This discussion is about fairness and legality on the
international stage. However, before we get into the main topic, we need to
flesh out an idea. And the best way to do this is to give an example.
Suppose a serious dispute erupts between two American States
or two Canadian Provinces
or an American State
and a Canadian Province
What happens normally is that the aggrieved State or
Province sues the alleged culprit in the courts of the culprit. But if there is
a treaty between the two nations, and a dispute arises on a matter covered by
the treaty, a tribunal composed of jurists from both nations is convened to
adjudicate the case.
In the past, when it came to international disputes
involving the United States ,
the Administration went to the appropriate international tribunals and had the
disputes settled there. And then one day, the Jews ran out of money – having
milked Germany
for all the “compensation” money they could get – and so they looked for
compensation somewhere else. The trouble is that no Nuremberg sort of tribunal had been set-up to
put the squeeze on someone the way that it did on the Germans. This being the
case, what's a Jew to do?
Well, the Jews that had trained the American Congress to
bark when signaled to do so, sent out a signal to let it be known that they
wanted a law permitting them to sue in America
someone like Switzerland ,
for example, asking to be compensated for damages they suffered during World
War II. And the Congress of the United
States barked exactly as instructed, and
geared itself to extort money from the Swiss to give to the Jews.
For this primitive coup to succeed, the operations of the
Swiss banks in America
were held hostage. Either the Swiss agree to pay what the Brooklyn courts had
ordered, or their assets in America
will be confiscated. And the banks may be ordered to stop doing business in the
country altogether. That, my friend, was the incident that allowed a slippery
slop for the proliferation of similar actions, to take root in America .
A consequence of that is a case that involves Iran . It is
discussed in the editorial which came under the title: “American Tax Dollars
for the Mullahs” and the subtitle: “Tehran gets
more cash while its U.S.
victims get nothing.” It was published on January 21, 2016 in the Wall Street
Journal.
Two formulations you encounter in that editorial tell you
there is in it a heavy Jewish influence. One formulation appears in the first
paragraph. It is this: “Iran 's
Supreme Leader has good reason to be happy.” In fact, this is the method by
which the Jews gauge if something is good or bad for them. Because they know
they hate the Supreme Leader ... to see him happy says that the nuclear deal he
concluded with the world must have been a bad thing for the Americans to have
negotiated.
The other formulation is an ambiguity of the kind that is
committed by Jews when they try to have it both ways ... which is most of the
time. Here is how they cooked up the current ambiguity: “the Administration
agreed to pay $1.7 billion to settle a claim dating to the 1970s.” They
explain: “That amount includes a $400 million trust fund, plus $1.3 billion in
interest.” They complain: “The $1.3 billion will come from U.S.
taxpayers.” Because of this, another argument can now be injected into the
debate. It is this: “it happens that $1.7 billion is also the amount at issue
in a case brought by Americans against the Central Bank of Iran .”
What happened here? What happened is that $400 million that
grow at a compounded interest of 3.5 to 4 percent a year will reach the value
of $1.7 billion after about four decades. That's because the money does not sit
idle in the bank vault. It is invested, and he who has it reaps the benefit.
When the time comes to return it, the entire profit – or at least a part of it
– is returned with the principal. That's what happened in this case.
What it means is that the $1.3 billion is as much Iran 's money as
the $400 million. It is not taxpayers' money. The editors of the Wall Street
Journal lie to their readers when they say it is. Even a Jew knows that. But
the Jew will lie shamelessly and deliberately if he believes he can gain
something he is not entitled to. And this is the depth to which the Wall Street
Journal sinks when it is influenced by Jews.