False mea Culpa leads to more Confusion

Liz Peek says that the waters are calm, yet the American ship of state is sinking at a time when other ships – especially those of ISIS, Russia and China – are doing well. She blames the situation on the American “elites” who see nothing good about America … even teach such lessons to their children and to those of others.

Peek is doing this in the article she wrote under the title: “Why Elites Think 'Pro-America' Is So Last Century,” published on January 28, 2015 in The Fiscal Times. The amazing part is that she is behaving like those of her ilk who carry little demons on their shoulders telling them what to say and what to do. These are the calamity creatures that come armed with sabotage instruments they use to poke new holes in the hulk of the ship as they go around the maintenance crews who work furiously to plug the holes.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world can see that America's agents of doom are the little demons who deliberately work to sink the ship, and then tell the likes of Peek that it is Americans of one stripe or another who cause the country's current troubles. In response, she and those of her ilk do the mea culpa, a false act of contrition that keeps them from going after the demons they carry on their shoulders and those on the hulk of the ship who work to speed up its sinking.

Peek uses the example of an agency called the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to show how Americans of a certain stripe cause the country to lose the respect of the world, thus “lose ground to ISIS, and lose the hearts and minds of thousands of impressionable young men and women to radical Islam.” She explains that all this is due to: “Political jockeying, lack of direction, mission confusion and union battles,” reasons why the U.S. has been without a voice during a period of intense Jihad recruiting.

There is good news however, she goes on to say, because someone new has been appointed to head that agency, and he may just be able to fix it, and fix the other things. But wait a minute, how is he going to do that? She thinks aloud and tries to give a response: He will have to convince the world “that U.S. values and beliefs are … what, exactly?” Confused, she can only observe: “We are also hampered by today's culture.”

Only now does she identify the stripe of those who “break out in hives” when something positive is said about America, calling them the “liberal elites” who oppose the idea of changing the BBG into an overtly propaganda arm of the United States government. She laments this situation because, in her view, it is a reversal of a time when America defeated both Nazism and Communism precisely because “Americans believed in themselves and their country.”

But what about the demons on her shoulder whispering in her ear what to say and what to do, as well as those on the hulk of the ship who poke holes into it? Is she going to say something about them? Oh what a couple of stupid questions! Of course, she is not going to say something about them; they are the ones telling her what to say and what to do. Surely, they will not denounce themselves or advocate their removal from the scene.

And so, she doubles down on the mea culpa thing by generalizing the blame and pinning it on “a president, and a younger generation that views the U.S. through a different prism.” She says this has encouraged the news organizations to give false or incomplete coverage of events such as the war in Afghanistan, and has contributed to the doubt that built up with regard to America's military and America's morals.

To solve the cultural problems, she suggests: “We should debate the issues that challenge us.” To explain how this can be done, she blurts out what the demons on her shoulder whisper in her ear. Thus, instead of shouting: “Let's put a long moratorium on listening to the Jewish demons that have done so much already to destroy America,” she says this: “It is important to question and challenge our government.” And why is that? Because she says: “We need a balance.” What balance? Oh, stop asking embarrassing questions.

Instead, she goes on to say: “We believe in free speech...” without saying that she is not free to even pronounce the word “Jew” because if she does, the Jewish demons on her shoulder will stop whispering, and will get on with the business of beheading her professionally, assassinating her character and ruining her life.

She continues: “It is time to take the gloves off, and herald [our old] values and ideas.” The trouble is, the demons on her shoulder made her forget what those values and ideals are.

Why Jewish Talk fails to impress

If the intent of talking about a subject matter is to leave a permanent impression on the listener, then Jewish talk must be the least impressive of all. That's because it is designed to generate an instant shock that grabs the immediate attention of the interlocutor but nothing more. Empty of substance, Jewish talk dissolves into thin air during the time that it takes it to travel into the ear of the listener and out the other ear.

This is why the Jews prefer to debate someone verbally and not in writing, having prepared an ambush to “gotcha” the interlocutor with something he never expected. It is why they never debate someone in a give-and-take exchange that is done in writing where they know they can never make a coherent presentation. And it is why they prefer to “dialogue” among themselves by presenting their own point of view and that of an opponent they made sure they silenced beforehand and placed on a blacklist.

You can see how deficient a Jewish presentation can be when you review the work of even their best (their cream of the crop) and find it to be the literary equivalent of a soap bubble. It is impressionistic rather than informative, lightweight rather than dense, erratic rather than stable, and aimless rather than focused. It is heat that serves the moment rather than a beacon of light that is meant to endure.

One such example is Charles Krauthammer's column that came under the title: “The Final Solution: a Nuclear Iran” and the subtitle: “Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe, and in the Middle East a new Holocaust looms.” It was published on January 29, 2015 in National Review Online. Whether he chose to insert “Final Solution” in the title or that was the choice of the editor, the message is the same. It is that the presentation contains as much substance as you will find in a soap bubble.

Look at the chain of thoughts that took him about a third of the column to express. (1) “Anti-Semitism has returned to Europe. With a vengeance.” (2) “It has become routine.” (3) “The rise of European anti-Semitism is in reality just a return to the norm.” (4) “The hiatus is over.” (5) “European anti-Semitism is not a Jewish problem [but] a European stain, a disease of which Europe is congenitally unable to rid itself.”

This is the block of ideas upon which the writer stands before moving on to the next block. So you ask yourself: what's in that block? You look closely at the text and find that the writer narrates the history of European anti-Semitism, and then describes it as being a “congenital disease.” Wow! He says congenital, which can only be interpreted one way. He means to say that the Europeans suffer from a disease called anti-Semitism at the genetic level. It is incurable. It can be temporarily dampened with shame but never eradicated.

Is that it? That's where he intends to leave the discussion as far as this block of ideas is concerned? Yes, he says, because: “From the Jewish point of view, European anti-Semitism is a sideshow.” End of discussion on this subject. But you protest: What about Jewish responsibility in this whole affair? Is there not something to be said about the Jews making an effort to get along with the Europeans? Nope, he says, let's move on to the Middle East where Israel is situated and where the heart of global anti-Semitism has shifted.

He does not use the word congenital this time, but he speaks of global anti-Semitism which is how he transmits the notion that the European genetic defect is not only European but one that is suffered by the entire human race. And that's the reason why: “For America, Europe and the moderate Arabs [they will have] nothing to do with Israel,” whereas for Israel, the threat is “direct, immediate and mortal.”

Unlike his discussion with regards to the Europeans, however, Krauthammer now gives a hint as to how the so-called anti-Semitism is generated. He tells of an Iranian President who said: “Application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.”

Assuming this is exactly how the Iranian President expressed himself, it is clear that he was responding to the Jewish repeated boasts that Israel possessed at least 200 nuclear devices with which every Arab and every Muslim on the planet can be annihilated with one push on the nuclear button. It is that the Jew can have his bomb and use it too; whereas the Iranians can't even bake their yellow cake.

And since in Jewish eyes, you cannot use the same sauce for both the goose and the gander, the two can stay together if that's the only accommodation you can prepare, but they must remain unequal because you can't 'compaaaare' one with the other. Their motto is unmistakable: What's mine is mine; what's yours is disputed.

Furthermore, the Jew must always have the upper hand while the others must accept – even love – being in a subordinated position. But that's where many of the others resist, an act that the Jews identify as being the anti-Semitic genetic defect which is plaguing the human race.

All the while, they see nothing wrong with what they are doing. Thus, life goes on unabated, and they keep asking for compensation. It is how their subculture says balance can be attained.

Netanyahu's private Toilet now Putin's Toilet

To show a guest the extent of our hospitality, we say in English: “Make yourself at home.” The Mexicans have a different way of saying it; they put it this way: “My home is your home.” And now, a heretofore secret variation on the saying is beginning to establish itself in the open. It goes like this: “My private toilet is your private toilet.” It must be understood, however, that only the Jews can say it because the private toilet they refer to is none other than their very private American Congress.

In fact, before saying it in the open as they have now done, the Jews have been saying it for several decades to the foreign leaders who would listen to them. They managed to convince a number of them in Africa, Asia, Latin America and more importantly in the newly liberated nations of Easter Europe, that they can make the Congress of America serve their needs and those of their nations if they will kiss Israeli asses, participate in the kicking of Arab asses or do both at the same time.

Thus, the Jews gained a few allies but lost them as quickly as they made them, which is the sordid pattern of Jewish gains and losses throughout time. And as usual, they failed to learn from those experiences the lesson that would have shown them what they needed to do to become an integral part of the human race, and live a normal life the way that the rest of us do. And having failed to learn the lesson, they may be about to repeat the failure while playing their hand in the open this time, and playing it over a new set of stakes.

Actually, they were forced to play the hand you can read all about in an article that was published on January 27, 2015 in the New York Times under the title: “Save the New Ukraine,” written jointly by Bernard-Henry Levy and George Soros. The story is that the Jews met their match – Vladimir Putin who turned out to be not only a master chess player of international diplomacy, but also the master rodeo cowboy who lassoed them, tied their legs together, and kept them lying on their sides as he went about shaping the world away from the image that used to please them … in the image that pleases him and his people.

Putin told the Jewish Establishment: Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are my Judea and Samaria. If I lose them, you can bet your sweet little derrieres that you'll be kicked out of Palestine before you know what hit you. Try to flush the Congressional toilet on me, and you'll find yourselves inside the septic tank, taking in the stink you thought you were sending in my direction. And this is why, my friend, you see the washroom attendant, John Boehner invite Netanyahu to speak about a bunch of suicidal kids who could not hurt a fly, while staying away from talking about Ukraine. Also, this is why the big honchos of the Jewish Establishment are discouraging Mitt Romney who called Russia the number one enemy, from running to be President this time.

This being the reality on the ground and in the corridors of power, what is there that a couple of dissidents can do to offset the loss of the American Congressional stink? Well, what happened was that a typical Jewish phenomenon began to coalesce into a new Jewish apparition. It happened that the Right Wing, Bernard Levy called on the Left Wing, George Soros to tell him that the time had come to develop a new private toilet; this time in the heart of Europe. It will be a legislative toilet that can replace the American Congress ... which is going to hell in a hand basket all by itself anyway.

And so, you see an article written by the old clown and his new bank-roller, heralding posthumously that: “A new Ukraine was born a year ago.” It has remarkable qualities, they say: “The new Ukraine seeks to become the opposite of the old Ukraine.” And that's because: “Maidan's supporters have moved to nation building.” The trouble is that these good people “are up against the hostility of Vladimir Putin who wants to destabilize Ukraine.” And you haven't heard about any of this because: “the new Ukraine is a well kept secret from the world [even] from the Ukrainian public.” But believe it, this is a story that's as good as “the Georgia of 2004.”

So now, the two writers make their demand. They want the European Union to immediately provide $15 billion. They ask for patience when it comes to expecting Ukrainian successes because: “democracies are slow to move.” Yet, they deride the slowness of the European Union because: “Mr. Putin is exploiting this.”

To end in a typically Jewish fashion, they warn: “What is at stake is the future of Ukraine and the European Union itself.” And they promise: “If Europe is generous, Ukraine will provide an example that Russia's financial troubles lies with Mr. Putin.” So there you are.

A vanilla Mask hiding ugly Faces

There is an ongoing controversy as to what we should call the kids who join a terrorist organization and fight for the causes that draw their fancy. In the old days when kids who were animated by the same sort of fancy joined an ongoing struggle (WW I, the Bolshevik Revolution, the French Legion, WW II, the Spanish Civil War, the various South American, African or Asian mini wars) people did not categorize them as being of one bent or another. They simply viewed them as kids that volunteered to fight for this cause or that one.

Things have now changed because the kids who join foreign causes identify themselves as fighting for a specific aim: the defense of Islam, a religion in which they were born or to which they converted. And so, a number of pundits in North America and elsewhere have started to insist that these kids be called terrorists … worse, that they be identified as Muslim terrorists. Opposed to this notion, are people who reject the use of this sort of language because they see the entire subject matter as being more complicated than to call the kids and their movement a name by which to identify them.

Both sides in the controversy agree that calling the movement this or that will shape our response to it. Thus, each side is holding on to its position for a reason that is more than semantics. One side believes that calling the movement, Islamic terrorism will trigger a calamitous war of the religions. The other side believes that calling it terror perpetrated by criminals will cause our law enforcement agencies to fight a non-existent enemy while neglecting to go after the real enemy which is out there plotting to kill us all.

So far, the debate has been unfolding mostly in the abstract because the debaters themselves have not been clearly identified. Important is the fact that those who seek to define the movement as Islamic terrorism have maintained their faces hidden behind a vanilla mask. But given that the ramifications of doing what they ask for are enormous, it is important to know who they are. This will tell us what their motives boil down to and whether their argument is a genuine contribution to knowledge or a disguised attempt to advance a hidden agenda.

Lucky for us, a small break has appeared in that vanilla mask. It came from a most unexpected place – from the pen of Elliott Abrams who wrote not on the controversy itself but a subject that is barely related to it. He wrote: “Overkill in Riyadh,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “After sending no one to Paris, Obama sends a crowd to Saudi Arabia.” It was published on January 27, 2015 in National Review Online.

The subject is the death of the Saudi king, an occasion to which the Obama Administration has sent a delegation that strikes Abrams as being too large. Having started the article by asking the ironic question: “Did the king of Saudi Arabia just die, or was it Winston Churchill?” he went on to express more of his feelings with this: “Abdullah was a reformer and was widely respected in the kingdom, but let's not exaggerate. He was not a historic figure.”

Well, let's not even try to unpack these assertions, or seek to assess the importance that the dead Englishman or the dead Arab will command in the history books of their respective jurisdictions. Let's instead ask this question: What would motivate someone like Elliott Abrams to write an article only to say that a better impression could have been made by means other than sending a large delegation to the funeral? Actually, Abrams expressed his sentiments this way: “A small delegation consisting of Obama, Clinton, and Bush (ok, may be Carter too) would have made a far greater impression.”

What is he talking about? Who does he think needs to be impressed, and who does he think has been impressed? There is only one way to answer these questions. It is to think of Elliott Abrams as being the Jew that wants to have it both ways. He wants America to maintain a relationship with Saudi Arabia that is robust enough to serve Israel. But he does not want a funeral delegation so large as to give the dead Saudi king an importance equal or greater than that of Winston Churchill. A conundrum.

But why interfere with what the history books may or may not say about someone in the future? Honestly, there is no direct answer to this question, but there is a remark that can be made. It is that only the Jews are motivated by a hatred of such intensity that they seek to mutilate history whether it has been made already, or it is in the process of being made.

And it is hate of this intensity which motivates the people who wish to trigger a war of the religions. Thus, the people behind the vanilla mask can only be the Jews and their running dogs. They must now come out and identify themselves as such before they can argue labeling the fighting kids as Muslim terrorists.

This done, the world will know that the war of the religions is not between the Judeo-Christians and the Muslims; it is between humanity and the Jews who wish to destroy it by a process they call Armageddon.

Target of the Jewish moral Syphilis

Websites such as this one, as well as all sorts of other outlets where pundits are allowed to express themselves freely, have been warning that the charade they call “freedom agenda” and such other names, is but a Jewish plot whose intent goes well beyond what appears on the surface.

For example, seeing the running dogs run around crying out hysterically “punish Egypt, punish Egypt” for refusing to let foreign so-called civil societies operate in the country, may appear to have been working toward the goal of encouraging the growth of American values in Egypt and elsewhere, but the reality has always been that America itself was among the targets – if not the chief target – of the demonic exercise that must be called by its proper name: the injection, if not the ejaculation, of Jewish moral syphilis into the heads, the hearts and the souls of the American people.

Yes, Egypt and the other countries – in whose face the barking dogs have been barking – got visibly irritated … but that's precisely the effect that the Jewish organizations wanted to provoke so as to turn around and tell the Americans that their values have been embraced by the Jews, and rejected by Egypt and the other countries. And the message has been that the American people must now love the Jews and hate all those who reject America by rejecting its values.

The insidious effect of all this has been that America itself was slowly transformed into something that would have horrified the Americans that were conned originally into buying the charade that the Jews were working to promote American values abroad when in reality they were working to anesthetize the American people as they stealthily brainwashed them to instill into their subconscious mind the doctrine that unquestioned submission to the will of the Jews was a good thing.

Thus, while pretending to work towards the goal of making the world submit to the will of America, the Jews have been working towards the goal of making America submit to the will of the Jews. And they succeeded brilliantly as it is apparent from the column that Marc A. Thiessen has written under the title: “Why Netanyahu is right to go around Obama to Congress,” published on January 26, 2015 in the Washington Post.

After portraying what he calls “senior American officials” as being a bunch of headless idiots who “threatened” Netanyahu for going to the Congress – which is America's foremost civil society – behind the back of the Administration, Marc Thiessen characterized that whole episode as follows: “No wonder Netanyahu is going around these people to Congress for support.” Did you see this, my friend? He calls senior American officials ”these people.” Let him try to pull a denigrating stunt of this caliber in an Arab country, and see how many lashes he will receive, or how much time he will spend in jail.

Furthermore, feeling confident that the American people have been so completely anesthetized and so thoroughly brainwashed that they will wholeheartedly accept their country's role being subordinated to that of the Jews, Thiessen went on to say: “The fact that Netanyahu felt compelled to speak to Congress speaks poorly, not of Netanyahu, but of Obama.” Thus, he did the very Jewish thing of spitting in the face that is the symbol of America, and then blamed it all on the victim.

To justify that whole sickly performance, Thiessen pulled another well known Jewish trick: he plucked a fallacy out of thin air, and presented it as if it were the gospel truth. Here it is: “Arab leaders have made clear that they share Israel's view.” The truth is that the Arabs would rather be infested with the proverbial “fleas of a thousand camels” than be forced to smell a Jew who would come closer to them than a mile and a half. And that's without the Jew transforming their country into a pathetic image resembling that of a subordinated America. Yuck!

But if that subordination had happened – which is the case in Palestine – look at the way that the people there are fighting back to maintain their Arab dignity, and maintain the freedom that is normally associated with human beings, rather than pretend to enjoy the freedom that is associated with a domesticated dog. Such dog may be getting all the love that his masters shower on him, but it is never a few feet away from the leash that can be slapped around its neck at any time.

The American people will not know what freedom feels like until they experience it again, should they be so lucky as to snatch it back from the hands of their Jewish masters.

Halloween Tricks of the Sugar Man

Every day is a Halloween day at the New York Daily News, and the things that you can expect to see come out of there are only tricks. That's because the treats are kept hidden for when they will be shipped to Israel and wherever else the Jews do assemble.

The Sugarman that owns the outfit is Mortimer Zuckerman who is closer to the Mortified side of the name than to the Sugary side. This is why the man writes the way that he does, and no one who is sane can be pleased with his style.

An example of his toxic mental output is shown in the editorial he wrote under the title: “Obama's ugly tantrum could be dangerous to Israel” and the subtitle: “The President should receive Netanyahu, and heed his warnings about Iran's nuclear program.” It was published on January 25, 2015.

You can tell how sick in the head Mort Zuckerman is when you read this: “Boehner can invite who he wants. Netanyahu can speak where he likes.” But Obama cannot refuse to meet Netanyahu if he wants to, because that would be petulant and juvenile, says Mort.

And there is more that is sickening about the tricks of this man because the candy he is distributing is nothing but arsenic coated with sugar. Look what he said. When it was revealed that Netanyahu had broken a protocol imposed on all nations and respected by them, someone remarked that such act on the part of Netanyahu may blunt the enthusiasm that Secretary of State John Kerry carries voluntarily in his heart for playing the role of Israel's primary defender.

Now guess what the Zucker boy said about that. He said: “That's gangster talk.” Well, let me assure the Zucker thing that he will have a hard time explaining why this sounds like gangster talk. And let me further advise him that I'll have no difficulty explaining why his own talk is akin to animal talk. It is that he is braying like a jackass, and he is foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog.

And the boy does not stop here. He goes on to say he understands Netanyahu – presumably because they both speak the language of animals – but does not understand Obama who speaks the language of human reason especially when it comes to matters relating to war and peace. That kind of talk, says Zucker the boy, shows that Obama does not have “his head screwed on straight.”

And because Obama's head is loose on the shoulder, says Zucker the Mort, the President of the United States has made a hash of his relationship with the Bibi … which is probably the reason why Iran's power has extended under Obama's watch.

And because the President is not listening, the danger that Iran poses to the Jewish state is metastasizing, and this is why “Netanyahu should raise the volume of his voice, and the American people should listen to him more intently,” says Mortimer Zuckerman. This is gall extending to the edge of the galaxy.

Now this pertinent question: Where else but in the animal kingdom of Jewish ideology would you find someone as dependent on America for their survival like do Israel and the Jews who put their eggs in that basket case – yet see them bray at their benefactor as loudly as they do, and foam at the mouth as disgustingly as they do? Nowhere but in Israel, and every place where the Jews assemble.

And that's why only they and they alone get to be gassed, pogrommed and holocausted time after time, here and there and everywhere.

Humanity has had it up to here with those like you, Mort. If you want to save your people rather than exploit their misery for your personal gains, there is only one way to do it: Check yourself into a maximum security institution.

Demolished Certainty of the ignorant Class

As a class of pundits, advisers and counselors, no one is more ignorant than the Jews. If they were half as good at understanding human behavior as they want the world to believe, many would have avoided being kicked from the places where their stay became intolerable, and many more would have escaped the fate of the gas chamber and the crematorium. The fact is that the brainwave of a domesticated monkey, horse, dog or cat is closer to that of their owners than the Jewish brainwave is to that of humanity.

But having written a book of folklore they call the Old Testament inside of which they tell fantastic stories about Jewish advisers that gave sound advice to rulers of the ancient empires, they managed to impress a number of gullible European warlords in the Middle and Dark Ages. The latter responded by giving them high level posts in the fiefdom from where the Jews pronounced the kind of advice that ruined their employers. Feeling deceived and betrayed by charlatans that took advantage of them, the employers were joined by their subjects, and together, made the Jews who did not flee, pay with their lives and the lives of their kinfolks.

Still, the Jews never gave up the practice of deceiving rulers willing to listen to them and hire them as advisers. They continued to pull the same stunt in the modern era, a practice for which they were made to pay the highest price ever in an operation that was named the Holocaust. Even this operation did not deter them from crossing the Atlantic Ocean to America where they wasted no time pulling the same old stunt on a gullible ruling class.

And they managed in about half a century to turn a superpower that was at the zenith of its glory into a pathetic has-been that is good enough only to serve as a private washroom maintained by John Boehner and guarded by him for when Benjamin Netanyahu comes to town and lectures the American class of pundits. All this happened because history has refused to end its march … continuing instead to develop in such a way as to expose the accumulated Jewish advice as being the work of charlatans.

Time after time, that class of grand ignoramuses advised the various American Administrations and Congresses as to what America must do in the Middle East and everywhere else in the world, for that matter. And those in charge of America listened to the advice as if it had come from God himself. Yes, America listened and America obeyed, but instead of making the promised gains, America sank deeper into the cesspool to which the highly paid Jewish pundits kept flushing it.

Given that only the Israeli and Jewish matters are handled on a bipartisan basis in America while the rest of the country remains paralyzed, this reality is manifested even in the way that the two extremes of the spectrum have decided to handle their backtracking with regard to the Syrian question. On the Left side of the spectrum, the editors of the New York Times wrote: “Shifting Realities in Syria,” while on the Right side, the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) wrote: “Our Man in Damascus,” a piece that also came under the subtitle: “The White House leaks that it is tilting toward Assad and Iran.” Both editorials were published on January 25, 2015.

Breaking from a past when the advice given by the editors of the Wall Street Journal to every difficulty, was to bomb everyone and everything in sight, they now propose that the “Congress should ask the Administration to clarify if Assad really is Mr. Obama's man in Damascus.” Of course, this does not tell how to solve a festering problem, but it gives the Journal's editors the opportunity to participate in a discussion where they say nothing and yet receive credit for something.

As to the editors of the New York Times, they first remind the world of the unworkable Right Wing fantasy that was proposed by Senator John McCain, and then concur with the WSJ that: “Congress must, of course, have a role in advising...” That would be the same Congress that John Boehner is maintaining, and that Benjamin Netanyahu is using to relieve himself when nature calls.

But do not be sad, my friend, because even if it took the destruction of a superpower in record time, there is a silver lining in the cloud. It is that a historical precedent has been set to the effect that when the Jews speak with certainty, the world will realize it is pure ignorance and will reject it. Hallelujah!

Farewell superpower America, hello new era free of crappy Jewish advice.

It's absurd to keep this abusive Relationship

Abusive relationships between individuals used to be a phenomenon of dysfunctional families, and of children who spend time in a setting like a school or a camp where strong bullies come to dominate and abuse weaker characters. It happened also that big and powerful nations dominated and abused smaller ones, especially when the small relied too heavily on the big or worse, owed them a substantial debt.

And then it happened that new worlds were “discovered” in the Americas and Australia; places to which people from the old world migrated in large numbers because they had become dissatisfied with one thing or another regarding their situation. A pattern developed according to which these people became established in the new country, and when they had acquired fame, fortune or political power, they used those gains to agitate against the country from which they or their parents had come. By and large, the aim had been to force change in the “old country” or to punish its rulers.

A monstrous mutation of that pattern then developed – more so in the United States of America than anywhere else – and the world has been held hostage by it for the past three quarters of a century. What happened was that Superpower America was infiltrated by Jews and taken over by them. Being neither a race nor a religion, those who call themselves Jews are no more than followers of an ideological cult in the satanic mode. One of its core tenets is that the world will belong to its adherents when Armageddon will have burned it to the ground … a signal that will tell the Jews it is time to rebuild the world and claim it as their property.

But until this happens – the Jews who had been rebuffed like the plague everywhere on this planet, every time they tried to abuse the nation that took them in and cared for them – found it easy to start and perpetuate their abuse of the American system. It happened because the idea of America had always been to create open spaces for groups of every ethnicity and every religion to do as they please without enjoying a special preference over the others, but with a guaranty to receive equal protection like all the others.

And this is where another tenet of the Judeo-Satanic construct began to take form. Those who were not born into the ideology and had not received instructions as toddlers, were brainwashed hard enough and educated long enough to sear into their skulls the notion that when they start on a journey, they must never look back or have second thoughts about it. They become ballistic missiles with no plan B or an exit strategy that would change their course. In addition, they must not dwell on what the end of the journey will be like; they can only concentrate on the promise that the world will be theirs when Armageddon will have played its last card.

Knowing all this about the Jewish ideology, it is now easy for the reader to understand why Benjamin Netanyahu cannot refrain from behaving like the jerk that he is. An example of his jerkiness is described in the article that was written by the Times of Israel under the title: “Netanyahu 'spat in our face' White House officials said.” It was published on January 23, 2015.

Two things are obvious. First, Netanyahu cannot on his own stop doing what he is doing. On the contrary, he will continue to escalate his jerky performance till such time that an outside force will stop him. Second, it is also obvious that the relationship between America and Israel is an abusive one. It cannot be sustained indefinitely and will hurt both sides when it comes to an abrupt ending. And so, the thing to do to avoid the heartache that is bound to follow is to stop Netanyahu by a deliberate act. And this is something that only the Americans can do.

Unlike the dysfunctional family of olden days when the wife depended on an abusive husband, but had nowhere to go; unlike the weak kid that is frightened by the schoolyard bully who promises to hurt him if he complained of bad treatment, an American President has the option of explaining to his people that pride has motivate weak nations to break away from the strong nations that used to dominate hem.

It is even more insulting that a handful of traitors use the power of the office to which they were elected to subordinate Superpower America to the caprices of an entity that should never have been. However, it is there now, causing immeasurable misery to the region, to the world and to America's ability to maintain the respect of the world. Consequently, he will no longer worry about Israel's security more than its people and rulers do.

They know what is good for them, and when they carry out America's first priority – to end the occupation of Palestine – the President will help with their security concerns. Till then, there will be no contacts with Israel.

The at Times useless Use of free Speech

Is it possible that when it comes to democracy, too much of a good thing can sometimes be a bad thing? To put it differently, can it happen that too much talk may weaken the cause it is championing? Well, a Washington Post editorial seems to support this theory. It came under the title: “Yemen's turmoil exposes Mr. Obama's crumbling 'partners' strategy” and was published on January 22, 2015.

The Post editors – like the commentators of other publications – make a big deal regarding what they view as the meager number of words that Mr. Obama used in his State of the Union address to discuss one topic or another ... ranging from violent extremism to the Iran nuclear question. But setting aside the topics that may or may not have been discussed, a comment such as that raises the eyebrows of people who appreciate the style of literature which conveys quality ideas with the least amount of verbiage. But that's another discussion.

As to the Washington Post editorial, it starts by making the point that while Mr. Obama was speaking to say America was partnering with nations – spanning the geographic stretch from South Asia to North Africa – to deny safe haven to terrorists, the strategy was crumbling in Yemen. And this is a nation that Obama has failed to mention, say the editors of the Post. Perhaps someone should tell these people that Yemen is situated in the geographic stretch described by Mr. Obama.

Aside from that, there was the fact that the situation in Yemen was fluid at the time that the President was speaking. He was not saying the situation was A-Okay everywhere, he was simply pointing out that America had chosen to pursue that strategy rather than the alternative, which would have been to send large ground forces overseas. The strategy may well have been crumbling in Yemen at the time, but that's only one country among many. Still, before the situation had completely evolved, the editors declared it an American defeat, and extrapolated to suggest that the Obama strategy had failed everywhere else too.

To expand on the points they are making, the editors describe the “partnership” strategy that America is following in Yemen. They say that close to a billion dollars were provided to train and equip Yemeni counterterrorism units. In addition, the CIA and the Pentagon use drone strikes to target militants deemed to plot against America. This strategy has failed, say the editors, in that Al-Qaeda has mounted a successful insurgency which gained it territory, and the Houthis mounted an assault that took control of most of the capital.

Well then, where do the editors of the Post propose to go from here? They have an idea which they begin to discuss after making this statement: “The Yemen mess reveals the weakness of Mr. Obama's 'partners' strategy.” Instead of relying solely on drone strikes and the training of specialized units, they propose this: “institution-building and the support of moderate political forces.”

But that would be the nation building which they and other commentators of the stripe have blasted for being inadequate and delusional. They repeated as loudly as they could, as often as possible what the Jewish Establishment had drummed into their heads ... mainly that “the Arabs and the Muslims” understand only the language of force. And so they recommended: Bomb, bomb, bomb. They followed with: war, war, war. And to this, they added: kill, kill, kill.

So now the Post editors reverse their long held views, but instead of waiting to see how Obama's strategy will pan out, they accuse him of being uninterested in correcting his mistakes. Maybe that was to be expected given that they always behaved like pompous asses. But the burning question at this time is this: What got these knuckleheads to change their minds?

Here is a hint as to what the answer may be: “Yemen's politics are beyond byzantine...” Lo and behold, they seem to have discovered that even in a place like Yemen, there is such a thing as a political language which people use to communicate. And that language is neither: Bomb, bomb, bomb … nor war, war, war … nor kill, kill, kill.

Perhaps the editors of the Washington Post and others like them will learn from this episode that while free speech is a valuable commodity, there comes a time when silence can be even more valuable.

Sexcapades and Blackmail bananized the Republic

In America, it used to be that squabbling among the political parties in matters associated with foreign policy stopped at the water's edge. It meant that the partisans stopped talking about foreign policy the moment that they left the country because they had agreed since the beginning of the Republic that no one who is not an American should be given the opportunity to interfere with the relationships that America maintains with the rest of the world.

That was the motto of the Great American Republic till recently when it so happened that what used to be Great has started to behave like a Banana Republic. This being such a fantastic transformation, the big question to ask will have to be this: What could it have been that bananized the American Republic? Well, we get a sense of what the answer may be when we review the piece that was written by the editors of the Wall Street Journal and published on January 23, 2015. It came under the title: “No Confidence Votes on Iran” and the subtitle: “Congress is asserting itself because almost nobody trusts Obama.”

The Journal, which sits at the Right-wing side of the political spectrum, had its editors pick up the talking points which are usually dished out by the adherents of that side, and had them stuffed in the editorial like these editors always do. In fact, there is nothing here that would tell you how the 'Great' was transformed into the 'Banana.' But when you get close to the end of the piece, you encounter this passage: “Mr. Obama had no qualms last week in asking British Prime Minister David Cameron to lobby Congress against the Kirk-Menendez bill.” And that's when bells begin to ring inside your head.

Two names hit you in the face like a banana pie, and there is nothing that's “amore” about that. One name is Menendez who is a senator that's supposed to be on Obama's side. But when it comes to matters which are of importance to Jews or to Israel, this man whose recreational companion is a flying Jewish doctor with a preference for Caribbean damsels of all ages, responds more in the Jewish fashion than does a real Jew, and more in the Israeli fashion than does Netanyahu.

The other name is David Cameron who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain. What happened in this case according to the editors of the Journal is that Obama asked the man to lobby the Congress against a proposed Menendez bill. It must be said that this bill had the potential to torpedo the ongoing negotiations with Iran regarding the latter's activities in the nuclear field. But from the looks of it, this is what motivated the House Speaker John Boehner to invite Netanyahu of Israel and address the Congress; something he did without following the established protocol of first consulting with the White House.

And this is where you see how the big ogres of the Jewish Establishment have managed to confuse a little tearful boy, persuading him to push the button that instantly transformed the Great Republic into a Banana Republic. It is that the ogres did not tell Boehner how important it was to take into consideration the fact that Cameron was in a coalition with America and a few other nations imposing sanctions on Iran.

The chances were great that the coalition would burst if the Congress passed the Menendez bill which – on the surface – aimed to tighten those sanctions but in reality, would have broken up the coalition and removed the sanctions altogether. The Congress needed to hear this directly from a member of the coalition, and that's what Cameron did when he talked to a couple of the Members. It was not lobbying at any level of intensity as suggested by the editors of the Journal, and certainly not a full blown address to a joint session of the Congress.

Instead of telling Boehner what he should have known before rushing to commit a dumb act, the Jewish ogres implemented the old trick of planting into his skull the delusive notion that because “balance” must be maintained in the universe at all time, he must now respond to the Cameron initiative by inviting Netanyahu of Israel to tell the Members of Congress they must brush aside the Executive of their government, and do what he tells them to do … that which is in the best interest of Israel and the Jews worldwide.

Boehner said he was not poking Obama in the eye. It may not have been his intention but what he did was play the worst version of the Jewish “an eye for an eye.” It is the gouging of 640 million American eyes, and the popping of 14 billion human eyes, all amazed at the appearance of an American Banana Republic.

Rest In Peace Great Christian Republic; hello Jewish-flavored Banana Republic.

It used to be Gang, now it is Mob

For half a century, every time that a country – especially an Arab or a Muslim country – was reprimanded by an international body for whatever offense, the American pundits and politicians harped on the event as if they were all Jews clamoring for the blood of the enemy. But when Israel was reprimanded for a serious offense, those same pundits and politicians spoke of a world that is “ganging up” on Israel.

For a reason that remains obscure at this point in time, the world is no longer viewed as a gang having Israel in its cross-hairs, but a mob that is appeasing the enemies of Israel. This is what Jonah Goldberg is saying in a column that came under the title: “Israel vs. the Mob” and the subtitle: “Politics is in large part a numbers game, and Jews are at a numerical disadvantage.” It was published on January 21, 2015 in National Review Online.

Goldberg makes the point that Israel is a small country, and that the Jews worldwide are small in numbers. He goes on to say that all the troubles which are experienced by Israel and the Jews stem from those two realities. He then builds a case based on this assertion to ultimately conclude that nations may be realistic when it comes to dealing with each other, but this is also worshiping the powers they seek to appease.

Why does this sound like the useless rant of a delinquent recidivist who believes the world is conspiring against him simply because he is small? Well, it is because that's exactly what it is. The fact is that Israel is not the smallest country in the world, and the Jews are not the smallest group of people in it. There are many smaller countries which the world adores, and there are many smaller groups of people that the world worships. There are also big countries with big populations that the world does not care much about, and says so. Thus, the Goldberg rant is no more than a useless rant which is neither here nor there.

If Jonah Goldberg had started writing his column with those realities in mind, he would have been compelled to draw parallels between Israel and the other small nations; between the Jews and the other small groups. In doing so, he would have realized that Israel and the Jews do things as a matter of course that others may do only on rare occasions. And when they do, the rest of the world reprimands them the way that it does Israel. The fact that the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel 50 times, but not once any of Iran, Saudi Arabia or China says that the Jews miss something they ought to learn about if they want to be treated like everyone else.

And the fact that Goldberg has mentioned the number of times which Israel was condemned without mentioning the number of times it violated human rights, demonstrates a deficiency in logic. Worse, the fact that he compared that number with those of Iran, Saudi Arabia and China demonstrates that the deficiency is not only in logic but also in the ability to think in the way that human beings are wired to think.

That harsh reality poses a serious question: Is there something about the Jewish ideology which physically alters the wiring in the brain of those who adhere to it? In other words, is Judaism a brain disorder that can be induced by indoctrination?

The answer seems to be yes. And that's because these people have for centuries been luring individuals from every race and every ethnic background into their religion. The remarkable thing is that all those converts end up displaying the same deficiency in logic, and the same deficiency in the ability to think like human beings.

At first, the sum total of their belief system boils down to them being eligible for a reward every time that someone else is rewarded, even when they do noting to deserve the reward. It also boils down to someone else being punished every time that they are punished, even if the other party did nothing to merit the punishment. This is how they view what they call balance.

Before long, however, you see them upgrade that system of beliefs. What they do now is demand that they never be compared with someone else. They rationalize this on the basis that no equivalence can ever exist between what they are and what someone else is; between what they mean to the act of creation, and what someone else may or may not mean.

And they are surprised to know that the world does not see things the way they do.

The Tom Friedman Politics of the Genitals

Some people “don't get no respect,” and some get more respect than they wish for. Two of the latter type would be Charles Darwin who would be horrified by what is called “Darwinian economics,” and Sigmund Freud who would be horrified by the mention of sexual repression to sex-up every argument that is going nowhere.

We set aside Darwin and concentrate on Freud's predicament because Tom Friedman of the New York Times saw fit to return to an earlier era when everything was explainable by Freud's theory of sexual repression. Friedman does it in his latest column: “Say it like it is” which is a bastardized version of the old “Tell it like it is,” an admonishment that was given to the Pentagon a million times a day during the Vietnam War. Tom's column was published on January 21, 2015 in the New York Times.

Here is the part where Friedman reverts to his fixation on the genitals: “It is the struggle over modernity and women's rights. That struggle … has left these societies with too many young men who have never held a girl's hand, who then seek to overcome their humiliation at being left behind.” When in the past, this kind of argument was used to describe some of the ills in “Western” societies; it was defeated by the mention that if it were true, the most violent people on the planet would be the nuns, the Christians brothers and the Catholic priests who take a vow of chastity. But no one has seen a nun wear the vest of a suicide bomber.

Moreover, the people who fight on their own soil, such as Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and what have you; have a cause defined as the liberation of the homeland. It is something that has been done for ages everywhere on the planet – by men and by women. What can be difficult to explain at times, however, are the activities of young men (and now women) that were born and raised in Western societies, and have embraced jihad. These people cannot be said to have suffered sexual repression given that they leave behind girlfriends, boyfriends, wives or husbands to go die for a cause that sounds more like seeking the thrill of an adventure than the quest to gratify a sexual urge.

The irony is that Friedman begins his argument by saying: “When you don't call things by their real name, you always get in trouble.” And here he is getting in trouble because he sees genitals where there are none. This reminds me of a correspondent who once wrote something to the effect that our so-called vibrant democracy is vibrated only by the gadgets which are bought in sex shops. This observation is reinforced by the fact that more rapes are committed against men and women in the two largest so-called democracies, India and the United States, than anywhere else in the world.

Thus, instead of telling it like it is – which is that every time a prominent figure is caught practicing sexual impropriety, the figure turns out to be a Jew – Tom Friedman tells it like it is not. In fact, he writes: “the real issues [that] many Muslims know and are actually starved to discuss, especially women.” And guess what he does right after that. He quotes prominent Muslim women who discuss the very issues he says are not being discussed.

And guess what it is that he does not mention even though he should be. He does not mention the fact that no Jew – man or woman – was ever allowed to criticize the Jewish practices which are known to lead straight to the gas chamber and the incinerator.

Tom Friedman would do well to tell his readers about the shortcomings of the Jewish approach to “educate” the American public because this is the time bomb that needs to be diffused before an uproar is raise to the effect that “the Jews came with a smile on their faces, a plan in their heads and a poison in their pockets.”

And the uproar will continue: “They lulled us into trusting them, they poisoned our culture and took everything that used to be ours.”

“The Palestinians in Palestine are fighting for their rights. We have been turned into Palestinians in our country, and we don't know how to fight back.”

A Jew more depraved than ISIL's Depravity

It was bound to happen, a Jew in the caliber of Dennis Prager would someday forget to wear his saintly mask and meet the world with a naked face that is more horrifying than horror itself. What Prager has done is tell the world how Jews evaluate what is good and what is evil, and then tell the parents of children everywhere how to deprive their little ones of a good education, and fill them instead with depraved ideas of the most Jewish kind.

Prager wrote: “Oxford and the crisis of the university,” a column that also came under the subtitle: “A debate on Hamas and Israel illustrates the moral confusion that reigns on campus.” It was published on January 20, 2015 in National Review Online. In it, he tells of a debating moment he had at the Oxford Union, which he describes as “the world's most prestigious stage for competing ideas” housed at Oxford University “the most prestigious university in the world.”

He and his partner went head to head against two opponents in a debate that sought to resolve the proposition: “Hamas is a greater obstacle to peace than Israel.” To his surprise, the proposition was defeated, which means that the Oxford students, who listened to a “fair and square” debate and then voted, thought that Israel was a greater obstacle to peace than Hamas.

Look now how Dennis Prager, who is Jewish, chose to present his case to the readers. He writes: “When first apprised of the topic, I was so certain that an error had been made that I called both my debating partner and Oxford to confirm it.” What this means is that he believes, it is a self-evident dogma that Israel is good and Hamas is bad. Therefore, anyone who does not blindly and on faith accept this Jewish “truth,” needs to be educated on the principles of Jewish moral clarity.

And this is no joke, my friend, because the Jews had the public classroom in North America all to themselves during which time they “educated” the public as to the kind of Jewish sensitivities that turned out to be the poison that killed freedom of speech on the continent, and led to horrors of horrendous dimensions. One of those was the attempt to set a fake precedent in Canadian jurisprudence that would have allowed any Jew to point a finger at someone, call him a former Nazi, and see him or her dragged like a dog to be sent to Israel for further humiliation and moral torture.

That was the principle you may call: “the word of the Jew is dogma” which made a Canadian Prime Minister quip: “What were these guys doing in a war zone anyway” when told that the Israelis had murdered Canadian peacekeepers stationed in Lebanon – soldiers that were sent there by the Canadian government. It also happened that the same government gave a Jew more than eleven million dollars without contesting the claim because: “we know that's how the courts will rule. So, why bother going to court?” You see, my friend, a Jewish dogma is something you obey without question.

This was in keeping with the Jewish view that Israel can take anything it wants because the Jews know that if there is going to be negotiations, this is what Israel will get from the Palestinians. So, why wait till then or even bother to negotiate? Israel can just take and take and take because nothing can be morally clearer than that.

As to the massive Jewish whorehouse that America has become; as to the stinking toilet in the Jewish whorehouse that the Congress has become, the examples flush out that place – day in and day out – like neutrinos escaping an exploding star. And the stink is suffocating this planet.

This is the Jewish dogma that the rabbis started to inject into the North American culture half a century ago, having stabbed freedom of speech in the heart, and monopolized the public square. It is now the disease which fuels the kind of moral clarity that motivates Dennis Prager to tell parents: “It could be a big mistake to send your children to college … prepare them morally and intellectually and, if possible, do not send them to college right after high school. Let them travel … a trip to Israel would be morally clarifying and maturing … The sad fact is that if you value moral clarity, the university is the last place you would want to send your 18-year-old.”

Whatever Judaism was meant to be, it is not now a religion but a satanic cult in the form of an octopus that is trying to spread its tentacles around the globe.

America vs. Israel Battle to govern America

You know someone is playing with a weak hand when he associates something that is happening now with something that is unrelated and worse, has happened some time ago, having left no clue as to its worth.

Look at the first paragraph in the editorial of the Wall Street Journal which came under the title: “Obama, Congress and Iran” and the subtitle: “The President objects to support for what he claimed was his policy,” and marvel at the extent to which these people will go to let the world believe that the Israelis govern America. That infamy was published on January 20, 2015.

What you encounter in the first paragraph is the argument of the Journal's editors on the Iran nuclear deal; an argument they try to buttress with this: “The President's interpretation of 'six months' turns out to be as elastic as his reading of U.S. immigration law.” What was that again? Was it the invocation of a debate regarding immigration policy to reinforce the premise of a debate on the Iran nuclear deal? This debating style may sound acceptable when done by Jews having a heated discussion in Yiddish. But when done in English, it sounds like desperate idiots latching on to a straw they hope will make their argument sound worthy.

Having done this, the editors attack Mr. Obama, accusing him of being exercised because the Congress wants to hold his administration to its word. And what was the word? It was something that John Kerry had written some time ago. Here it is: “The United States and our partners will not consent to an extension merely to drag out negotiations.” Thus, the editors lament: “Two deadlines to finalize a deal have come and gone.” But why lament when the administration made it clear the extensions were consented to because the negotiations were going well, and were NOT “merely” being dragged out?

The inescapable conclusion is that the editors are lamenting precisely because the negotiations are going well, which means that if a final deal is reached, the Obama Administration will take credit for a foreign policy initiative. This being the nightmare scenario terrifying a Jewish Establishment that has been telling the world it controls American foreign policy; the editors of the Wall Street Journal have gone out of their way to call on the traitors in the Congress to prevent Obama from americanizing America's foreign policy.

And here is another strange thing these characters have done. First, they explain that neither the Administration nor America's allies want to see the Congress interfere. Second, they call this stance “remarkable claims about legislation that would penalize Iran only after the current deadline expires and if Iran does not come to terms.” But the reality is that these claims are not what's remarkable.

What is remarkable in all of this is the fact that every administration negotiated with foreign powers, and the Congress often gave them “fast-track” authority even in matters which, under the Constitution, fall under the jurisdiction of the Congress. Thus, to call remarkable what is normal is to make themselves look and sound abnormal … which is how the world has become accustomed to seeing the Jewish logic.

So the question: Despite all that, why would the Journal want the Congress to do something that the world will see as being abnormal and threatening to world peace? Because the Journal editors want to see the Jews get credit for negotiating a deal they want Israel to own and have the right to interpret anyway it will want in the future. It will have to be this, or the America-Iran negotiations will have to be sunk, and the deal torpedoed.

Another remarkable aspect of this affair is that the editors acknowledge: “Moscow is an outlier in this negotiation, if not bidding to be a spoiler.” And if the Jews manage to sink the negotiations and torpedo the deal, they will have handed Putin of Russia yet another victory over America, courtesy of the Jews who prefer to see this outcome than see an American victory over Israel.

Knowing that the future will be “full of foreign-policy dangers” as Jews seek to exploit the Kirk-Menendez act of treason thus weaken Obama's position, the editors of Rupert Murdoch's Journal are telling all of America's enemies out there: Cheer up because if it appears to you that the “American people are not pliable” now, wait till 2016 when “help will be on the way.”

M. Continetti suggests America commit Suicide

Matthew Continetti says he has an idea that will resolve the ongoing confrontation between what he calls radical Islam and what he calls the West. He suggests at the onset of his discussion that: “We need to kill them over there – in the Middle East – before they reach the West.” He follows with a long explanation as to why this strategy will work, and he ends with the following: We must fight over there, or be resigned to terrorist attacks over here. Again and again and again.

Continetti reveals his strategy in an article he wrote under the title: “Fight Them Over There” and the subtitle: “The central front of the war on terror is no longer Iraq. It is the West.” It was published on January 17, 2015 in National Review Online. He says that “Until 2001, the US treated Islamic terrorism as a matter of law enforcement” despite the fact that the terrorists were busy terrorizing Americans everywhere in the world. Then came 9/11, he says, at which time the terrorists were called “unlawful combatants,” and America went on the offensive against them.

Without explaining why it happened, he then reveals that “America invaded Iraq in 2003.” And this is when “Aspiring jihadists, enemies of the West, traveled to Iraq where they encountered US pilots, soldiers, and Marines” who killed them, he says. The strategy to deter the terrorists worked according to him because the American message was this: If you choose jihad, you will spend your life in Guantanamo or you will die.

Then Obama came on the scene, says Continetti, and things went haywire. That is because: “Our troops were removed from the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan … The words 'Islamic terrorism' would not be uttered,” he says. And the result, according to him, was “a dramatic uptick in Islamic radicalism.” He gives examples to illustrate that last point: the FT. Hood massacre; the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi; the Boston Marathon bombing, and the public beheading of Lee Rigby.

And this is where you stop and try to evaluate what this guy is throwing at you. Is he saying that kids who had been fighting America since before 2001, had their spirits dampened by the American threat of being killed or sent to Guantanamo, and then had their spirits buoyed when America pulled out of Iraq? Is this what gave those kids new impetus to plan and execute FT. Hood, Benghazi, the Boston Marathon and the beheading of Rigby? Or was there something more profound that motivated them before 2001, that continues to motivate them, and will continue to motivate them for perhaps a long time to come?

Matthew Continetti's own assessment is that the global movement, as he calls it, now possesses more than 2 billion dollars in assets, commands 40,000 fighters, has become an expert at propaganda by deed, and much more. Not only that, but similar groups have sprung up in Yemen, the Maghreb, Nigeria and Somalia. As well, the Taliban who were here before 2001 are getting ready to come back to Afghanistan. And all these groups are attracting what he calls disturbed and alienated men and women hungry to join a winning fight. So the question: Where will the fight take place? In the West and all lands associated with the West, says our author.

But does that not tell him that there must be a more profound reason why these kids are fighting the West, especially that many of them do come from the West? In fact, he has acknowledged at one point that “aspiring jihadis” came from around the world to fight in Iraq when America got involved there without a good reason, and without an acceptable explanation.

But instead of using these realities as a starting point to make his final argument, Continetti goes on to lament that the Obama administration seems to be scaling down America's aggressive move against groups that are motivated to fight – and die fighting if necessary – to do away with the unfairness which America brought to their people.

This choice says that the writer is not seeking an equitable resolution to the conflict – perhaps one that all parties can live with. On the contrary, he wants a perpetual war that will end when one side will be dead. But given that his own description of the events says the terrorists are winning, the question must be asked: Is Matthew Continetti asking the West and America to commit suicide?

He sees the World from behind a twisted Lens

Jewish America is so screwed up when it comes to understanding the topic of free speech, it is important that we begin the discussion on this subject by showing the difference between “speaker” and the “spoken” word; and showing the similarities between one constituent speaker and another.

When Ben Carson says that courageous is the person who dies defending what he believes in, he tells the world he has not sunk to the level of say, a Rich Lowry who believes that if de Tocqueville and Ahmadinejad say the same thing, de Tocqueville would be correct and Ahmadinejad would not. Carson makes the point that in this case, the spoken word is the same, having an intrinsic value that does not depend on who the speaker is. The same goes for an act that may be committed by two constituents, one we may like, and one we may not.

This being the case, de Tocqueville could have said things that should offend Rich Lowry, except that the latter would not know it because to him, de Tocqueville could never have said something wrong. By the same token, Ahmadinejad could have said things that should please Rich Lowry, except that the latter would not know it because to him, Ahmadinejad could never have said something right. And the same goes for an act that may be committed by two constituents, one we may like, and one we may not.

When it comes to the Jewish transformation of American culture, things are even more horrid than comes out the Rich Lowry example. The reality is that the Jewish propaganda machine does not cast in stone the values it attributes to every de Tocqueville and every Ahmadinejad in the world. Depending on the direction from which the political and diplomatic winds blow, de Tocqueville can be good or evil today and change tomorrow. As well, Ahmadinejad can be evil or good today and change tomorrow.

With this in mind, the reader may now review the Victor Davis Hanson article which came under the title: “Can the West Stand up for Free Speech?” and the subtitle: “False moral equivalence and blatant cowardice threaten our tradition of free expression.” It was published on January 15, 2015 in National Review Online, the publication that is edited by Rich Lowry. Early on, in the article Hanson makes the point that “Westerners cannot return to the Middle Ages to murder those whose ideas they don't like.” He does not, however, tell what it is that brought the change of attitude from the Middle Ages to our time.

As a historian, Hanson could have reminded his readers that in the Middle Ages, people killed each other in wars where religion was used as a weapon. When those wars ended, the people ended the practice of insulting the religion of the other, and started to criticize their own religion so as to humble the powerful clergy, and bring it down to earth. When in the modern era, the hot war between the Christian and Muslim worlds started – regardless as to the reasons why it did – it was inevitable that an attack by one side on the religion of the other be viewed as the addition of religion to the arsenal of the enemy. This made it fair game for either side to use religion for what it can accomplish in a war that was expanding.

The war between the two sides being an asymmetric one with a Christian world that is technologically advanced battling a Muslim world that is more resilient, each side is using the resources it controls to inflict maximum pain on the other, and do so as efficiently as possible. Thus, while the Christians kill Muslims by the hundreds of thousands and display on television the explosive power and accuracy of their ordnance, the Muslims kill Christians by the dozens and display the aftermath of what they can and will do in response to being attacked, thus warn the Christian world that they will do to it what the Christians will do to the Muslim world.

Calling that situation “false moral equivalence” as he does in the subtitle, but failing to explain his point in the body of the article, Victor Hanson goes on to tell that Obama could have hurt Iran's “theocracy” but did not. That he could have defended free speech from “radical Islam” but did not. That he could have joined Egypt's effort to maintain discipline among its own but did not. In his eyes, all these were battle opportunities that Obama could have waged against Islam but did not. And he considers this non-performance to be a dereliction of duty on the part of the commander-in-chief.

Hanson does that, having made the point that the Judeo-Christians have the right to do as they please but that the Muslims have no right to respond because to do so would set a false equivalence between the two religions and the two peoples. How much more screwed up can America get to be?

Aimless Mumbling conveying false Messages

There are times when Charles Krauthammer has a central point to make, and so he writes a column which he fills with core arguments that lead to a conclusion which happens to be the point he is making. At other times, however, he does not have a point to make but writes a column anyway; one that he fills with flimsy arguments of the kind that are usually based on half-truths and fantasies.

He did that in the column he wrote under the title: “Obama: Charlie Who?” and the subtitle: “Our president seems to have forgotten that the war is still on. The Islamists haven't.” It was published on January 15, 2015 in National Review Online. Relying on a half-truth and a fantasy, Krauthammer erects a construct which he holds together with arguments no sturdier than a castle made of sand and nothing more.

The half-truth he cites is to the effect that Obama abdicated leadership “for which the White House has already admitted error,” he says. That is not entirely true because in response to a trivial question, the White House spokesman only did what was necessary to pacify a reporter trying to start a silly discussion about a non-event. It was most likely a Fox News reporter that wanted to know if it was not an error for America not to send a high ranking representative to the Paris rally.

Well, anyone that has seen Ed Henry ask this kind of questions is reminded of the dog that cannot walk by a pole or a tree trunk without lifting a leg and peeing on it even when the dog has not a drop of pee in its bladder. And so, the White House spokesman said something like, maybe the Administration should have send a higher ranking someone than it did, a remark that put an end to this line of query.

As to the fantasy, Krauthammer claims that the Obama Administration has knowledge to the effect that thirty percent of the Guantanamo detainees who are released, return to the battlefield. This is false because the Administration has repeatedly stated that only 6 or 7 percent of those released have returned to the battlefield.

Still, using his sandcastle as a fortress to protect and defend his conclusions, Krauthammer begins the article with the conclusions, and sets out to defend them. Alas, he ends up agreeing with the Administration on almost everything while trying in vain to show that he disagrees on everything. Here is his main conclusion: “the veneer of solidarity was exposed as tissue thin. It began dissolving as soon as...” To show how this happened, he explains that “within 48 hours, new protests, denunciations, and threats evinced a round of doubt and self-flagellation about the limits of free expression. Hopeless.”

Take a good look at that word “hopeless,” and ask yourself why the author would want the leader of the “free world” to put his administration in a hopeless situation. If apathy is the response you get from the rest of the world when it comes to involving the nation in a perpetual “war on terror,” is it not time for Krauthammer and those like him to acknowledge that Obama is following a wise course? Would this not be better than reprimand the man for displaying a “profound ambivalence about the very idea of the war on terror”?

And yet, brushing aside his own presentation and his conclusions, Charles Krauthammer asserts: “Paris shows that this war is not over.” Instead of calling the situation he just described as being a breakdown in world order caused by the Jewish inspired American military assault on Iraq, he advocates the open ended continuation of a war that should never have been.

And here too, he uses an upside down logic to make a point. Anyone sane would say that: because we made the situation worse each time that we interfered, we must now impose a moratorium on ourselves and watch the situation take its course rather than participate in it.

But not Krauthammer who describes the situation as having reached a point where “the Paris killers were well trained, radicalized, jihadist warriors,” then argues it is why America must get involved even more.

Get involved even more? To do what? To fix the situation, he says. And how would this happen if the more that the Jews dig, the deeper the hole in which America sinks? No response there.

But Krauthammer lets it be known that he will continue digging.