The two principles “meritocracy” and “the quest for life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness” cannot be separated. To have one you must
have the other. If you lose one; you lose the other.
And so, if you seek to implement one of the principles
anywhere in the world, you must also seek to implement the other. This is what
you should want for your friends; it is also what you should want for your
enemies if you can convince them to change their ways and adopt your way of
life.
Of course, if someone is your enemy and you are locked in a
battle with him, you do what you can to deprive him of what he is pursuing. It
also means that you try to deny him obtaining what he merits getting as reward
for his talent and for the effort he exerts to improve his condition.
If you manage to turn an enemy into a friend, you end the
effort to deprive him of what is due to him. In fact, this was the policy that
the United States of America
used to pursue following its World War II victories. And this is why America was
loved, respected and honored everywhere in the world. But then something evil
happened. It is that America
was infiltrated by the Jews, and things turned for the worse.
Much has been written on this website regarding the Jewish
influence on American politics locally, and American diplomacy on the
international stage. There is now the opportunity to study another aspect of
that influence; the effort that's exerted on America 's culture. The occasion is
an editorial that came under the title: “Obama's no-win situation on Iran nuke
deal,” published on January 21, 2016 in the New York Daily News.
This piece of work is a classic example of how the Jews
slander innocent people. They do it by imagining the worst about their victims,
and laying out their vision as if it were an established fact. In this case,
they are painting the Iranians as the devil that will not change now or ever.
To sound convincing, they fragment the known facts relating to the matter
that's being discussed, and conveniently select the parts that will work for
them. This done, they use those parts to construct arguments that lead to the
conclusions they envisaged at the start.
Here is an example. First, the editors attack President
Obama for saying that the pact with Iran closes every path to the bomb.
No, they say, “the pact extends the breakout time only from a few months to a
year.” Despite the fact that this point represents only a fragment of the pact,
they discuss it as if it were the entire pact. They go from there to discuss
other things, then return to the same point and select another fragment. This
one: “The nuclear deal handcuffs Iran for just a decade.” And they
attack Obama for that too, making no attempt to link the two fragments they
brought up so far.
But when you put the two fragments together, you realize
that they say Iran 's
path to the bomb has been put off from a few months to at least a decade. Well,
this may not mean that the path to the bomb has been cut off for ever, but it
comes closer to what Obama had said it will do. And that's not even the whole
story because the editors neglected to mention the fragments that would have
completed the picture. It is that international inspectors will monitor
everything that the Iranians do in the nuclear field; from the mining of
uranium up the supply chain to its use in the production of electric power.
Had the editors of the New York Daily News painted a
complete picture of reality rather than fragment it and attack the fragments
they selected, they would have had no choice but to conclude what Obama had
concluded. They would not have attacked him for “imagining that within 10 years
the mullahs will be members in good standing of the world community;” they
would have affirmed that prediction.
Unfortunately, however, that's precisely what they wanted to
avoid saying because they wish to deny the Iranians what is rightfully theirs
... such as the billions of dollars that were frozen. And that's because they
fear that “each dollar will bolster Iran
as a regional power to the disadvantage of Israel .”
What panicked the editors is this: “Obama has led the world
into a new era of Western relations with Iran . The mullahs are closer to
regional domination than before.” In fact, they want Israel
to be that – not Iran .
Thus, they want America
to act against its own principle of promoting meritocracy by denying the
Iranians their version of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In so doing, the Jewish editors do not worry about the
consequences of their machinations. That's because they could not care less
about robbing America
of the love, respect and honor that the world wishes to bestow on that country
again. To the Jewish editors, it is Israel ,
always Israel and no one but
Israel .