Demonic Power dividing once a model Family

Ronald Reagan used to boast that the American family was such a model family; it was envied by the whole world. Whether or not this was a hundred percent accurate then, anymore than it is now, is beside the point. Norms do change, societies do evolve, and whatever happens at some point in time always reaches an absurd extreme before snapping back to a more reasonable course. This has been happening since the beginning of time, and will continue to happen to the end of time.

But while this applies to the nuclear family, it does not bode well when sharp divisions appear in a larger family such as would be the case in a tribe, an ethnic group or a nation. This is where things can escalate to the point of sparking a civil war – being an explosive war such as the current situation in Syria, or a subdued one such as the rampant crimes committed in America by civilians killing civilians, and the police shooting them in the back.

It is also possible that a civil war of a different kind may take hold in a country. It can happen when a malicious foreign influence infects the culture in an attempt to exploit the host nation. It has been said that the Jews have tried to pull such feats everywhere they went since the beginning of time; the reason why they were pogromed and holocausted all the time, almost everywhere on the planet. Like unrepentant recidivists, their leaders are currently trying to pull a similar feat in America with results that promise to be more violent than any pogrom or holocaust the Jews have suffered so far.

The image of the Jew in America has been likened to the pauper who would come knocking at your door asking to be sheltered and fed for the love of God. You take him in, and before you know it, he gathers the dirt on everyone, starts blackmailing this member of the family while bribing that other one; a game he plays till he secures the loyalty of all. At this point, he begins to suck the life out of the entire family while preparing to move on to the next family; one that would take him in for the love of God.

You can see to what stage of development this Jewish game has come in America when you read: “Let States Do the Job Obama won't: Sanction Iran,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The administration doesn't want states to 'interfere' with its nuclear deal with Tehran.” It was coauthored by James Inhofe who is a Senator from the state of Oklahoma, and Scott Pruitt who is that state's attorney general.

Starting with this: “Obama's agreement with Iran … allows [it] to maintain technology that would lead to threats to American [ally] Israel,” Inhofe and Pruitt go on to say: “Fortunately, the U.S. states have the power to limit these threats, if they all choose to use it.” They also explain that: “To date, 25 states have enacted sanctions against Iran.” And they further reveal that: “John Kerry … said that the administration 'will take steps to urge [the states] not to interfere.'”

But the two push back with this plea: “We urge states to do exactly the opposite.” And they promise: “On Monday, we are sending and endorsing a letter and a draft sanctions document to all 50 states, calling on the 25 states with existing sanctions to strictly and aggressively enforce those sanctions, and encouraging the 25 states that have not yet enacted sanctions to take every executive and legislative action available to immediately impose sanctions on Iran.”

If this is not considered mutiny in America because it is called for by the Jews, it would be called high treason in any civilized nation. And its advocates would be investigated and put under surveillance because it is one thing to feel strongly about a cause; it is another thing to go all out to such a ferocious extent in urging everyone else in the family to challenge the duly elected head of the clan in favor of the pauper that originally came asking for shelter and food and no more than that … for the love of God.

The surveillance on Inhofe and Pruitt should seek to find out why they are being blackmailed and how they are being bribed … if any. Have there been sexual misconduct in their past? Financial misconduct? Criminal misconduct? Whatever it is or it isn't, it must all come out and aired because what they wish to accomplish will affect 320 million Americans and their descendants for ever and ever.

This is not a joke anymore; it is a deadly serious business. It is truly an existential threat to the way that the American Republic has lived since its inception.

A potentially dangerous umbilical Cord

The problem with having Jews in the group when trying to govern a nation according to civilized norms, is that everything they ask for (and I mean absolutely, absolutely everything) is seeded with hard to detect remote controlled bombs they can activate at will. This is the trick they have been using for half a century to contaminate the American Congress and the other institutions.

Instead of airing their views now as to what they fear may happen, repeating such views if and when the fears materialize, to then suggest how the situation should be tackled, the Jews decide ahead of time what they want the institutions or the Congress to do. They ask that all this be codified in a written communication with the White House or with a congressional resolution, thus bind future executives with old idea whichever way the situation may develop. When this happens, they demand that the communication or the resolution be honored the way they codified it long ago or the way they would alter it now to suit the moment.

In essence, what the Jews have been doing is sell the American government a pig in the poke, and when the pig turned out to be something else, they still wanted the thing to be treated like a pig or like something new they chose. They could do this because the remote control they held in the hand did more than detonate a bomb; they activated the contraption to shift the shape of the pig and make it look like anything they wanted.

An old example of this is the letter they had George W. Bush write to them concerning the policy of Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine. A more recent example is the “law” which says that the US cannot sell weapons to a country whose government came about through a military coup. Despite the fact that the world has changed from the time when their wishes were codified, they still demand that President Obama honor what they interpret the Bush letter to mean. They also raise hell about America delivering weapons to Egypt.

The Jews are at it again, this time concerning the nuclear deal which America and five other nations negotiated with Iran. You can see the early stages of the tinkering being done to extend an umbilical cord between them and the White House as well as the other institutions. The cord is meant to serve as a remote control to activate the shape shifter or detonate if necessary. That cord has a title: “On the Iran Nuclear Deal: Yes, but...” and a subtitle: “Simply approving the agreement doesn't address its many shortcomings. Here's what Congress should do.” It is an article written by Richard Haass and published on August 29, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

After discussing the pros and cons of the agreement, Haass mentions the two options on the table as to how the Congress may proceed. He says neither one is desirable, and suggests a third option. This is how he put it: “There is a third option: to make any vote in favor of the agreement conditional on the U.S. adopting policies and positions … The following seven points could be made in a White House communication, congressional resolution, or both.” That's not just one umbilical cord, it is seven of them. Or if you wish, seven channels through which to detonate or shift the shape of the pig that Haass is selling to America.

Read the details of the seven points, and try to imagine how the pundits will use them at a future time to hammer the administration – of whatever color – with the cry: “this calls for war, war, war … it's time to bomb Iran, bomb Iran, bomb Iran.” Imagine them bray these words on Fox News and CNN. Imagine them echo-repeat the same themes in article after article on the pages of such publications as the WSJ, NRO, Weekly Standard, Washington Post, NY Daily News, Washington Times, NY Post and others.

And what would the cry be? Or the echoed themes? They would be these: (1) “The U.S. is committed to [act] by any means, including military force;” (2) “a threat to vital interests will not be tolerated;” (3) “Any [unacceptable] behavior by Iran will be met with appropriate responses;” (4) “The U.S. will provide its friends with the quantity and quality of military assistance they need to meet threats posed by Iran;” (5) “Other measures will be taken as warranted;” (6) “The U.S. will begin consultations on a follow-on agreement. The executive will consult with Congress on such agreement;” (7) “The executive will provide semiannual reports to the Congress on Iran.

As if this were not enough, Haass adds the following: “Others may have their own ideas as to what needs saying and doing.” Funny, the number 7 used to be sacred to the Jews. Not anymore. They now seek a bigger number.

Yes, the business of extending Jewish umbilical cords into the body of America is still on, and kicking with vigor. You'll continue to be sucked dry for a long time to come, America. And the world will continue to weep for you.

Cheney style self-Pity & mutual Accusation

When someone loses something he knows he'll never regain, he falls into a state of self-pity.

When a group of people loses a status it knows it will never regain, it develops that same sort of self-pity in addition to a tendency for the members to accuse each other of being responsible for the loss.

When a nation that used to be a superpower becomes the super laughingstock of the world, it falls into a state of self-pity, a state of mutual accusation, and a state you may call phenomenon of Cheneyism.

This is what happened to America when it elected a brainless president who picked a shameless vice-president who formed a shadow cabinet made of “children of Holocaust survivors” who ran the country into the ground, turning it into a doormat for the Judeo-Israeli lobby that made of it the laughingstock of the world.

This is the story that Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney are shamelessly trying to embellish in the article they coauthored under the title: “Restoring American Exceptionalism” and the subtitle: “President Obama has dangerously surrendered the nation's global leadership, but it can be ours again – if we choose his successor wisely,” published on August 29, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

Not surprisingly, the Cheneys begin the article by giving a brief history of the glorious past that America used to enjoy till it lost it all in what amounts to a blink of an eye … considering that we're talking about the lifespan of a nation, if not an empire – however reluctant that empire might have been at times. It is at this point in the article that Dick and Liz drop a bombshell: “For the most part, until the administration of Barack Obama, we delivered.” This is to mean that the Bush-Cheney administration which preceded that of Obama also delivered. Imagine!

They say that much despite the fact that the world knows, and history has recorded that the Bush-Cheney administration delivered to Obama an economy that was imploding, and a Republican Secretary of the Treasury that was literally on his knees begging a Democratic Speaker of the House to approve measures that will save the nation from dissolving into a state of financial annihilation. Moreover, that worse-than-useless administration delivered to Obama two foreign wars that had no exit plan or a way to deal with contingencies except for bribing some local tribes in Iraq in return for them pretending that things were quiet on that front.

But why did the Cheneys talk about foreign policy and not the economy even though the two are inextricably linked? They did because of what they had in mind for what comes after that point in the article. And what comes is a complete airing of the Judeo-Israeli agenda. In a nutshell, they say this: “In the 1940s American leadership was essential to victory in World War II … In the Cold War American leadership guaranteed the survival of freedom … President Obama has departed from this tradition of ensuring America's pre-eminence and strength.”

This brought them to Iran, the current Judeo-Israeli preoccupation. They say the following about the deal negotiated with that country: “Allowing the Iranians to enrich uranium … virtually guarantees that they will become a nuclear state … In addition, it will provide them with hundreds of billions of dollars of sanctions relief … The U.S. Congress should reject this deal and reimpose the sanctions … and recognize that the use of military force will be required … We must resolve to take action and shouldn't lose hope.”

This done, they plead with the American people to do the right thing next time they vote. Look at this: “Just as one president has left a path of destruction in his wake, one president can rescue us.” Are they talking about the destructive Bush whose aftermath was rescued by Obama? No. Not really. In fact, they are asking for a repeat of the tragicomedy that was the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration. These two have no sense of the absurd.

There is more of what they say: “As citizens, we have another obligation … They [the citizens] need to know about the horror of the Holocaust … They should understand what kind of world militant Islam will create … President Reagan put it this way, 'We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.'”

And they handed the manuscript to their Jewish masters; curtsied to one, genuflected to the other and kissed the ring of a third, saying this: If you want us to rewrite this thing, command us and we'll obey. And Reagan shouted in his grave: Let freedom ring on Capitol Hill and the editorial rooms of a nation gone to the dogs.

Lone Wolf Theory not negated by the Pack

The Jewish American propaganda machine has been trying hard for a time now to engineer a situation whereby the Muslims of every race and the Arabs of every religion will be so badly treated in America; someone will come out and say that the Jews are not the only people to be treated badly by humanity. In the mind of the Jewish leaders such happening will prove that what's wrong with this planet is not the Jews but humanity itself.

So far, the machine (now playing the role of hate machine) has failed to achieve its goals. In fact, it can even be argued that the activities of the Jewish hate machine were instrumental in transforming the opinion that the American people used to hold on the various players in the Middle East. Those activities gained sympathy for the Palestinian Arabs, and gained support for the movement to boycott Israel. The transformation also translated into sympathy for Americans of Arab and Muslim origins while increasing the suspicion that people had for everything Jewish, such as the media that's seen as being dominated by Jews.

Despite the mounting evidence that they are losing the battle, the lords of the Jewish hate machine continue to tinker with it – adding parts, removing others and modifying still others. They do this in the hope that they will make it deliver the outcome they expect of it. One of the tinkerers is Benny Avni who wrote an article under the title: “The 'lone wolf' theory is a myth” and had it published on August 27, 2015 in the New York Post.

It is apparent from the title of the article that the aim of the author is to make every act of terrorism committed by an Arab or a Muslim, wash over and tarnish the society that spawned him or her, readying it for punishment. To the mind of the Jews, this will balance out the way that their ancestors told Pontius Pilate they accept responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus, and would not mind seeing his blood wash over them and their descendants – marking them deserving of punishment now and to eternity.

Benny Avni explains that the idea of the lone wolf theory being a myth has come to him from talking to someone named Ben Hammou Mohammed. He is president of the Moroccan Center for Strategic Studies, which Avni wants us to believe is “a leading think tank on security issues.” But the reality is that the Center is nothing more than a PR concoction cobbled together by the American military to explain to the Africans the presence of American forces in their neck of the woods. What Mohammed said was this: “Usually, there are other persons somewhere. We are facing groups, and not only individuals.”

From the little else that Avni reveals about his conversation with Mohammed, it is obvious that the man was talking about what's happening in the Mediterranean region and not anywhere else ... certainly not what's happening in the United States of America. And yet, this is the springboard that Benny Avni uses to transpose Mohammed's view regarding the Mediterranean region, half a world away, to the United States of America.

The reason why he went through this trouble is that he wanted to put the following into the public domain: “We can no longer say, you can't stop every crazy man out there, so we might as well resign to living with some lone wolves. After all, we're learning to live with people who shoot their former station co-workers on live TV.”

The intent behind this approach is that it allows him to say: “This is different” and right away discuss what he calls “attackers like Khazzani” and the “800 Islamist extremists … ready to strike Europe. Here too, their number is growing.” He thus classifies the crimes not by their atrocities but by the race of their perpetrators.

With that, he establishes that a crime committed in America which normally would call for law enforcement, should call for war when committed by an Arab or a Muslim. For this to work in practice, he comes up with a suggestion: “We must intensify cooperation between national-security services … This is war, and we better stop looking for excuses not to fight it.”

What is lost in all of this is the fact that there are lone wolves and packs of wolves in the “old world” as much as there are in America. To take the advice of Benny Avni on how to solve America's problems is like taking Tom Friedman's advice on how to deal with Saddam Hussein. It will lead to America's humiliation.

These people are driven by an ideology that is too suicidal to serve a superpower like America. It is time to shelve them now and forever under the classification: useless.

Demonic Attacks on the Peacemakers

Imagine you walk into a shop and ask the clerk if he sells socks. He says, yes he does; and you say you wish to see them. He takes you to a section in the store where ties are displayed and he starts telling you how nice these ties are. You say, yes but you came to buy socks not ties. He says, of course, and then explains that he sells socks by discussing the beautiful ties he carries. You say no more, and walk out the store.

Well, my friend, now that the point has been made to the effect that the nuclear deal with Iran is a good thing because it will lead to the peace we all yearn for; those who lost the argument about the proverbial shoes are coming back with arguments about the proverbial ties. Here is an example to oppose the nuclear deal: “Advocates of the nuclear deal with Iran argue that the deal will work because arms control worked to contain the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union. In fact, the USSR violated most of the arms-control agreements.”

The deception here is that, containing the threat coming from the Soviet Union is one thing, whereas the USSR having possibly violated the arms-control agreement is another thing. Containing the threat meant avoiding a serious confrontation if not war; violating the agreement meant doing minor adjustments not mentioned in the agreement. In reality, violating the agreement is a charge that each side leveled against the other. The most that came of such exchanges is that the parties did more jaw-jaw and no war-war.

Another positive factor resulting from that agreement is that France stopped testing nuclear weapons altogether. Later – after China, India, Pakistan and North Korea had gone nuclear – they refrained from carrying out tests above ground. They also drastically cut down on the number of tests they carried out underground. Now, given that those who oppose the deal with Iran complain that a nuclear Iran will lead to proliferation in the Middle East – they should welcome containing that country. That's because the move should have a restraining effect on the neighboring countries similar to what happened with France and the other nuclear powers in Asia.

By the way, the example mentioned earlier concerning the people who oppose the deal with Iran, was a quote taken from an article written by R. James Woolsey and Peter Vincent Pry under the title: “Obama's Arms-Control Delusion,” published on August 26, 2015 in National Review Online. The authors make two main points in that article (1) No nuclear agreement such as the deal with Iran, has ever succeeded in persuading any state to abandon nuclear weapons. (2) Sanctions and military force have worked to stop nuclear proliferation,

To begin with, there have only been two deals similar to but not exactly the same as the one negotiated with Iran. And the result has been mixed. The first deal was with South Africa, and it turned out to be a success story. The second was with North Korea, and it turned out to be a failure. The reasons for that are many, having nothing to do with the deal itself. This can be discussed some other time, some other place.

As to the use of military force to stop nuclear proliferation, the two authors have engaged in fantasy. They basically say that World War II was about stopping Germany from acquiring nuclear weapons. They basically say that Israel's attack on Iraq's civilian power station was about stopping Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons. They basically say that the second Persian Gulf War was about stopping Qaddafi of Libya from acquiring nuclear weapons. They basically say that Israel's attack on a food irradiation station in Syria was about stopping Syria from acquiring nuclear weapons. These are idiocies that deserve no response, and will be getting none.

But they are idiocies formulated – more so now than ever before – because their authors have one thing in mind: war, war, war. Seeing that the chances for getting what they want are slipping away, they are summoning all their resources to attack the concept of peace. That's what the James Woolsey and Vincent Pry article is about. Unfortunately, it’s not even the only article that appeared on that day, August 26, 2015.

Another article came under the title: “A treaty as hollow as the Iranian nuclear deal” and the subtitle: “The Kellogg-Briand pact was supposed to outlaw war.” It was written by Thomas V. DiBacco, and was published in The Washington Times.

The pact he mentions was an attempt made by two well-meaning people to outlaw war. Well, it did not stop World War II from happening. What DiBacco is suggesting, therefore, is that we give up on peace and welcome war. There is only one thing to say about that: the man is a mental case.

He tells the World how they do it

How can a handful of Jews take control of a superpower in half a century or less? And how do these people subsequently seek to take control of the world? These are the questions that many souls around the globe have been asking; and these are the questions to which the Jews have always given the same answer. They said: We are a smart people and we make arguments which are so impressive, no one can match us. And so, we win in every forum, each time that we participate in a debate.

Well, it has been demonstrated in nearly 1,600 articles published on this website that the only time the Jews won an argument, is when they debated in a forum that invited no one but them. Because no one that disagrees with the Jewish point of view was allowed to come and present an opposing opinion, the Jews had the floor all to themselves at which time they made their case, and made up the case for invisible opponents as well. These would be opponents whom the Jews have portrayed with such distortion, you couldn't figure out who they were talking about. But when it happened that despite the precautions, the Jews met real people who pushed back with real counter-arguments, the Jews were crushed en masse like a swarm of bugs under a steamroller.

These realities fully exposed, there remains another question: What mechanism was used by the solo-debating Jews to have convinced the wielders of power in America to yield some of their powers or to relinquish all of them without question? The way to find out is to study the nuts and bolts of that mechanism. Lucky for us, Clifford D. May has put together a revealing article highlighting those nuts and bolts. It has the title: “The Parchin Precedent” and the subtitle: “The premise underlying the Iran nuclear agreement is 'trust, don't verify.'” It was published on August 25, 2015 in The Washington Times.

To tell the audience what the article is about, he starts with this backgrounder: “U.N. to let Iran inspect nuke work site … a secret side agreement under which Iran is to police its own suspected facilities.” You can tell right away that the nuts and bolts he is using are fake ones. It is because he says the agreement is secret even though he later admits: “Rep. Pompeo and Sen. Cotton, met with officials of the IAEA who disclosed that 'certain elements of the deal are – and will remain – secret.” Here again, he uses the word 'secret' instead of 'confidential,' having already substituted 'agreement' for 'certain elements of the deal.'

The fact is that countries, organizations and companies all over the world own secrets that relate to inventions, procedures or operations they guard jealously, and that other entities do what they can to steal. The properties remain secret, however, till such time that the owners are required to furnish them to another party – such as a UN agency, for example. When this happens, the receiving party pledges to keep them, or at least keep parts of them – confidential. That's what happened in this case; and there is nothing unusual about it.

Instead of developing arguments around these realities, Clifford May, and those like him, have created an entirely fictitious narrative based on false analogies they put together for the occasion. Here are three of them in his words: (1) The host of a radio talk show asked how this was different from letting athletes test their own urine for drugs. (2) A colleague of Clifford May said that the next time the IRS questioned his tax returns, he'd offer to conduct a “self-audit.” (3) It occurred to him that erratic drivers could administer their own breathalyzer tests.

Those false analogies are the nuts and bolts holding together the fictitious narratives that convinced the American wielders of power to partially or fully yield their powers to the Jews. In addition, something else emerges from the Clifford May article. It is the way by which the Jews use the situations they create to fashion a process they hope will allow them to extend their influence abroad. Look at this: “the idea was to keep Congress in the dark – in apparent violation of the Review Act which promised that all materials … made between Iran and any other parties, would be made available for congressional review.” That is, the Jews want to see American Law enforced on the UN and Iran.

In fact, despite the title of the Clifford May article, the precedent that should worry us is not that the Iranians wish to inspect themselves; it is that the Jews wish to extend to the world the laws they fashion in the Congress of the United States.

This being a non-starter everywhere, America will end up being isolated or in a perpetual state of war.

Between the mundane and the high-minded

There is no doubt that all genres of fiction fire-up the imagination of the audience. This is true even though most fictional works imitate life. Certainly, most dramas do that, as do most comedies to a lesser extent. There is, however, a genre which sets itself apart from the others in that life seeks to imitate it more often than the other way around.

That genre is fantasy. It is so vast, in fact, it splits into several categories, ranging from the horror stories to the highest-minded science fiction. In-between you find the adventure type, which is what the editors of the Wall Street Journal chose to employ as metaphor to illustrate the points they make with regard to current events.

The editorial they wrote came under the title: “Kerry's Invisible Bridge” and the subtitle: “The Secretary takes a leap of faith on Iran's self-inspections.” It was published on August 26, 2015 in the Journal. The invisible bridge they refer to is the one that's featured in the film: “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.” They say that in the matter of Iran's self-inspection, Secretary of State Kerry is acting out a leap-of-faith similar to: “Indy, standing at the edge of an abyss, sticks out his leg to discover an invisible bridge that will get him to the other side.”

This is an analogy that works, of course, but it is an adventure fantasy that is no match to the high-minded science fiction that came before it, and may well have inspired that scene. I am referring to the series of films “Back to the Future,” one of which had a train headed towards an abyss where there was no bridge to take it to the other side. But this was happening in the past, whereas a bridge existed in the future. Luckily, by the time that the train had come to the edge of the abyss, it reached the required velocity to pass into the future and onto the bridge that took it safely to the other side.

This too is an analogy that works, but it does more than that. The comparison between the adventure fantasy used by the editors, and the science fiction they could have used but did not, compounds the analogy in that the choice they made reveals how mundane they have been, opting for the adventure fantasy instead of the loftier science fiction … preferring the mundane over the high minded.

And so it is with the way that they view the relationships which exist among human beings, as well as those that exist among nations. The reality is that the human race is moving away from the view that people are inherently evil, or that they must be made to fear the consequences of their actions to make certain they will act correctly. In fact, trust among the people had always been the attitude in America. It was the currency that made the people take risks and go from there to build a magnificent civilization.

And then the Jews came to America, fashioned as they are by an apocalyptic ideology which views human nature as being inherently evil. And slowly but surely, they infused the American culture with the distrust that has transformed what used to be optimistic America into a suspicious and pessimistic society. America is now the place where the two parties that used to form the wings of the political eagle, turned against each other with the one that happens to govern at any point, investigating the other for real wrongdoings or for imagined ones. This goes on till the party in power loses an election, thus gets to be investigated in turn. All the while, the business of America has become paralyzed while that of Israel, a Jewish foreign entity, was placed on the fast-track.

Having wrapped the political system tightly, and having placed it safely in their pocket, the Jews refashioned America's foreign policy, turning it into a weapon they unleashed on the world. They did so with America's relations in the Middle East where there used to be the proverbial Garden of Eden, and there is now – thanks to America's bungling – a Dante Alighieri style Hell.

The Jews continue to pull the apocalyptic strings they employed to wrap the political system, intending to use America's various powers to do to Iran what they did to Iraq and Libya. This time, however, they lunged against an Obama-Kerry team that said enough was enough. And so, the Jews are trying to make of them the enemies of America, hoping they will be treated with the contempt that the parties in Congress treat each other.

Their scheme is to see the Congress bring to the table enough treasure for them to gather and distribute among their own in Israel and everywhere else in the world. And for the Congress to pledge enough American lives to sacrifice for the glory of Israel, the way they did it in Iraq.

The dreaming Eunuch and his barking Dogs

The French let it be known that they consider the train to have left the station. The British let it be known that to reopen their embassy in Tehran is a better alternative to keeping it shut.

The Russians, on their part, let it be known that they prefer to sell their S-300 air defense system rather than hide it in a warehouse or worse, display it in a museum. Finally, both the Germans and the Chinese let it be known that the thing they worship the most is doing business with someone, anyone ... forging deals with everyone who would partner with them, including the Iranians.

So then, for the sake of the deities in any mythology you choose to consult, tell me this: What's a Jewish eunuch to do now? This is the question that Benjamin Netanyahu has been whispering in the ear of his minions, his supporters and his running dogs. The result is that most – who looked at the situation closely – drifted away from him without saying a word. But there were a few exceptions; one being a publication in Israel that hinted in very subtle ways at the possibility that Netanyahu may not be a fully castrated eunuch after all because he almost ordered the bombing of Iran on three previous occasions.

Another exception is John R. Bolton who wrote an article under the title: “Facing Reality on Iran,” published on August 24, 2015 in National Review Online. What Bolton is doing this time – which differs from what he used to do in the past – is that he no longer pleads with the American administration to give Israel B-52s and bunker busting bombs to enable it to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. No, he is not doing that anymore because he knows he lost this battle for ever. Rather, he is doing the moral equivalent of holding a rubber dildo between Netanyahu's legs to make the eunuch look like the stud he is not, and never was.

Bolton is barking harder than he ever did before in an article that is lengthier than he ever wrote before. He basically emphasizes the point that whether Congress accepts the nuclear deal negotiated with Iran or rejects it, is like having to make a choice between a bad deal and something worse. He stresses that to come now and say “no deal is better than a bad deal” is to engage in fantasy because “we have been overtaken by events, no matter how Congress votes.” He goes on to say that the approach to dealing with Iran was wrong from the start because “to have stopped Tehran's quest for nuclear weapons, global sanctions needed to be sweeping and comprehensive, swiftly applied and rigorously enforced by military power.” And this was not done, he says.

Because sanctions did not work before, they have no chance of working now, he says, thus the idea of a “snap-back” must be rejected off hand. This leads him to conclude that the only course of action left which can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is for “America or Israel to be prepared to use military force.” Unlike the days when he was seriously advocating such course of event, he does not now tell what Israel requires in terms of weapons to carry out such an operation.

And because America will not do it, he asks the question: “Can Israel succeed alone?” He answers “not well enough.” He then justifies trying it anyway by doing something truly odd for someone that has gone through this length to explain why Israel should attempt a risky operation. This is what he does: “As the British statesman Mick Jagger once wrote, 'You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you want.'” But what if you don't get what you want? What if the pattern of Iran getting what it wants persists, and it is Iran that gets what it wants? Alas, Bolton offers no answer there.

However, unlike before, he now admits that “Iran, of course, would respond.” He does not say anything about Iran defending itself while Israel is carrying out such operation, but says that “Iran would most likely retaliate by unleashing Hezbollah and Hamas to rocket Israeli targets.”

And because: “If Jerusalem strikes Iran, we will undoubtedly learn of it only after operations have commenced,” America should prepare itself, he says, to “immediately do two things to help Israel. First, politically and diplomatically, we should argue that Israeli strike is self-defense. Second, Congress should authorize all necessary assistance for Israel by forcing Obama's hand to help.”

Well, my friend, you must now expect to see more pundits come out, pick up on that theme and echo it over and over. And you must expect to see more Anglophile publications to publish and propagate such works.

High Treason by domestic double Standard

Looking at the situation in the United States of America today, four levels of treasonous conduct can be identified and cataloged.

The first and least offensive is that of someone born in a different country and still feels emotionally attached to it. When a dispute arises between his country of birth and the United States of America, the country he adopted, he feels torn between the two, thus avoids siding – at least publicly – with one or the other.

The second and somewhat more offensive level of treason is that of someone born in a different country, and would side with it against the United States of America no matter what the issues are or what the dispute is about. But he will go no further than discuss with passion the causes to which he adheres, and will avoid taking action that may carry consequences.

The third level of treason; one that borders on criminality is that of someone born in the United States, and owes their loyalty to a foreign country with such intensity, they would attack, at the moral level, anything that moves in America if it does not move in the direction of the foreign country. They will proselytize the causes to which they adhere, and would engage in low level sabotage such as pulling the plug – not deliberately, of course, but by a deliberate accident – on a broadcast where a guest is demoting one of their causes.

That hard-to-prove crime, as well as its analogous twin in the print media – both bearing the unmistakable Jewish signature – are so rampant these days, they add a stinky sort of noise to the already noisy ether of disinformation you encounter in the Anglophile world … more than you would anywhere else.

The fourth level of treason, one that might be considered criminally minded in fact if not in law, is that of someone born or naturalized American, and owing their loyalty to a foreign country. They would be so attached to it they lobby everyone, especially the American legislators, asking them to side against America by helping implement the agenda of the foreign country. In practice, they forgive that country the shortcomings that would anger them if committed in America; and they praise it for accomplishments that would leave them unmoved if achieved in America. Worse of all, this is a double standard they wear like a badge of honor.

You can see an example of treason of the fourth kind in the editorial that has appeared on August 22, 2015 under the title: “Schumer's bravery,” published in the New York Daily News on August 22, 2015. The core argument of the editors is this: “Chuck Schumer has shown impressive strength and wisdom in opposing President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.” Given that opposition to the deal means siding with Israel against America, both the editors of the Daily News and Chuck Schumer prove to be treasonous of a sort. But which level of treason would that be?

We can tell which level it is by following their reasoning as laid out in the rest of the editorial. It can be seen that the editors are lamenting what they call the “blowback” which, in their view, has been furious. They say that the pressure from the White House has been intense to the point that a senate colleague of Schumer fell in line and was joined by another who happens to be a defender of Israel; the House Representative from Manhattan. Many others, say the editors, are now calling for Schumer to lose the position he was slated to inherit as Democratic leader in the Senate when the current leader retires at the end of this session.

But why is that lamentation symptomatic of a treasonous bent of the worst kind? It is so because the pressure from the White House came in response to what AIPAC and World Jewry and Israel have been doing in their effort to pressure the American legislators to reject the nuclear deal. In fact, the Judeo/Israeli lobby AIPAC is spending millions to advertise against the deal, and spending millions more to take American legislators on junkets to Israel where they hear from the prime minister, and get commanded by him on how to betray their President in Washington … thus advance the Judeo/Israeli agenda at the expense of America.

This answers the question as to which level of treason the editors of the Daily News and Chuck Schumer are exhibiting. It is the fourth kind, the worst kind. And the editors cement that view with an ending that glaringly exposes the trick of conflating different realities. Look at this: “Rather than follow Obama into acquiescing to a regime that has called for Israel's extermination, Schumer has been loyal only to the interests of America and the world.” This is to say that Israel is all of America, is the entire world. And the world has countered: Bunk.

Trying to attribute his own Sins to others

David French wrote an article under the title: “The Iran Deal and Obama's Fatally Misguided View of the World,” and had it published on August 21, 2015 in National Review Online.

It is obvious that French is passionate about rejecting the Iran deal. Because of this, he feels that President Obama made a mistake negotiating it. To make sense of the situation, however, he attributes the mistake to Obama's misguided view of the world – more specifically, to the false understanding he has with regard to the real intention of the Muslims.

David French lends credence to the saying that no one who is powered by the Jewish mentality can function as a lawyer. That's because the Jewish mentality will always try to have it both ways, whereas the legal mind will try to avoid misrepresenting that which can be verified. And since having it both ways is the trap that will always expose such misrepresentation, the lawyer that thinks Jewish will end up looking like a would-be emperor basking in the infamy of his nakedness.

That in mind, look how methodically French goes about digging the trap that swallows him. After blasting the Iran nuclear deal for its provisions, he calls it “an economic treaty designed to advance President Obama's worldview.” He tells what that is: “the academic Left's view of America's troubles [being] America's own fault.” But what does it do? Well, it leads to the belief that “our Islamic-supremacist enemies exist because we have marginalized the 'authentic' voices in the Middle East in favor of propping up secular dictators.”

He goes deeper into Obama's thinking, and puts the following words in his mouth: “By switching sides from such 'establishment' dictators to the 'authentic' voice of the region's people, we can … usher in a new era.” The trouble is that there are several inaccuracies in this passage, one pertaining to something that the Arabs never forget. It has to do with the day of dishonor when George W. Bush's Condoleezza Rice went to Cairo and regurgitated to a large audience what Sharansky of Israel had stuffed in her boss's mouth who stuffed it in her mouth … something to this effect: “you chose stability over democracy, and you'll end up with neither democracy nor stability.” In fact, David French chose to disregard the reality that neither Rice nor the W is of the Left.

He goes on to say this: “The president [Obama] refuses to understand the supremacists. They don't want to join the family of nations; they want to be the Family of nations.” He says this much without mentioning ISIS which some people have accused of harboring supremacist tendencies. He thus gives the false impression that all Muslims are supremacists, and they refuse to join the family of nations because they all want to be the Family of Nations. What he does next is a deliberate attempt to cement that impression by juxtaposing the following to it: “the theology of Islamic supremacy goes back to the founding of Islam.” This is a trick often used by lawyers to tell the jury there is a relationship between the two juxtaposed statements without actually saying it.

Having made that point – however subtle he may have been – he uses it to pretend that he shares Obama's feeling of contrition regarding the mistakes America made in the Middle East. But he quickly points out that this should not be an excuse to blame America for the mess that the region is in now. Look how skillfully he does that. Right after accusing the Muslims of wanting to be the Family of Nations, he says this: “No one claims America's policy has been perfect … But [the Muslim] list of grievances predates the discovery of the New World, much less American 'meddling' abroad.”

The last part sounds like the closing argument a lawyer would make to a jury. It boils down to this: Yes, ladies and gentlemen, my client may have committed a misdemeanor or two in his life, but he is not the bad person that the plaintiff has described. In fact, all the bad things mentioned during the trial happened in this town before my client even got here … whereas the plaintiff had been here all the time, and may have been the owner of the knife purported to be the crime weapon.

If this sounds harsh, look what David French actually says about the Iranians: “they don't even disguise their hatred of the United States as they chant 'Death to America' and vow to continue their policies of terror and aggression … Obama wants to mainstream the Islamic Republic of Iran … in the hopes that it will embrace us back … for a time it just might look like Iran returns our embrace – right until we feel the knife in our back.”

The trouble with this kind of argument is that it glaringly misrepresents some well known realities, one being that to knife America in the back, one must have dual citizenship: one American, the other foreign. There are very few Iranians who also have American citizenship. If and when they go to Iran, these people are accused of spying, and are thrown in an Iranian jail.

This is in contrast with the Jews who brazenly denigrate America while glorifying Israel, and malign their own President while praising Israel's leaders. When caught spying for Israel and thrown in an America jail, they are given Israeli citizenship. Only this kind of conduct qualifies as being a knife in America's back, and only the Jews are capable of practicing it.

What all of this says is that David French, the lawyer, was shown to be the emperor who basks in the infamy of his nakedness. Furthermore, he may well be part owner of the knife in America's back – the murder weapon he tried so hard to attribute to the Iranians.

He owes the American people and their President an apology. He also needs to pledge that he’ll be a good citizen of the country that nurtured him, and that he’ll never again use the skills it gave him to glorify Israel, the only terrorist state remaining on the planet today.

Flamings that release usually hidden Information

There is virtue in things flaming out for, this is how a great deal of information is released. For example, much of what is known about the chemical elements we use everyday was obtained because they were torched.

On a bigger scale, all that we know about the universe was obtained thanks to a science called spectroscopy. This is the analysis of the light that reaches us from the stars. It is generated because the elements of which the stars are made, flame out and produce a great deal of information about them and about the distant galaxies in which they are located.

Something analogous happens here on Earth when people or movements or ideologies act out with such extreme zeal, they flame out and release information about themselves that were heretofore kept hidden from view. You can see an example of that in an article that came under the title: “AP Was Right, Critics Were Wrong, About IAEA Side Deal,” written by Omri Ceren and published on August 21, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

Whatever the name of the movement to which Ceren belongs – try Neocon – it is now in the process of flaming out, producing information about itself that was little known up to now. In fact, when you come right down to it, you'll find that the ideology under which the Neocons operate looks very much like a fashioned-to-suit-the-moment version of what the Rabbinical Jews have been working on for centuries.

What comes out the Ceren article is a demonstration of a strategy that the Jews have been using during that time with varying degrees of success, but has failed spectacularly in the matter of the nuclear deal that was negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 nations who acted on behalf of the international community. When a number of passages in the article are closely examined, the age old Jewish strategy comes out clearly.

What it entails is the use of seemingly legitimate and harmless procedures ... but is in reality nothing less than an insidious trick aimed at putting down and solidifying the outcome that the Jews want to see before the negotiators even sat around the table to negotiate. What also comes out is that these tricks reflect the way that the Jews have acted in the Congress, resulting in the American legislators always debating the issues vacuously, ending with a legislative product that paralyzes the business of America while fast-tracking the interests of Israel and the Jews.

Look how Ceren starts his article: “The Obama administration spent the last two years telling lawmakers and reporters...” A little later on, he has this: “Here's Wendy Sherman in 2013: the Joint Plan requires Iran to 'address past and present practices … including Parchin.'” And later still: “State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf in 2015: 'we would find it … very difficult to imagine a Plan of Action that did not require access at Parchin...'”

You can see that the questions which led to those pronouncements during the past two years were aimed at putting down and solidifying the outcome before the negotiators even sat around the table to negotiate. So we want to know what Omri Ceren thinks happened at the end of the negotiations. And here is what he says: “Republican senator Jim Risch suggested [note this word suggested] that the West had collapsed on the requirement...” And with that suggestion out there, things began to happen in an effort to prove its validity.

And so, when the Associated Press's (AP) reporter got access to the document that details what has been agreed upon, the Neocons started spinning its content to make it sound like “the West had collapsed” during the negotiations with Iran. Because the procedure in question is customarily executed by the IAEA, the matter was left up to that UN agency to explain it. What happened is this: “IAEA chief put out a statement seeking to defend the deal...” And there was this: “State Department spokesman John Kirby declined to back the White House validators who had attacked the AP's report...”

But the fact is that the IAEA chief did not seek anything but to explain what the deal was about. And John Kirby did not need to do anything to discredit the AP report, as it was discredited by its own people. Here is how this happened according to Ceren himself: “After the AP article was published, someone – presumably an overeager AP editor – tried to save some space by cutting several paragraphs from the original draft. That triggered a lot of conspiracy theories about the AP retracting the story.”

This is the point at which the Neocon trick flamed out. To revive it, the Jewish propaganda machine and its useful idiots gathered around John Kirby and tried to do to him what the Jewish lobby has been doing to the legislators in the American Congress. The idiots tried to make Kirby agree to an outcome before anyone knew, outcome to what exactly? Here is a question they asked him: “that Iran would take soil samples … that there wouldn't be any IAEA inspectors in the facility … you don't challenge those per se?” And here is Kirby's answer: “I'm not going to get into speaking about the details between the IAEA and Iran or any other nation for that matter.”

To end the article, Omri Ceren who falsely accused the “conspiracy” theorists of attacking the AP story following its retraction by its creators, now comes up with a conspiracy theory of his own. It goes like this: “that will confirm suspicions that the IAEA has been pressured by parties who want to put aside concerns in order to preserve the deal at all costs.”

So you ask: what's he basing that on? And there is no answer because it is Jewish phony baloney of the kind that has been nourishing the intellectually anemic clowns in the American Congress.

Too bad the American legislative Faust sold his soul to the Jewish devil before learning how the rest of the world had kept itself free of demonic influences.

A Teacher, two Students and the Principal

Let's say you are a teacher, and you have an issue with two students. Rumors are rampant that illicit drugs are kept in the lockers that belong to one or both students. You get down there and tell the two to open their lockers so that you may see for yourself.

Student A stalls by invoking his right to privacy, and refuses to open his locker. But he swears he never had, and never will have drugs in his possession. Student B produces a fuzzy picture, which he says proves that A has drugs in his locker. You don't see it that way but ask B to open his own locker. And this is when the kid starts to play games with you. He says he may or may not have drugs in his locker, but that's none of your business because the ultimate judge in this matter will be the principal of the school who is not here at this moment.

You call the principal on your cell phone and he comes down promptly. You fill him in on what's going on, and he says yes, it's none of your business that student B may or may not have drugs in his locker. At this point, B snatches the picture from your hand and shows it to the principal. What's that? the latter asks, and B says it is proof that A keeps drugs in his locker. You interject and ask the student to explain how he can be sure that's what the picture is showing, but the principal interrupts you, saying that student A must open his locker or else.

Well, my friend, you must have guessed that this tale is meant to be an analogy representing something bigger; and you are correct. It is the story of Iran and Israel, with the teacher representing the general public, and the principal representing the American Congress. Iran says it has no illicit weapons, and never will have them. Israel says it may or may not have them, yet accuses Iran of having them and demands that something be done about it. What's that all about?

It's about the Jewish propaganda machine using the Anglophile media, including the news agencies, to flood the world with so much noise as to change the conversation regarding the Iran nuclear deal. The current round of deception started with the editorial in the Wall Street Journal which came under the title: “Iran's Secret Self-Inspections” and the subtitle: “A report says the IAEA won't have access to the Parchin nuclear site,” published on August 19, 2015. It speaks of a bombshell revelation made by the Associated Press about Iran excluding the IAEA from inspecting its Parchin nuclear site, a revelation that was later denied by the IAEA.

Still, the noise that was initially created by the false revelation was enough to make the editors of the Journal start their piece by linking the event with the anticipated vote in the American Congress on the subject. Here is how they did that: “Three more Senators have declared against President Obama's Iran nuclear deal, and don't be surprised if more follow after [the] bombshell from the Associated Press.” They go on to make a big deal about the event that never happened, thus end the piece with this: “Public opposition is also growing. And it will increase as Americans learn that inspections include taking Iran's word...”

Later that same day, the audio-visuals were full of talking heads pouring out floods of speculated opinions about the danger that the revelation represents – especially to Israel – and calling on the American Congress to reject the deal. While they were at it, they also mentioned statistics (put out by the least reliable sources) to the effect that the public was increasingly coming against the deal. This must have stimulated the imagination of the print media editors who came out the next day with similar speculations and similar opinions.

The New York Daily News was one such publication whose editors spoke their mind under the title: “From bad to worse” and the subtitle: “A side agreement with Iran on its Parchin facility makes the nuclear deal look even more dangerous.” They said this: “The world has learned that the regime in Tehran will use its own inspectors to monitor its Parchin site, a facility about which Israeli intelligence strongly suggests the Iranians conducted experiments … This is like having a drug-addicted ex-con self-certify that he's on the straight and narrow.”

That would be student B lamenting to the teacher and the principal that Student A is being let off the hook. In fact, that is the same Israel which never let an international organization investigate allegations concerning war crimes it may have committed. And that is the same New York Daily News which blasted anyone and everyone who wished to investigate Israel because, as the editors put it, this is the country ... “the ooooonly country” that has the right to self-certify it is on the “straight and narrow” when it comes to the subject of lusting for the blood of the innocent. And to that Jewish claim, the world has said: bunk.

Sick Fantasy built on mights and coulds

For many decades if not centuries, the human race has accepted a theory – based on the observed facts – that the Jews are the group most responsible for the wars that have plagued mankind since the beginning of time. This was the view in the Anglophile world as well till the Jews fashioned the concept of 'political correctness' and pumped it into the culture.

For a time after that, people who mentioned that reality were treated like the anti-Semites who were bent on defaming the Jews, and who sought to spark a holocaust that will exterminate them once and for all. This situation lasted till the time when the Jews took control of the Anglophile media, made it propagate the Jewish message and nothing else. And so, it came to pass that the Jews who used to destroy the people that knew they were the ones who started the wars – were now the people who bragged about their exploits at making America go to war in furtherance of the Jewish/Israeli agenda.

And they announced triumphantly to the world that they will get America to attack Iran because – like their leader, Benjamin Netanyahu put it – they “know how to do these things.” But the idea provoked the American people so much that they let out a roar letting their leaders known they were tired of the wars that sapped their country's finances dry, killed thousands of its young people and incapacitated tens of thousands more. And the roar was heard in Washington, upon which President Obama said he will work for peace instead. And so he did.

When this happened, and the Jews saw that they will not be able to get America involved in another Middle Eastern war, they started doing the very Jewish thing of telling the world they were the ones who stood for peace all along while Barack Obama stood for war. Not only that, but they went on to say that he chose to pursue a policy that will lead to war.

And this is the idea that Joshua Muravchik is propounding in the article that came under the title: “Obama's Nuclear Deal is the Most Likely Path to War,” published on August 19, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. It is a marvelous example of a piece of writing that stands on legs of 'coulds' and 'mights' where a collection of 'this could happen' and 'that might result' lead the author to construct a most unlikely scenario, presenting it as a real possibility – as real as the sick fantasy that’s in his head.

He starts with a question that contains the things which horrify the American people, most notably having boots on the ground in a foreign land, engaged in a murderous war. Thus, Muravchik puts the question in this form: “How might the United States end up in a boots-on-the-ground shooting war with Iran?” He goes on to expand on a theory that is made of 4 'mights' and 6 'coulds' to ultimately argue in favor of the on-its-head-view that considers war to be peace, and peace to be war.

Here are the four mights: (1) “Iran, which claims Bahrain as its own territory, might take action;” (2) “Tehran might stir up Kuwait's sometimes restive Shiite minority;” (3) “Israel might be confronted with its largest war since 1967;” and (4) “mounting Middle Eastern violence might embolden Vladimir Putin to new steps toward his goal.”

And here are the six coulds: (1) “What scenarios could lead to that?” (2) “There are numerous imaginable flashpoints at which this could intensify;” (3) “Iran's Yemeni allies, tutored by Hezbollah, could strike on Saudi territory;” (4) “Bahrain's restive Shiite majority could rise;” (5) “money and volunteers could bring these fanatics new conquests;” and (6) “Any of these scenarios could draw the United States into just the kind of briar patch that President Obama says he wants to avoid.”

Having constructed the fantasy of a diseased mind based on ten mights and coulds, Joshua Muravchik goes on to tell that: “He [Obama] mocks his critics as warmongers, but it is his ill-conceived policy that is most likely to get us into a war.”

And there is a lesson to learn in all of this, my friend. It is that when reading something written by a Jew, the moment you encounter a might or a could, you get away from the thing because all that the writer is trying to do is ejaculate into your head, your heart and your soul a diseased shot of his Jewish moral syphilis.

Get out of there, and run away from it as fast as you would from hell itself.

Dancing in the Studios and editorial Rooms

Imagine that every time a calamity happens in America – such as a train derailment or a horrendous highway accident – some crazy individuals in the world celebrate the occurrence by talking about it, not in sorrow or sympathy for those who suffer, but by chewing over the real and imagined deficiencies of the American system of governance.

Now imagine another type of crazy individuals celebrating with joy and glee every time that a successful terrorist attack takes place in America by discussing such things as Guantanamo, the NSA spying on people, the waterboarding, the rendition scandal, and all that tells them America is a democracy in name only because it is as fake in their eyes as a three-dollar bill.

Still, imagine a third type of crazy people holding vigils to mourn every success that America scores in science, industry and the economy. What would you say of all these happenings? Would you not say that the world is full of crazy people? How about someone proving to you that all those crazies are not spread around the world but are concentrated in one and the same country? You would think – at least for a moment – that the country is full of animals, monstrous animals and not of human beings, would you not?

Well, let me tell you something, my friend, this is exactly what is happening in America … not everywhere in the land but mostly in the editorial rooms of the media, and in the studios of the audio-visuals – especially where there is a large concentration of Jews. So then, what do these people mourn, and what do they celebrate? They mourn the success of the Arab and Muslim countries, and they celebrate the calamities that befall them.

When you follow what they transmit to their audiences in spoken language, body language, the choice of words they make, the images they broadcast, and the styles they adopt, you get the feeling that these people wish to see the complete disintegration of the Arab and Muslim worlds, especially at this time, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran. And they will do anything and everything they can to convince the Congress of subhumans still running the country they call America – to work to those ends.

You get a sense of all this when you read the editorial in the New York Times which came under the title: “The questionable Legality of military Aid to Egypt,” published on August 19, 2015. The excuse for writing it is that a senator who goes by the name Patrick Leahy relied on a report issued by the State Department discussing the operation that the Egyptian government has conducted against terrorists in the Sinai, resulting in a successful campaign that eventually brought peace and development for the civilian population of the Peninsula.

All along – let me repeat, it was all along the time that the terrorists were scoring murderous successes against the civilians and the police protecting them, that the media types in America were dancing in the studios and the editorial boards with gleeful reporting about the number of dead Egyptians that the ISIS killers were scoring.

They tallied the numbers from past operations and displayed them like a father displays his son's athletic medals. And why all that pride? Because the numbers should – get this now because it's the most important part of the story – the numbers should humiliate the Egyptian military. That's what those subhumans were celebrating.

But why now? Why has the New York Times come up with this editorial at this time? Because negotiations are about to start between Egypt and not just America, but the three NAFTA countries, aiming to forge a free trade agreement between them.

The editors of the Times know that Egypt will be better off without having a military partnership with America. But as promiscuous as the country has been in forging trade agreements with other countries, it still wants to expand the list of countries with which it can trade freely.

Be that as it may, it is the choice of the Egyptian people, and that's the choice that is stirring the bile of those who would rather dance at Egypt's calamities than celebrate its successes in commerce and industry.

These are monsters disguised as human beings.

Blaming others for the Failures of Democracy

Richard W. Rahn who is usually a level-headed man could not help but be an authentic American on this issue. He joined the chorus of people – which is most Americans – who tend to blame others (that would be foreign countries) for the failures of America's democracy.

For example, the Americans have a national drug problem, and have a long running war on drugs that is going nowhere. So what do they do? They tell the nations from where the drugs come that American drug enforcement agents cannot do what is necessary to stamp out the problem because the laws of democracy forbid them from acting in a certain way. Therefore, they want the other countries to help reduce the supply of drugs because they cannot reduce the demand for them in America. Another similar problem the Americans have is what's known as the rendition scandal.

What Richard Rahn is saying now (hinting actually) is that Iran and the world must be punished with the rejection by Congress of the Iran nuclear deal because America's laws on trade and commerce have put America's companies at a disadvantage when it comes to doing business with Iran. Not only that, but while this situation is enforced on the Americans, it turns out that companies from other countries are free to do as much business as they want with Iran.

You think I'm making this up, don't you? Well, I'm not; and you can verify it for yourself because Rahn put down his thoughts in black and white. He wrote an article under the title: “The Iran deal means game over for U.S business” and the subtitle: “Other nations can cash in, but not American companies.” It was published on August 17, 2015 in The Washington Times.

He begins the article with a clearly stated opinion: “If you need a reason to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, the administration has provided it.” He then explains what that is by asking a question: “Why would the U.S. government put American businesses at a disadvantage.” After expanding on that thought, he makes a suggestion: “at a minimum, U.S. businesses should be placed on a level playing field with their foreign competitors when it comes to access to the Iranian market.”

Now a puzzling question: Why would someone like Richard Rahn who is Chairman of the Institute for Global Growth, contemplate even for a minute, punishing the world … and in so doing, deprive it of the growth it badly needs just because America cannot get its house in order? Well, the rest of the article provides the answer to that question. It is that he has grown frustrated at his own country, and the system under which it is governed.

He tells of exceptions to the prohibition of doing business with Iran under the now established rules. They include commercial aircraft, for example, but not consumer goods such as household appliances. These are laws that only Congress can change. In addition, there is the fact that American businesses wishing to export to Iran could not use U.S. banks to facilitate the transaction; another restriction that only Congress can remove.

So you ask: What's the problem? And the answer is that the Congress seems dead set against the nuclear deal with Iran. Thus, even if the deal goes into effect because the Congress could not override the President's veto, that Congress will not make it easy for Americans to compete against foreigners, by changing the pertinent laws.

This is what motivates Rahn to now shift his position. Instead of advocating the rejection of the nuclear deal, he spins the issue to advocate its passage by the Congress. Here is what he says: “U.S. security is not enhanced by putting U.S. business at a disadvantage for goods and services that the Iranians can obtain elsewhere … the sanctions were dead by the time the agreement was announced because [others] have been negotiating deals with Iran – leaving the United States as an impotent bystander.”

But, lest the readers believe he is turning his political coat to embrace another ideology, he ends the article by saying the things that assures the world he remains who he is. He does it this way: “The distasteful reality is that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle – the Iranians are going to do what they want … the Obama administration has thrown away effective financial sanctions. We have lost most of whatever ability we had to control the destiny of others. But we can still control our destiny by strengthening our economy and modernizing our military.” All of which means: Praise the Lord of business and feed the military industrial complex.