on Jesus and the Christmas tree while promoting the idea that we all live by the values of the Judeo-Christian culture which is different from and superior to the other cultures, especially the Muslim one. Working in stealth, they started to put the blocs together which they hoped will fuse the idea of the Crusaders wars on Islam with the reorganization of the Middle East in the style of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

To implement this plan required them to have effective control of the American military by infiltrating it at all levels, something they knew they could not do given their small number, and given the single-minded dedication to the American homeland they will be required to adopt but could not because of the divided loyalties that made them who they are. And so they came up with the idea of expanding on the notion of civilian control of the military. They gave Dick Cheney the powers of the presidency, filled his office with “children of Holocaust survivors,” gave them the power to dismiss off-hand the recommendations of the Chiefs of Staff, ordered the production of new weapon systems such as the infamous “Crusader” and prepared a war plan that will begin with the destruction of Iraq.

The war on Islam could not be kept hidden anymore, least of all from the eyes of the Muslims who knew they could not take on the American military, let alone the NATO alliance that was under American control, therefore Jewish control. But the bombing by cruise missile of a baby food factory in Sudan, and the failed bombing of the hotel where a Muslim conference was held in Baghdad, convinced such people as Bin Ladden and his young followers (whom the Americans recruited to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and later double crossed) that the time had come to do to America what America had trained them to do to the Soviets in Afghanistan. If the Arab armies cannot stop Jewish America, they said, we'll try. And so they did on 9/11 of the year 2001.

This gave the Jews the excuse they needed to come out in the open and announce the start of the war on terror which they meant to be a war on Islam. Now more than twelve years later, the American people have had it up to here seeing their superpower motherland being pulled into the Jewish sewer of hate, blood, horror, death and national bankruptcy. They want out despite the Jewish cries of war, war, war.

As the American voices got louder while the Jewish voices got fainter, the leaders of the Jews employed new approaches to keep the appetite for war alive. The latest being the idea that a war on Christians is ongoing; conducted not by the Christmas hating Jews, but by the Muslims for a reason that the Jews cannot explain.

This being the case, they had to find new and creative tricks to be effective at stirring the hatred of the American people whom they abused so badly, they could no longer move with anything traditional they say to them. You can see this in the National Review Online interview published on October 30, 2013. It has the title “Exposing 'The Global War Against Christians'” and the subtitle: “Considering anti-Christian persecution in the 21st century.” The interviewer is Kathryn Jean Lopez, and the interviewee is John L. Allen Jr., who is correspondent for the National Catholic reporter.

Lopez introduces the presentation by quoting something that Pope Benedict XVI wrote on the occasion of World Day of Peace. He said: “Many Christians experience daily affronts … because of their pursuit of truth, their faith in Jesus, and their plea for religious freedom.” To me, this sounds like he was telling the Jews to get their hands off the Christmas tree and the Nativity scenes. But that's not what Lopez wants us to believe, and so she tries to mislead the readers by employing a dirty trick that is very much in the Jewish style, and never in the Christian style. What she did was quote the Pope as saying another thing after which she wrote “he continued,” and right after that wrote down what John Allen had said. And that was something that had nothing to do with what the pope was saying. Thus, Lopez who is a Catholic, put the words of Allen into the mouth of the Pope, and this is a sacrilegious act for which she should be excommunicated.

And so it goes with the rest of the interview, paid for and sustained by the likes of National Review Online, once a respected publication but now a doormat for the Jewish boots that forever seek new opportunities to march on someone else's ground.

The Cash Cow Has Come Home to Nest

Four decades ago, in the early years of the nineteen seventies to the mid years of that decade, you could see that America was approaching the height of its vulnerabilities at becoming a cash cow in the service of the parasite that is Israel. The Jewish lobby in America was starting its marathon run on steroid, milking the cash cow to feed Israel with cash, weapons, diplomatic cover and something never seen before in the annals of international relations – ego booster and image polisher to a new ethnic group that was said to be represented by the rising Judeo-Israeli specimen.

After six years of attrition during which time the Egyptians had managed to exhaust everything that the world Jewry was able to throw into the Sinai, the Egyptian army was ready to cross the Canal to finish off and mop up the Israeli army of occupation. The Jewish and non-Jewish mercenaries and terrorists who were assembling from around the world to pour into the Sinai armed to the teeth with advanced American weapons, were drying up at a time when the air defenses of Egypt had been readied to meet and defeat any challenge that the American equipped Israeli air force could mount against them.

Finally, the day of reckoning came, and the Egyptian army crossed the Canal in October of 1973, and America thought it had no choice but to engage its own military to save Israel despite assurances from the Egyptians that they were not interested in going past the borders of 1967, but would only end the situation that was created by Israel's Pearl Harbor style sneak attack of six years ago. And it was that American decision, in my view, that was the pivotal event which changed the course of history.

Up to now, historians have concentrated on the oil embargo that was mounted by the Arabs in response to the American decision. They see it as an act that lasted a few weeks but withered away leaving no trace behind. What these historians are neglecting is the outgrowth which resulted from the Arab act, and the ramifications that followed when the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) saw a door opening for them, and took advantage of the situation. They benefited greatly when they quadrupled the price of oil in a matter of months – but something else happened. It was the start of Asia's economic rise at the expense of America whose auto industry was decimated while Asia's industries flourished. I wrote about that in the past and shall give no more details here.

What I seek to do now is contrast the posture of the Jewish lobby then, and its posture now. To this end, I recommend three articles that have appeared on the same day, October 29, 2013 in two publications. The first is the Bret Stephens column in the Wall Street Journal which came under the title: “The Unbearable Lightness of Obama” and the subtitle: “The president didn't know the NSA was spying on world leaders, but he's found time for at least 146 rounds of golf.” The second is the Victor Davis Hanson column in National Review Online (NRO) which came under the title: “Is Obama Still President?” and the subtitle: “His cadences soar on, through scandal after fiasco after disaster.” The third is the Dennis Prager column in NRO which came under the title: “The President Who Has Done the Most damage” and the subtitle: “The only question is whether it can ever be undone.”

You cannot get a better representation of the Jewish lobby in the domain of punditry than these three characters. And as you can see, they have echoed each other as if they came out of the same echo chamber at the same time. They are trashing their president because of his decision to end America's role as the cash cow which exists to feed Israel with cash, weapons and diplomatic cover, as well as be the ego booster and image polisher of the new Judeo-Israeli specimen. In short, the American cash cow has come home to nest, and the parasites out there are not happy about it.

Look what Dennis Prager has written: “Barack Obama has alienated our most important and longstanding Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.” Can you imagine what it's like for someone who lived through the 1970s to read these words? Let me tell you. What the Jews were telling the Americans, and what the Americans believed then was that they had the right to come behind an Arab who is walking in the street minding his own business, and kick him in the ass. The Arab turns around and sees that the aggressor is an American. If the Arab does not smile and say: “Oh, you're American, here is my ass, kick it again,” that Arab has insulted America and must be swatted like a bug.

That image was painted with every word uttered by the Jews and by their cohorts who spoke about the Arab oil embargo and the rise in the price of oil as being not an Arab legitimate response to America's participation in the war against them, but as the Arab blackmail of America, and the Arab gun that was held to America's head.

And out of this posture came the notion that Israel was the only thing capable of restoring America's honor. Guess how it could do so. It could do it if America consented to playing the role of cash cow feeding Israel with cash, weapons and diplomatic cover, as well as being the ego booster and image polisher of the new Judeo-Israeli specimen.

What a change in posture from those days! It is a change that reflects how much history was changed by the events that unfolded during those fateful days.

No More What the Market Will Bear

James C. Robinson is a professor of health economics and the director of a center for health technology. He is a man who knows what he is talking about when talking healthcare, and so he wrote an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal on October 28, 2013 under the title: “Comparison Shopping for Knee Surgery” and the subtitle: “The same procedure might cost $20,000 or $120,000. Here's one way to bring down prices.”

Robinson calls such a way “reference pricing” which he describes in detail, then concludes that “Reference pricing won't be the solution to all the ills of the U.S. health-care system. But it can make a contribution.” This is great stuff because the man who knows what he's talking about made a discovery that is based on the study of a real experiment, and found that the method works if not fully, at least partially. So the question is this: What if he were told that by tweaking the experiment only a little, it could be made to work not partially but fully and universally? Would he go for that?

Here is a condensed version of the way he describes the experiment: “An example of reference pricing is the initiative by the retirement organization Calpers, for orthopedic knee and hip replacement. It was upset after noticing it paid between $20,000 and $120,000 for the same procedure without commensurate differences in outcomes. In January 2010, it established a $30,000 reference-price limit on what it would pay, and identified hospitals that charged less than the limit while scoring well on quality criteria. I recently completed an evaluation of the initiative … Half of the high-price hospitals cut their rates, many by a considerable amount. Across all hospitals, prices declined in the first year, even more in the second.”

So you ask: Who set the reference price that made this near-miracle possible? Obviously, it wasn't the patients that underwent the operations, and it wasn't their doctors. Most probably it was the bureaucrats who worked for the retirement organization. They did not choose the minimum of $20,000 but chose a number that is 50 percent higher; they chose to pay $30,000 for the surgery; and this is still only a quarter of the $120,000 that some hospitals were gouging out of their clients.

So then, why not have trained bureaucrats make that same sort of determination not only for knee surgery but for everything that a universal healthcare system such as ObamaCare would cover? In fact, this is what we have here in Canada, and the system has been working well for half a century. Tweak it a little if you must, and you can make it work in America too. But that's not what James Robinson is suggesting because of something in America he calls the “impossibility theorem.” Huh, what's that?

He explains the beast this way: “The impossibility theorem maintains that … the arrangement underlies the innumerable rules, subsidies, entitlements, mandates and prohibitions that collectively make health care the least efficient part of the economy. ObamaCare makes it worse.” What? What is Robinson saying? For one thing, ObamaCare is just starting and has not had the time to make anything better or worse. But what is worse than bad in what he is saying is that nobody will understand his gobbledygook. Moreover, if healthcare is the least efficient part of the economy in America, it is not that healthcare cannot be made efficient; it is that healthcare is not compatible with a dogma market economy such as the one that he and some other people wish to implement in America. And let me tell you why this is so.

Dogma capitalism is based on the principle that the supplier will charge the consumer a price that is as high as the market will bear. Only competition from multiple suppliers will put a check on what they will all charge for a product of the same quality. And that's the only efficient mechanism by which the ultimate price for any product should be determined, say the disciples of dogma capitalism.

But as they discovered in America, a knee and hip replacement used to cost $20,000 in one hospital and as much as $120,000 in another hospital of the same state. Why? Because when you are in pain, you don't shop around; you do anything to relieve the pain as soon as possible. Now imagine what parents will do when they have a sick or dying child. They will not get on the internet or the phone to shop around; they will call an ambulance to take the child to hospital as soon as possible. They will ask the questions later.

What this says is that some things in life do not obey the forces of the marketplace, therefore must be regulated. On top of the list would be healthcare because the well-being if not the life of the individual depends on it – and in many cases on the speed of its delivery. This is what the advanced nations, including Canada, have discovered after undergoing long studies and long philosophical deliberations. The time has come for the Americans to accept this simple concept and join the civilized world.

James Robinson is better placed than anyone else to lead America in that direction. Instead of doing this, however, he seems to champion a system that is based on reference pricing, but one that is married to something that sounds like marketplace economics. For a mysterious reason, he does not want to come right out and say so, but what he describes is a two-tier system.

I had a personal experience with this system, so let me tell you about it. Looking at an X-ray I had done for the chest, the technician saw a growth in the pancreas and thought it might be cancer. He recommended that I undergo an MRI as soon as possible. When my doctor explained all this to me, I told him too bad I just came back to Ontario from Quebec where it is said that a two-tier system was creeping into the Province. For a fee, I could have an MRI in a few days rather than wait a few weeks. He said not to worry because he was putting RUSH on the order for the MRI. He asked me if I wanted to take it to the hospital myself rather than wait for a messenger to come and do so. I said I'll go.

I took the order to the hospital and asked the clerk when will I get the call that will give me an appointment. She looked into the scheduling book and asked if I could be there at four thirty this afternoon because she could squeeze me in at the end of the technician's shift before the next one starts at five. I said sure I'll be there, and I had my MRI on that same day – no fuss, no muss and no charge. That was eight years ago, and I am alive to tell you about it.

I believe that every human being on this planet, including the Americans, should be served in this way. What do you say James C. Robinson, will you do that for your country, your people?

Open Ended Plan that Swallowed America

On October 25, 2013, the Washington Post published an opinion piece by John McCain and Lindsey Graham under the title: “Obama is failing the Middle East, and U.S. interests there.” The next day, the New York Times published a report by Mark Landler under the title: “Rice offers a More Modest Strategy for Mideast.”

The McCain Graham piece is a rehash of the Jewish talking points we have endured for several years with not a single word that is new in it. Thus, the trashcan would be a good place for it. As to the Landler report, the “Rice” in the title is the name of Susan Rice who, when Condoleezza Rice (no relation) was a rising star in the Bush administration, Susan was made to feel very jealous, and was brainwashed into going on television to do something that would upstage Condi – as she was nicknamed.

To that end, Susan (but never a Susie) was made to utter the demand that America bomb the oil installations of Sudan, an old dream of the Jewish leaders who believed that were it not for the oil wealth of the Arabs, the Jews would have convinced the Americans to turn all of Arabia into a hellish ball of fire that the Jews could then walk in and take over from the Moroccan shores on the Atlantic Ocean to the shores of the Persian Gulf near Central Asia. Well, nobody listened to Susan because even the Bush administration was not retarded enough to be that primitive or that savage.

Before you read the McCain and Graham opinion piece, and before you read the Landler article – if you have not read them yet – it would be helpful for you to read the following backgrounder so as to acquaint yourself with the history that got us to this point.

The self appointed leaders of those who call themselves Jews never had a plan to achieve what they wanted for themselves because they thought that a plan had been determined for them since the day of creation by none other than the Creator Himself who chose them to be His favorite children. All they had to do was wish for something, go for it and never worry about the consequences of their action because, no matter what they do and no matter what the result will be, God will fix things for them in the end.

The followers of those leaders bought this line when they still believed that God was talking to the leaders high up on the mountain where they could not see what was going on. They truly believed that God was conferring with the leaders, that He gave them instructions and told them what He expected of the foot soldiers that waited down below. But then one day, the foot soldiers got tired of obeying instructions from a God they could not see or hear, and so they told the leaders to find someone else who will obey the commands they bring down from the mountaintop because the foot soldiers were not playing the game anymore.

And this is when the leaders of the Jews began to think of tricks, and to devise new ways and new means by which to fool the unguarded from among the non-Jews, to get them to do for the Jews what the Jews would no longer do for themselves. Over the centuries, they went through Western Asia, North Africa, Eastern Africa, Eastern Europe and Northern Europe where they convinced the local leaders to support the Jewish masses financially, and have their own people fight the Jewish wars while the Jews sat back and collected the benefits without lifting a finger in their own behalf.

One by one, the local people of those regions eventually woke up to the realization that their leaders were betraying them by selling out to the Jews who became the effective masters of their homes. And they dealt with the matter, each in their own way according to the level of civilization they had attained. Those of Asia and Africa put a limit on how far the Jews could go before they were told to stop here or leave the community. Those of Eastern Europe rioted against the Jews and mounted violent pogroms against them. Those of Northern Europe burned individual Jews in their homes or in public; later gassed them and incinerated them wholesale.

That was the time when the Jewish leaders went to America in search of a new feeding ground where they were able to pull their tricks on the local leaders, thus discovered the ways by which they could make the masses pay for their upkeep as well as fight the Jewish wars for them near a place they called Israel where they established a so-called homeland; one they claimed was promised to them by God since the beginning of time.

And because that act was the expression of an incredible savagery directed against all of humanity, not just the local population which happened to be Palestinian, the Jews who settled in the land were never able to conquer it fully or effectively despite the help they received from America which kept Israel afloat as an economic concern, and despite the wars that America launched to exterminate everyone around it who may someday rise up and seek to put an end to Jewish savagery and American complicity.

The Jewish leaders got that far because they were able to convince the American leaders to drop everything they were doing for their country and for their people, and devote their attention and the nation's resources to Israel and to other Jewish demands instead. The Jews managed to do all that because they came up with an open ended strategy with no exit and no plan B; a strategy that ended up swallowing all of America.

The strategy was made of two parts. The first part was to tell the American leaders: “Give us the tools and we'll do the job” by which they meant to say that they will do all the killing they can do by themselves. The second part was to tell the American leaders of the necessity for having a “division of labor” whereby the Americans will do the killing that the Jews cannot do by themselves.

The strategy has been in effect for something like a quarter century, and all that America got from it is a descent from the level of admired superpower to the level of a joke that is not even worth a chuckle. President Obama is aware of this and wants to change it. McCain and Graham are too backward to understand any of it. Susan Rice may have a PhD but like my friend used to say: They are ignorant and have their PhDs to prove it. She can try to prove otherwise but I doubt she will succeed.

Gang of Rapists Raping the US Constitution

Once again, Eric Cantor who is the House majority leader in the US Congress has teamed up with the likes of Matt Brooks who is director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, and Robert Menendez who is the male bimbo Democratic Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, to organize an international party, and make it look like the eunuch that is Benjamin Netanyahu is raping Iran when in fact, it will be the US Constitution they will all be raping at the same time that the eunuch will be running around the globe telling anyone who might be listening that he knows how to get things done in the once superpower that was America, now rendered a wretched whorehouse of the Jewish variety.

It used to be that the Congress respected the wish of the framers of the constitution, and left the business of conducting foreign affairs to the president of the republic who is, after all, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The only way that the congress was able to interfere with foreign affairs was to cut off funds destined to bankroll an ongoing war that was conducted with or without its consent – whether or not it had declared it but was now deemed to be too costly or too deadly to continue.

And then, it happened that the Jewish organizations were able to infiltrate every aspect of American life where they positioned their people in all key posts, thus took over the republic and turned it into a Jewish colony where everyone was conditioned to love serving the Jewish masters at the cost of their families, their communities and their country. One of the places that became a handy tool in the toolbox of the Jews was the congress of the United States where they used every parliamentary trick they could think of to rig the joint, and make it pass laws that turned the constitution into an instrument of shameless Jewish prostitution.

A favorite trick was and continues to be letting a bill that everyone wants to see become law take its course almost to the end. But the Jewish lobbyists would come at the last minute and add a rider to it that is a long time Jewish demand. It would be something that few non-Jews if any in the congress would want to see become part of the law, but the lobbyists would have it inserted anyway, and no one would protest lest they be punished. And since the president has no line-item veto power, he would not veto the entire bill just to kill the unwanted rider. And the worst part is that some of the time, the rider would amount to usurping powers from the presidency – such as the field of foreign policy – and hand them over to the congress where the Jewish organizations have almost full control.

With almost no powers left to him by which to conduct a foreign policy that will serve American interests rather than Israeli interests and the Jewish ego, the president of the United States has been reduced to begging the congress as well as the Jewish lobby and the foreign entity that is Israel – currently governed by the eunuch Benjamin Netanyahu – to let him do something for America which is, after all, his responsibility more than he is responsible for fulfilling Israeli wishes or Netanyahu's castrated ego. You can see an example of this sickly charade when you read Jay Solomon's article in the Wall Street Journal of October 26, 2013. It came under the title: “White House, Congress Clash on Iran” and the subtitle: “The Obama Administration is Arguing that Diplomatic Efforts need more Time.”

The clash exists because President Obama wants to do what is good for America while Eric Cantor, who is a Jew, wants to do what is good for Israel and for Netanyahu's ego. His line is that “Iran needs to immediately [that's immediately] end noncompliance with demands” and that “time is running out” which is something that the Jews have been saying for nearly twenty years now. Meanwhile, the line of the White House has been that “American negotiators need more 'flexibility' to pursue diplomacy in the coming weeks.”

But flexibility in the hands of others is anathema to such dictatorial entities as those whipped up by the Jews for every occasion. These people want flexibility for themselves to the point of conducting any and every discourse in the ambiguous clarity of the moral syphilis they have become notorious for. But when it comes to someone else asking for a breather; for flexibility and for time to do a good job rather than rush things, they demand explanations to explain what has been explained a million times before. And if you do not rush and do things exactly as they prescribe them, they start running around, crying out hysterically that the apocalypse is here because the end is near. Help, help, help – they weep and whine.

According to the Solomon article, the result of the clash has progressed to this point: “The Israeli leader's allies on Capitol Hill have been pressing for immediate new sanctions,” also progressed to this point: “'Our resolve … remains unchanged, and we will not hesitate from proceeding with further sanctions and other options' said Robert Menendez after meeting Mr. Netanyahu.” This is happening at a time when the: “Obama administration officials feel they already have significant economic leverage over Tehran and worry additional sanctions could undermine [Iran's] ability to negotiate … We can always impose new sanctions later if the Iranians pull back from the talks, said a senior US official.” But all that is falling on deaf ears.

Why are the Jews so adamant about torpedoing the negotiations with the Iranians before they even start? Because of this: “Once these confidence-building measures are taken, Iran and the global powers would seek to reach a final agreement on ending Iran's nuclear posture.”

This being the civilized way to doing things, it does not sit well with the Jewish organizations or with Netanyahu, both of whom want the world to believe that the Iranians knuckled under because Netanyahu waved his castrated manhood at them, threatening to nuke them to kingdom come the way that Israel threatened, and was then kicked out of the Sinai, Gaza, South Lebanon, the Eastern Golan and Hebron.

These people are forever the pathetic bunch that can never get it right.

The Jealous Freak and the Wise Bishop

Does the following sound familiar to you? “Mom loved my Brother more than me.” This is basically the message that Raymond Ibrahim conveys to the world in his latest article, published on October 26, 2013 in National Review Online under the title: “Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood vs. the Copts” and the subtitle: “U.S. Policy toward Egypt favors their enemy.”

So you ask: What does Raymond Ibrahim want? And this is where you scratch your head in puzzlement as you look for an answer in his article where you'll find numerous questions and assertions but no clear answer to your question. So, you try to construct a possible answer from what else he says. In fact, he begins the article with a question: Who is more deserving of punishment, millions of Egyptians or the Muslim Brotherhood? And he goes on to say that actions taken by the Obama administration imply that the millions of Egyptians are in the wrong.

Upon this, he gives a list of the churches that were vandalized in Egypt over the past few months, and the handful of Christians that were shot. But who is doing that and why? He answers the question like this: “Needing someone to scapegoat in their drive to set Egypt ablaze, Brotherhood leadership demonized the Christian minority [including] the Copts.” What that means is that the conflict is about Egypt not about religion.

In any case, what could America have done? He answers the question, and the answer basically amounts to this: Are you kidding me? And he explains why. Look at this passage and marvel at his logic: “Since the administration got away with lip-service approach when Americans were killed – condemning the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi … and then ignoring the whole affairs – surely it wouldn't hesitate to take the same approach with a foreign nation.” Well, well, well, it seems that Raymond Ibrahim is saying that America loved the Brother more than him and more than the Benghazi Americans. So why complain? Never mind answering this question.

Finally, he seems to allude to what he wants, but then quickly shoots down the idea. Here is how he does that: “Human-rights activists have been imploring the Obama administration to make foreign aid to Egypt contingent on respect for the rights of all Egyptians, including the Christians.” So you ask: Is he asking that the advice be followed? And this is where his answer becomes muddled. On the one hand, he says this: “Members of the Muslim Brotherhood are more motivated by money than by the prospect of killing Christians.” Wow, so the idea of vandalizing churches and killing people has more to do with money than with religion. Is that it?

Well, yes and no – or perhaps, it's a maybe. Here is what he says in that regard: On the other hand, when … the Obama administration cut aid to Egypt in response to the ouster of the Muslim brotherhood, what additional proof do Americans need to conclude that their president is on the side of Islamic terrorists?

What does that mean? Does it mean that the terrorists were not appeased before the aid was cut off, and they are not appeased now that the aid has been cut off? Or what is it? No response there.

And this brings us to the article that was written and published on the same day, in the same publication by Archbishop Amel Shamon Nona. It has the title: “Faith in the Time of persecution” and the subtitle: “A letter from Iraq to Christians in the West.” He begins the article by asking the question: “How can we live our faith in a time of great difficulty?” And he answers as would a typical Christian that's immersed in his religion. But like the subtitle says, this is also a letter to Christians in the West. And he has an advice for them. It is as follows:

“Many people living in freedom from persecution, ask me what they can do for us. First of all, anyone who wants to do something for us should make an effort to live out his or her own faith in a more profound manner, embracing the life of faith in daily practice. For us the greatest gift is to know that our situation is helping others to live out their own faith with greater strength, joy and fidelity.”

In other words, he says that the first thing we do here in the West is mind our own business. From there he draws a parallel that should be an eyeopener. Here is the first part: “To know that there are people in this world who are persecuted because of their faith should be a warning to you to become better, and a spur to demonstrating your own faith as you confront the difficulties of your own society, as well as the recognition that you too are confronted with a certain degree of persecution because of your faith, even in the West.” And here is the second part: “We suffer at the hands of fundamentalists coming from distant countries to fight against us, using as an excuse that their brothers are being persecuted in various countries.”

In other words, the wise bishop is saying that we're not “holier than thou” and besides, those who persecute the Christians in Iraq don't do it because of their religion but because we, of the West, are persecuting their Muslim brothers in their own countries. And he does not stop here. He goes on to say: “There is temptation to which Christians can fall victim, and which I never tire of warning against: we can, with the passing of time, end up becoming persecutors ourselves – turning to violence.”

And he ends like this: “We are happy because we have the opportunity to reflect on our choice to be Christians. We are happy because we have the opportunity to make our freedom concrete.” And that's a challenge to us.

He is saying, in effect, that because we, in the West, have not proven the strength of our faith by going through an experience similar to theirs, we have no right to believe we can help them in any way, shape or form.

That's also another way of telling us to buzz off.

Seeing Through Eyes and Through Eyeglasses

When the world gets tired of hearing you say: “gimme, gimme, gimme,” you change your tune to a variant that sounds like this: “give them to gimme,” which sounds just as boring and more disgusting. Moreover, to get yourself into a position of being able to say that them are threatened by the same menace that's threatening you, you make the comical assertion that you can see things through the eyes of “them.”

This is what Clifford D. May has done in his October 24, 2013 article in National Review Online which came under the title: “Iran Through Saudi Eyes” and the subtitle: “The Saudis don't think we comprehend the magnitude of the threat. They may be right.”

Clifford May is not the only one to have written about the Saudis this week, so did Karen Elliott House who had a longtime interest in writing about the Middle East and Saudi Arabia, having spent a month in that country to study the people close-up and get to know them better. Her latest piece was published in the Wall Street Journal on October 25, 2013 under the title: “Behind the Saudi-U.S. Breakup” and the subtitle: “Furious over Obama's Mideast policy, the Saudis are shifting away from the U.S. – but where else will they turn?”

There is no doubt that something has happened to fray the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States. Thus, Karen House tries to get to the bottom of the matter by doing what any journalist would do which is to dig up the history of Saudi Arabia in matters concerning their national security, and show how that history could be acting on the Saudi leaders now. It is a genuine attempt to see things through Saudi eyes even though she does not say so in the title of her piece.

Karen House goes on to tell how America's response to the current events in the Middle East is reviving memories of what Saudi Arabia had to endure when threats from outside the kingdom were unsettling its rulers. And so, she tells how the Saudis responded to the American response. She says they canceled the speech that their foreign minister was to give at the UN General Assembly, and then turned down an invitation to take a seat at the Security Council. This push against the body that is seen in the region as being America's playground, is “intended as a blunt message to the Obama administration,” says House.

In addition, Saudi Arabia has its own collection of internal issues to manage while managing its external affairs. Those issues have to do with the matter of succession which seems to consume the royal family at this moment given that the time has come for the power to govern the kingdom must be handed down from the geriatric crowd to the younger generation.

Karen Elliott House goes on to say that the Saudis have no one else to turn to for protection, thus she concludes that the apparent rift with the United States does not look like a divorce but a trial separation.

As to the Clifford May column, he does not see the matter through Saudi eyes despite the title he chose for the piece. Instead, he sees the matter through eyeglasses tainted with all the hues that would be recognizable in a typically Jewish presentation.

Clifford May takes half the length of his article to describe the current situation from his point of view which happens to be compatible with the Jewish spin. But where he gets to talk like an authentic megaphone in the service of the Jewish propaganda machine, is when he invokes such names as Dexter Filkins whom he anoints for this occasion as being “among the top foreign correspondents in the world,” general Stanley McChrystal, formerly of the Joint Special Operations Command, and US Ambassador Ryan Croker. And the reason he invokes these names is to make the point that Iran is bad for America which is euphemism for “Iran must be destroyed because it is bad for Israel.”

And instead of doing what Karen House did which is to give background in what concerns the history of Saudi Arabia (the subject about which they are both writing,) he gives a history of what he says is Iranian mischief-making around the world – from Beirut to Berlin to Buenos Aires to Washington DC.

By now, Clifford May feels he might as well drop the mask and stop pretending he is writing about Saudi Arabia. So he mentions “Senator Mark Kirk who proposed a plan that would operationalize an idea first floated by Mark Dubowitz of the think tank I head.” And this idea would be to freeze Iran's remaining assets.

He goes on to tell what else should be done with Iran, at which point he remembers that he is supposed to be writing about Saudi Arabia. So he ends his presentation by saying something about Saudi Arabia: “Years ago, the Saudis began pressing Washington to take action against Iran … Here again the Saudis had a point.”

These people are hopeless in that they cannot do anything that does not benefit them, and them only.

When Madmen Are Allowed to Seize Power

Since the beginning of time, people (mostly men) have seized power in the society to which they belong, have ruled it, and have proven themselves to be benevolent rulers that did good things for their society, or turned out to be evil rulers that did bad things to the society; even crossed the border and went on to do bad things to the neighboring societies.

It boggles the mind when you think about it – think about how someone can rise from a modest beginning, seize the reins of power in a society, and get to the position where he can command absolute power without someone around him noticing what he is up to, and stopping him before he goes too far, and pulls the whole society down the precipice with him.

Most of the time you find that such individual had joined an existing set-up and planned early on to take it over. To get there, he would work himself into a position of adviser to the person that is currently at the top of the heap. Secure in that position, he learns all about running the operation while at the same time forging a close relationship with the people at a lower level of command; people he dreams will become his sycophants the day that he seizes the power at the top.

This is how the scenarios used to unfold in the fiefdoms of a bygone era when palace coups were the norm, and everyone watched their back not knowing how, when or by whom a dagger will be planted into it. Things have changed since that time whereby the form by which the power is seized in the modern era has taken a different path. This is not to say that the substance of human ambition has changed over time. What happens now is that the ambitious who have a personal agenda seek to have it implemented not by seizing the power themselves but by grooming someone they help get to the top where he will remain their sycophant, and implement the agenda for them.

The system we now call democracy is well suited for that kind of scenario to unfold. The individual who runs for the top job needs to have around him a big organization and a large number of people who will do such chores as knock at the doors of the constituents, man the telephone banks, communicate through the social media, and most of all raise the millions of dollars that will be needed to pay the campaign professionals, and pay for the other expenses, most of which being advertising in the audio-visual and printed media.

Campaign professionals who have expertise in one field or another are helpful to a campaign, and this is why the man running for office pays them to advise him. This gives them a certain amount of influence which they may or may not be able to use to advance a personal agenda. Most of the time, it will be the man with ambition, an agenda and especially gobs of money that will command the attention of the one running for office. He will have the most influence on him, and have a set of issues for him to articulate during the campaign. He will also have designs with regard to a personal agenda he wishes to see implemented after the win if they win the election.

Who would be the advisers or the man with gobs of money that determine how a campaign is run or what the nation will ultimately do as a result of their influence? Well, we have the example of the group of men that call themselves children of the Holocaust survivors who inflicted holocaust on millions of people in the Middle East, and thousands of families in America under the reign of George W. Bush. It is that the W – as he came to be called – won the election, and so they were able to implement their once hidden personal agendas.

As to the man with gobs of money that did not manage to have his agenda implemented; he would be Sheldon Adelson who backed Mitt Romney when the latter was running to be president of the United States during the 2011 campaign. You could already tell what Adelson was up to when he convinced the manifestly inferior character that is Romney to go to Israel and receive a million dollars for making the admittedly false observation that the Palestinians are a race of people inferior to the Jews, not matter what race the latter came from before converting to Judaism.

But that was not the hidden agenda. If you want to know what was, read the Andrew Rosenthal article in the October 23, 2013 edition of the New York Times. It came under the title “No Comment Necessary: Fight Nukes With Nukes” and has an accompanying video clip that will raise your hair. You will find that this man Adelson is truly a madman who will do to the world as much damage as any horrible dictator, if he ever manages to seize the reins of power in a powerful country. Thank the heavens that Romney lost the election.

Senators Thirsting for Coptic Blood in Egypt

On October 21, 2013, Senators Bob Corker, Lamar Alexander and Roy Blunt wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry on the subject of Christians in Egypt, and making a passing reference to the rest of the Middle East and South Central Asia, but curiously enough not Nigeria or the other places in West Africa where attacks on Christians have been truly murderous.

And not a word was written in that letter about the repeated pleadings for help that the Christian community in occupied Palestine has launched to the world community with regard to the shabby and murderous treatment that its members have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of the Jewish settlers, the Israeli army and the Israeli government.

So the question that must be asked is this: What do the American senators want? Come to think of it, this trio of senators is the least you would expect to see get involved with a subject such as this. Thus, you must conclude that the senators were selected to be the placid front of a demonic agenda being put together and executed by an evil force that is refusing to accept defeat. The reality is that some heinous people have failed to see a river of blood flow alongside the River Nile as they had predicted, and so they decided to take another approach and make the prediction come true in some other way.

And you know this to be the intent of the demonic agenda because the things that the senators – however innocent they may be – are asking for in the letter, are the sort of things that would be required in order to pour gasoline, and fan the flames of the fire that the evil ones have started; a fire that is refusing to flare up and become the horror they are praying to see materialize.

The senators make this introductory statement: “Egypt's Christian minority and their ability to worship are in danger.” Well, unlike the Christians of occupied Palestine who are truly helpless, the Christians of Egypt have a powerful church and a powerful Pope who sits with the leaders of Egypt and the leaders of other nations. If the Christians of Egypt needed help, the Pope would be the one to speak for it. In fact, many who came from Gods knows where, have approached him and approached the leaders of the three main churches in Egypt (Coptic, Catholic and Anglican) and asked them to appeal for help but the leaders told those characters to get lost.

Knowing this, the evil characters who urged the senators to write that letter, told them to follow the introduction with this: “The situation warrants a clear U.S. Response.” Before elaborating on that, they pave the way by making an observation which they believe will support their elaboration. However, the observation they make ends up doing the opposite of what they expect of it because it is as absurd as any Jewish argument can be. Here it is: “Reports describe an 18-hour attack on Christians during which security officers in charge told an international investigator that it's not the police's job to stop the killings but to investigate afterwards. Well, if they only investigate afterwards, why did they go to the site and sat there during the 18 hours that the attack lasted?

Failing to see how stupid this is, the senators go on to support their elaboration with this: “As you continue to review U.S. Policy towards Egypt and consider how to advance U.S. Interests in this country, we ask that you speak out clearly and publicly against Egypt.” This is the response they are asking Kerry to give. It is a mouthful that says they want someone to hear America's message clearly and loudly. So then, what is the message? It is that the unwanted protection of the Christians in Egypt is in America's interest? But who is the message intended for? It is intended for the soccer hooligans who vandalize the churches, having discovered that it is the surest way to get the low life in America to give them the coverage they crave. The Senators of America and the soccer Hooligans of Egypt have formed common cause. Now you know why the Congress is in such a mess.

And they don't want to stop here. They want to go as far as this: “We ask that you nominate someone to be the next ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom.” Of course, that character will be a Jew who will not attempt to alleviate the situation for those who need it most in occupied Palestine, but will work on fanning the flames where he is not needed in the Middle East and South Central Asia while skipping West Africa.

They end by saying they want to stop sectarian violence and end the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt. This is phoney because what they really want is set the whole place in flames. It would be the culmination of the Jewish prophecy which requires that it happens for the messiah to come and declare the Jews owners and masters of the world.

Advisers more Ruinous than a Fifth Column

The one thing you can be certain of when it comes to the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) is that they will betray themselves trying to show their moral superiority by putting on a magnificent display of moral degradation instead. This is happening now because the current editors inherited the mantle of an older generation; one that was advising the American government with a sound editorial policy, and was respected for it as it minded the business of the business community.

But now that the Journal has fallen into the hands of the fifth columnists who were fielded by World Jewry, the sound editorial policy of a bygone era has transformed into a relentless and discordant symphony urging the American government to immolate its own people, and to blow up its own finances on the altar of Israel's interests and those of Jews everywhere in the world.

Fooled by the erroneous belief that they still enjoy the respect of the nation and that of the world, the current editors of the WSJ go about the business of discussing their political ideas with the certainty of a scientist whose theory has just been proven correct by experiment. You can see the full display of this mentality in their latest editorial, published on October 23, 2013 under the title: “Our Former Friends the Saudis” and the subtitle: “So how is that vow to repair America's frayed alliances working out?”

But the truth is that the current generation of editors never referred to the Saudis as friends of the United States, yet here they are now referring to them as former friends. It is a replica of the performance which they and others like them put on with Mubarak of Egypt whom they treated like an enemy and badmouthed from here to eternity while he was in power. But when he was toppled, they mourned the passing of his regime, and cried out that he was an ally, and the best friend that Israel and the Jews ever had in the Middle East.

And so, instead of running to the rooftop of the building to beat their breasts like apes angry at themselves while shouting WE WAS WRONG for the whole world to see and hear, they try to make of the current development a symphony about President Obama whom they say “likes to boast that he has repaired U.S. alliances” to which they add the smart-ass remark: “He should try using that line with our former allies in Saudi Arabia.”

And that, my friend, would be their way to signal that they were correct in treating Mubarak and the Saudis like enemies in the past, and in speaking of them as former friends now. No doubt, the editors of the Journal believe that this is a display of moral superiority in the best of the Jewish tradition, and no doubt they are proud of it. They may even be secretly beating their breasts in triumph like apes who feel they have been vindicated.

And then, instead of taking up the whole subject of America's relationships with the nations of the Middle East to review the way that they have developed over the decades, the editors zero in on a single report filed from Riyadh by their own Ellen Knickmeyer. And they argue that the Saudis are “disgusted” at America because of one and only one policy decision that was made by guess who – the Obama Administration, of course.

It is that nothing matters to these people as when they work for Israel and when they put down their own American President. Maybe they will call him a former friend after he leaves office but for now he is no better in their eyes than Mubarak was while in power, and the Saudis were before they spoke of their disgust.

And so, the editors of the Wall Street Journal go on to discuss that one policy decision – the one that has to do with Syria, and by extension Iran – not from a point of view that would serve the interests of America but a view that is meant to serve the interests of Israel.

And of course, by taking this approach, they presume that Israel has been the only good friend America had, and that the Jews have been the only good advisers that America listened to. And they presume that such remains true today as it was in the past.

However, many Americans are now saying to that whole notion: With friends and advisers like these, who needs enemies or a fifth column to sabotage the nation from within and from without.

Achieving Growth while Avoiding the Bubble

There is no doubt that a direct relationship exists between investment in the economy and the growth it will experience after the lapse of a period of time. And when we say investment, we mean that instead of consuming all of this year's production, we set aside a portion of it to use as seed with which to increase next year's production thus achieve growth. The farmers understand how this works because they deal with physical objects such as the amount of grain they choose to sell or plant, the chicken they choose to send to the market or raise to lay eggs, and the cows they choose to slaughter or milk.

Modern life being more complicated than simple farming, we do not make a direct link between having to save a production machine to make other production machines, or saving a power plant to make other power plants. We think instead in terms of saving some of the money we receive from selling the products made by the machine, or saving some of the money we receive from selling the electricity produced by the power plant – and using that money to buy other production machines or buy other power generators. This is how we plan for and achieve growth in a modern industrial economy.

Here is the rub. The complicated way of doing things has consequences because money is fungible which is why we call it liquidity. The reality is that wheat seeds can only produce wheat, chicken can only produce eggs or chicken, and cows can only produce milk or meat. But when it comes to the industries that produce goods, or those that produce services, you cannot produced more of the product by using the product itself without employing money as a medium of exchange to facilitate the intervening transactions that will be called for.

This means that the surplus money created by the power plant can be used to grow the power generation capacity of the plant but also used to purchase other production machines. But look what will happen in the latter case. These machines will require power to work; power that will not be there because the money was not invested in the power generation facility to make more of it. And this eventuality has the potential to create two problems which are common to a modern economy. They are the industrial bottleneck and the financial bubble. The first problem usually happens to single industries at a time such as power generation that is lacking the necessary funds to grow. The second can happen to the economy as a whole or to a single industry that is in vogue and also in short supply.

The people who make decisions as to how the investment money should be allocated are called entrepreneurs, business people, financiers, money managers or what have you. But whatever the name, they are of two types. There is the type that makes products such as the goods or services that the public or business community will buy. And there is the type that will invest in those businesses for the purpose of making a return. The first are true entrepreneurs who love the craft in which they have immersed themselves, and think of the money they make while exercising it the icing on the cake. Because they are in the business, they sense the increased demand for their product when this happens, thus allocate resources to expand the business. This is how growth is achieved in their industry; growth that also contributes to that of the economy as a whole.

As to the second type, they are the people who work with their own money or work with other people's money. Most of the time, they worry about the health of the economy only in the way that it might affect their bottom line; which is euphemism to mean the profit they will make at the end of the year or end of the quarter. And this means they will adhere to the saying: the trend is your friend. That is, they will invest the money under their control where they see growth happening without worrying that a bubble may be forming in this sector or in the economy as a whole – and this will add air to the formation of the bubble. Meanwhile, these people will concentrate their attention on timing; which is to say they will try to figure out the best moment at which to sell their holdings, thus convert their bubbled up assets into cash.

They will do this then sit back and wait for the market to crash so that they may get into it again, buy what they sold and more at a cheaper price. This is how they achieve growth in their portfolio, growth that will happen at the expense of someone else in this zero-sum game. It will also add growth to the money supply but not to the real economy because there will be no increase in the goods or services produced.

Worse than that are the people who short-sell products they do not have at high prices at the height of the bubble thus cause it to burst and cause the prices to come crashing. When this happens, they buy the products at a cheaper price and give them to those who bought from them at a high price. They pocket the difference between the price at which they sold the product they did not have, and the price they paid to have it. This is how they achieve growth in their portfolio and the money supply but not the real economy. All sorts of problems for society follow this occurrence.

To avoid such occurrences in the future, we must reject the notion that the marketplace is a good allocator of resources. It may be the best of a bad bunch but not good enough to run a modern industrial economy. And it is easy to see why; most of the funds which are invested today end up in the hands of people who care only about the bottom line. What motivate them are fear and greed; and that's no way to run an economy on which millions of people depend to raise their families. So then, what can we do?

To make it simple, the process by which money is lent to entrepreneurs should be streamlined, and the interest on the money lent to them must be kept as low as possible even when the collateral is minimal or non-existent. At the same time, money that is lent to the financial institutions must be strictly regulated, foremost among these being the brokerage houses that also double as banks.

Naked short-selling must be criminalized under any circumstance. Also, a stock that a broker lends someone to short-sell must remain the responsibility of the broker. That is, if a broker lends me a stock to short sell, and the stock goes down, I pocket the profit. But if the stock goes up, it will be tough luck to the broker who will have to cover the difference if I don't.

This may not be all that is needed to fix the system but it will be the beginning of a shift in the culture, pointing to a better way by which resources should be allocated for the maintenance of a sustainable growth.

Strong Opposition to a Strooong Signal

Look at them shed crocodile tears for the culprit who received a slap on the wrist, and look at them blame his doings on everyone else but him. And so now you want to know: Who the culprit is? And the answer is that he is a financial institution; one of those that is supposed to function as a utility channeling money from the central bank to the real economy but ended up doing something else. What it did is pocket most of the money – as do most of the financial institutions nowadays – instead of channeling it to the real economy where real goods and real services are produced.

We're talking about J.P. Morgan Chase, the leviathan bank that tentatively settled a case with the Justice Department whereby Chase will dish out 13 billion dollars to compensate the various victims that suffered as a result of its activities. And this is the reason why the editors of the Wall Street Journal are shedding tears in an editorial they published on October 21, 2013 under the title: “The Morgan Shakedown” and the subtitle: “A landmark that shows how much politicians now control U.S. Finance.”

But don't let the title fool you – it is that the editors of the Journal did not mean to convey the truth about Morgan Chase shaking down its customers as well as the public; they mean to convey the impression that the Justice Department (and the politicians too) shook down what they want you to believe is poor and innocent J.P. Morgan whose annual earnings amount to only twice the amount leveled against it.

And why are the law enforcers doing this? The editors say that it is “for no other reason than because they can and because they want to appease their allies.” And this says to you, me and all their readers that the editors have allied themselves with the culprit, but the reason here and their motives remain obscure.

Having done this, they appoint themselves pro bono lawyers for the poor defendant, and take a couple of paragraphs to re-litigate before public opinion the case that took five years of give-and-take between the parties to come to the conclusion that they did. And this is where the editors attribute the blame to everyone else except their client.

Now guess who is on the list of those they blame? Here is who they blame: “Even if you believe those charges, the victims would be the institutional buyers of those securities … who aren't mom and pop.” Did you get this, my friend? The editors of the Wall Street Journal are telling would-be bank robbers that next time a cop comes around to arrest them, they should tell it: Hey, this bank is an institution; it's no mom and pop, so take a hike buddy.”

And now, in a role reversal of the most comical kind, the editors of the Journal use the argument that their political opponents used to employ in the past. In their closing argument, they spin and rehash the old notion that the culprit was not responsible for his actions, but that someone else was. Someone like perhaps all of society, or if not, then Barney Frank, those in the Congress and the governors of the Federal Reserve. Neat huh!

Gone is the notion that the culprit is responsible for his own actions, and that he should be punished severely because justice must be seen to have been done so that a strooong signal is sent out there to all those who might be tempted to emulate his actions.

The Journal wants it to be so that no copycat should be tolerated if an ordinary John Doe robs a bank, but if a gargantuan bank robs all the institutions and all the John Does that it can out there, it should be considered a flagship of American capitalism doing the right thing. Thus it should be absolved of any wrongdoing.

Stupidity Mistaken for Superior Intelligence

Norm Coleman is someone who seems on the surface to understand the situation – perhaps because he had a hand at shaping it – and yet, here he is trying to fix what he admits have been the unintended consequences of bad policies. The sad part is that he is doing so with a forked tongue – as would say the natives here in North America. You get a sense of all this reading the article he wrote under the title: “U.S. must champion democracy in Egypt” and published in the Washington Post on October 18, 2013.

Speaking about America's decision to review its relationship with Egypt, Coleman begins the article by saying that the decision “adds ... ambiguity to a Middle East policy that has yielded mostly unintended consequences rather than stability and hope.” The two key words here are “adds” and “ambiguity.” To say that ambiguity was added is to admit that ambiguity was there already, and that the new decision has made matters worse. And why is that? Because the stated intent was to foster stability and hope in the Middle East but the unintended consequences yielded an opposite result.

Whether Norm Coleman used the word ambiguity consciously or unconsciously, the reference here is to the Israeli religious adherence to pursuing a set of ambiguous policies in the Middle East. This tradition translates into saying something and doing another thing – usually the opposite – which signals to the observer that these people believe that ambiguity is the mark of a superior intelligence because it has the power to confuse those of inferior intelligence.

And he, being one of the staunchest supporters of Israel, and a diaspora architect that helped to shape the Jewish-Zionist-Israeli policies, it is reasonable to conclude that he must have had a strong influence on how the policy of ambiguity was formulated and implemented by Israel as well as the Jewish lobby in America.

So the question: What did the policy of ambiguity look like with regard to the relationship with Egypt? Here again, you find the answer in the Coleman article not because he gave it in a straightforward and honest manner but because he spoke with a forked tongue once again. Here is that passage: “Now is the time to pull Egypt … a key U.S. ally in the region.” Did he say a key U.S. ally? Wow! You would not have thought so had you been reading what the Jewish lobby, the hundreds upon hundreds of mouthpieces, and the echo chamber followers were mouthing off all those years.

I responded to as many of those characters as I could, and you'll find my articles in the archives of this website, shown on the right side of the page. It is that these authors came out waving the red flag and yelling at the American administration, telling it to stop sending money and weapons to Egypt. They said so whether the country was governed by Mubarak, by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) or by the Brotherhood. Yes, that's how the Jews were telling America to treat a key ally at a time when Israel was enjoying the benefit of having a normal relationship with Egypt – what Coleman now says was there all the time. Is this the mark of a superior intelligence or is it that of an inferior intelligence? You decide.

And there is something that can help you decide. It is that Norm Coleman did not end his article at this point. What he did is give advice in a language which, if you look at it closely, you'll find it to be the product of the same mentality which produced the ambiguous policies of the past. Instead of doing this, he should have gone up to the highest rooftop in the city, beat his breast like a King Kong and shouted: WE WAS WRONG. But that's not what he did because he had something else in mind; he accused the Obama administration of not adjusting to reality, which he says is adding to Egypt's instability.

What? Hold your horses, man! First of all, a mind that is formed by ambiguity can never tell what reality looks like. Second, if there is instability in Egypt, America's posture will not stabilize it. Third, if Coleman chooses to characterize what is happening in Egypt as instability, the fact that America kills in peace time as many of its own people in a month as were killed in an Egyptian revolution that lasted two and a half years, says that America is the very definition of instability. Fourth if, in his view, the political give-and-take in Egypt adds tons of instability to the country, he must hold the view that America's continuing shenanigans in the congress and outside of it add megatons of instability to America.

Still, he goes on to describe a situation in the Middle East that is stereotypical, then gives advice about it which is the opposite of what he and his people have been giving over the years. This is their newly formulated advice: “If the U.S. had a strategy, it would point to supporting Egypt,” to which I can hear millions of Egyptians express a collective sigh of astonishment that goes like this: Oh yeah! And where were you during the last two or three decades?

Undeterred, Coleman goes on to say that the United States badly needs to restore trust and credibility with the Arabs. You know what, my friend? This trust and that credibility existed before the Jewish organizations, headed by the likes of Coleman, spent energies of cosmic dimensions to sabotage.

But now that the Egyptians have had it up to here, and have decided to go their separate way, the architect of destruction sees fit to blame the result of his handiwork on President Obama, then advocates a reversal of his own policies, calling them those of Obama. What can be more Jewish than that?

Rethinking Wealth and Distribution of Income

What does it mean that someone has a net worth of 2.9 billion dollars whereas someone else is worth a mere 290 million dollars? On paper, it looks like the first is 10 times wealthier than the second, but to understand what this means in practical terms, we need to think about wealth in terms of what it is in reality, not what its projection makes it look like. And the projection here is the dollar figure that is attached to wealth.

And so we ask: What is wealth in practical terms? To answer the question we take two real-life situations and compare them. It is said that Mitt Romney – who ran to be president of the United States not long ago – is worth somewhere between 250 million and 300 million dollars. Let's make that 290 million, and juxtapose it to the 2.9 billion that Stan Druckenmiller is said to be worth. If you want to know who Stan is, read the article written by James Freeman in the October 19, 2013 edition of the Wall Street Journal. It has the title: “How Washington Really Redistributes Income” and the subtitle: “The renowned money manager goes back to school to explain how entitlements are helping the Baby Boomers rip off future generations.”

Freeman describes Druckenmiller as being “a member of the 1% – make that the 0.001% – one of the most successful money managers of all time.” As you will learn from reading the rest of the Freeman article, one has to be a super salesman to become a super wealthy money manager. And promoting himself is what Stan does at the start of the interview he had with Freeman. In fact, the man began by selling himself and his newly adopted mission – that of telling the young to watch out for characters like himself who are out to rip them off.

After several paragraphs of self-promotion which he interweaves with cheap attacks on President Obama, Druckenmiller takes up the subject of income distribution; and Freeman begins that part of his article as follows: “Which brings him to his thieving generation.” To set the stage, Freeman tells us that Stan founded a hedge fund and ran it for three decades. He retired three years ago from managing other people's money to run his own assets. And only now does Freeman tell us what Stan's beef is about: “Why in five years the massively indebted U.S. government will begin sending him a social Security check for $3,500 each month?”

So Freeman asks the question: “Because he earned it?” and lets Druckenmiller respond: “I didn't earn it,” which he does while discussing the transfer of wealth from the younger generation to the older one. The man then explains his idea by giving hard figures. He says that today's 65-year-olds will receive on average net lifetime benefits of $327,400 whereas children born now will suffer net lifetime losses of $420,600 because they will be paying the debt incurred by the older generation.

Several more paragraphs of the Freeman article are taken up to discuss how those figures impact the current generation, and what they will do to future ones. The problem with this approach is that it deals with the dollar value of ideas which are nothing more than the projection of future realities imagined by debaters who cannot tell what the future will look like because they are no prophets.

Well then, what's the best way to analyze the situation and form a good understanding of it? The first thing we do is separate wealth creation (which is the production of goods and services) from income distribution (which is the handing out of money as wages, salaries and bonuses.) This is important because the first is what makes the real economy; the second is what makes the projection of it – one that can be distorted by local mini bubbles or by a general bubble affecting the whole economy. The second thing we do is separate the basket containing the non-durable goods and services which are consumed within a year or two of their production from the basket that contains durable assets such as the real estates, the production machines and the infrastructures.

So now, we ask again the question that we asked at the start of this presentation: What does it mean that someone has a net worth of 2.9 billion dollars whereas someone else is worth a mere 290 million dollars? It means that Drukenmiller's basket of durable goods contains ten times as much as Romney's basket. Neither of them walks around with that much cash in their pocket; what they have are certificates and deeds that say they own these properties therefore have control over them. Most of the assets would be producing an income, some of which is used for the daily expenses of the owners and the rest ploughed back into the business.

When you come right down to it, there can only be small differences between the daily expenses of Mitt Romney as compared to those of Stan Druckenmiller. In fact, it sounds that Mitt's ego is so much larger than that of Stan, he probably spends more to flaunt his wealth – such as having a car elevator in his house – than does the more modest but bigger mouthed Stan. And that's not all because neither of these two gentlemen can eat a whole lot more than the average person given that no matter how fat they get, there will always be someone fatter than they; someone that will turn out to be less wealthy. And like the saying goes: They wear their pants one leg at a time like everyone else.

To sum up, they may be a thousand times or ten thousand times wealthier than the average person, but that's only because the basket of assets under their control is that much bigger than the basket of the average person. They wear stuffed attires all day long, and long to get home as soon as possible to slip into something more comfortable. And when they die, they do not take it with them but let their descendents inherit the control of the assets they spent a lifetime accumulating. An increasing number of them now choose to distribute a good part of their wealth on charitable causes.

And this brings us to the current retirees who live on Social Security and Medicare. Stan Druckenmiller says he does not want the $3,500 a month that the government will send him when he reaches the age of 65. It is good of him that he will refuse to take the money; and good of him to suggest that there should be a means-testing for handing out Social Security and Medicare. But this does not support his argument that the current generation is ripping off the younger one. The fact is that the middle class will hand the assets it has accumulated to the next generation in return for receiving enough to cover its daily expenses.

When you look at it objectively, these people cannot eat anymore than a person can and that, in the aggregate, amounts to much less than the surplus food America throws away now. Also at their age, these people need very little clothing if at all. And they live in their homes or in apartments that would go decrepit if left unoccupied. Thus what they receive from the government is not what creates the burden on the next generation. They are not the thieving generation; someone else is responsible for the thievery.

Who could that be? Well, by his own admission, Stan Druckenmiller is one of those responsible. It stands to reason that a society cannot consume more than is physically possible. If we're talking about a Third World country where everyone lives the high life in a place that produces very little, money will be borrowed to pay for what they receive, and the country will get into trouble. But America produces or can produce what it consumes, which means that if it has a foreign debt problem, the responsibility falls not on the consumers but on the producers who take their assets and move to places where they can produce things cheaply.

These would be American producers who locate their industries abroad and turn around to sell to Americans foreign goods that must be paid for with money borrowed from foreigners or printed by a Fed that gives out cash for securities – much of which is of dubious quality. And who gets all that printed money? The people close to the Fed such as the Druckenmillers and the Romneys.

Yes, America needs reform of the entitlements but the pendulum must not be allowed to swing too far in that direction for, the middle class is not the culprit; the Druckenmillers and the Romneys are.

When Fanaticism Threatens the Heritage

When the Taliban blew up statues that were representative of the Afghan heritage, people the world over were baffled as to their motive. Some said the Taliban must be so fanatic about whatever religion they have adopted; they could not tolerate a symbol of the old religion. And some said, the Taliban must be so fanatic about their newly acquired power, they wanted to give a demonstration of it for all to see. Whatever the real reason, the act of the Taliban was nothing but a demonstration of the power of fanaticism.

You do not have to be a primitive bunch of kids to be fanatic about something, and use the power at your disposal to demonstrate it. The first time I became aware of this reality happened long ago when Canada changed the measuring system from the English to the Metric. It used to be that when you exceeded the speed limit and were caught, you would get a ticket condemning you to pay one dollar for every mile above the speed limit. And usually, the cops would not stop you for anything less than five miles above the limit. Thus, driving in the city, you would normally get a ticket for five dollars or ten dollars – unless you were a beast on wheels.

On the day that the system changed to the metric, and most cars still had their odometers showing the speed in miles rather than kilometers, I was stopped by two cops and given a ticket for 15 dollars. So I asked: What's that about? And one of the cops replied: That's in honor of Pierre Trudeau. Well, I did remember that a few fanatics on the radio were making hay about the change from the English system to what they called the French system, but that was the first time someone made the linkage between the French system and the French name of Pierre Trudeau who was then Prime Minister of Canada.

The cops explained that the change from the English system to the French system nullified the bylaw which set the fine to one dollar per mile, and that they were free to give any fine they deemed appropriate. I asked what they thought my speed was and they said: It must have been more than five miles over the limit which translates into God knows how many kilometers, and so they deemed that 15 dollars should be okay. Well, I did not like what happened, and went to court to fight the ticket but the cops did not show up, and the case was dismissed.

That incident taught me the lesson that fanaticism is a force that would combine with the official powers conferred on the fanatic, thus form a powerful tool that can be used to hurt the innocent in society if not the society as a whole to further the goals of the fanatic. And this is what comes to mind when you read the article written by Jim Demint and published in the Wall Street Journal on October 18, 2013 under the title: “We Won't Back Down on ObamaCare” and the subtitle: “Fighting a law that is unfair, unworkable and unaffordable is reasonable and necessary.”

Once a senator who could not change things while occupying a space in the seat of power, Demint became president of the Heritage Foundation where he hopes to change things by pressuring the seat of power not from within as required by the rules of democracy but from the outside by rallying the people to his point of view. The reason why he is doing this, he says, is that he wants to “protect the American people.” He says as much while admitting that “Supporters of ObamaCare defend the law [because they too] want to help people.”

Thus, you have two opposite sides who believe they are doing what is good for the American people. The difference is that one side is made of the adherers of the law of the land which makes of it the existing heritage, whereas the other side calls itself the Heritage Foundation but seeks to blow up what is already there in a manner that is not much different from the actions of misguided fanatics like the Taliban.

Most of the arguments used by either side have been rehashed over and over again, and there is no point repeating them here once more. But there is one new element that Jim Demint has introduced into the debate; an element he says is based on research done by his Foundation. It is that the premiums will increase, and that “the hardest hit by the increases will be young adults.”

This is possible and it is as it should be because the reality is that if the young get sick while young, they will be taken care off. If they don't get sick now, they will have paid enough into the system that when they get old, they will be taken care of with the money they paid into the system. What the young cannot do is not pay into the system now because they are generally healthy and they reckon they will not use it unless tragedy strikes and they fall ill or have an accident. But if not, and they get old, they will still want to depend on a system in which they paid little or nothing. This is not how insurance works, and they must not be encouraged to think that way.

Do you see what the Heritage Foundation is advocating here? It is telling the young people it's okay to depend on the system twice without paying into it once. They can use it when young because society will not let them die even if they are not covered. And they can use it when old because society is generous enough to look after them even after they pass their productive years.

So then, who will pay for all that? Borrowed money will. Thus, if anything, Jim Demint and the Heritage Foundation are blowing up America's chances to be free of the burden of debt by claiming to do the thing that will free America of the burden of debt. These people are wrong and working against themselves because they are blinded by ignorance, by unchecked fanaticism or both.