Throughout America's military involvement in the Middle East
at the start of the Twenty First Century, the saying had been that the more the
forces of freedom came close to winning the fight, the more the terrorists
became desperate, and so responded by intensifying their effort to prevent
freedom from establishing itself in that part of the world.
It is difficult to determine how true these sayings were
because all that we have to work with is the description of one group telling
what the opposing group was feeling, and how it acted on its feelings. Perhaps
more time is needed for history to establish exactly what happened then; but
lucky for us, we do not need time to understand something similar that is
happening now, and happening closer to home.
In the endeavor to resolve the issue of nuclear
proliferation, the Republic of Iran has been negotiating with a group of nations
headed by the United States
of America where the two camps have been at
it for a while. And it so happens that a deadline was set for reaching an
agreement by November 24, 2014, three weeks after the mid-term congressional
elections in America, and two months before the inauguration of the new
Congress.
The way things stand now is that the American
Administration, which is in the hands of the Democratic Party, is optimistic
about reaching a deal with Iran .
As to the chambers that make up the legislative branch, the House of
Representatives has a Republican majority that is taking a hardline against Iran . The
expectation is that it will remain in Republican hand after the elections.
Things are different in the Senate, however, as it is now in the hands of the
Democratic Party but has a chance of turning Republican on November 4. If this
happens, the Republicans, now in control of both houses, will be able to do
much that will thwart a Democratic deal with Iran , and demand that a different
deal be worked out … if that will be possible.
While this may sound like it is purely an American internal
matter, it is not. The reality is that the American people lost control of
their country by the fact that their system of governance has eroded so much,
the nation has come down to a level perilously close to that of a failed state.
For reasons which are better left for another discussion, what is internal to America no
longer means that the sides to a dispute are local. Something has happened that
gave much of the political control in America to an amorphous
organization with global reach having names like World Jewry and World Zionism.
It gets itself embroiled in all major “local” disputes, tipping the balance in
favor of World Jewry and a foreign entity called Israel .
Political control came to that organization via its monopoly
of the media. And you can see how the organization plays the game when you
review two articles published on the same day, October 30, 2014 in the
Washington Times. One article was written by Richard Grenell under the title:
“The midterm elections and Iran ,”
the other by K.T. McFarland under the title: “Desperate for a deal with Iran ” and the subtitle: “Obama may form an
alliance to get help fighting ISIS .”
Look at the following passage in the Grenell article, and
see if you can put together an honest argument that will show this is not a
desperate call to prostitution analogous to the escalation of terrorists
fighting the forces of freedom: “The chance of stopping the inevitable is to
elect a Republican Senate to fight the president. Pro-Israel voters, like
evangelical Christians and Jewish voters in North Carolina ,
Iowa , New Hampshire ,
Colorado , Arkansas ,
Alaska and Louisiana must realize their votes are
crucial. Flipping the Senate to the Republicans may stop the Iran deal.
Eastern European Americans should also vote to elect the president's opposition
to the Senate.” No, you cannot put together an argument that will show this is
anything but a call for a fifth column of prostitutes to rise up and serve a
foreign entity by further eroding America 's independence.
As to K.T. McFarland, she continues to play the already
overplayed Jewish game of giving credit to the Jews by discrediting their
opponent. It happens this time that he is Barack Obama, President of the United States .
She says this about him: “so far his foreign-policy legacy has been a flop.”
She then does something that is also vintage Jewish – she speculates as to what
will happen if Obama has it his way. What follows is a condensed reprint of
what she wrote in several paragraphs:
“If Mr. Obama is going to stop ISIS without U.S. combat forces, he needs an Iran deal …
What might it look like? An American-Iranian alliance satisfy the most pressing
needs on both sides. Iran would shore up Iraq's army with their 'boots on the
ground' to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria … In exchange, Mr. Obama would lift
sanctions … [his] Iran deal will be hailed as a breakthrough. American business
will applaud, as will our European allies. Everybody wins … However, the
long-term consequences would be devastating to … Israel [that will] be left to fend
for itself.” She is saying, in effect; screw America
and its allies because there is only one thing that counts on the face of the
Earth: Israel .
It is Israel ,
only Israel and no one but Israel . It is a
call to the Grenell fifth column to make sure that Israel continues to enjoy
the sacrifices of the American people who have been paying with life, money and
their dignity to make the Jew, who never got respect anywhere on this planet in
three thousand years, feel like a Rodney Dangerfield that finally got the
respect he craves. He will have gotten it by the fact that a superpower was
brought to its knees when its locally trained cowardly traitors stabbed it in
the heart.