What is the purpose – in a so-called democracy – of making
laws and/or pronouncements under the guise of clarifying principles said to
make freedom ring? Well, it can be argued with some certainty that such laws and
pronouncements will instead lead to killing freedom with the unintended
consequence of killing people too.
This reality comes out loudly and clearly when you go over
the childish and tortured editorial of the Wall Street Journal which came under
the title: “Obama's R-Word for Iran” and the subtitle: “A spokesman calls it
'leverage' for prisoners, aka ransom for hostages.” It was published on August
18, 2016 in the Journal.
Instead of starting the piece by defining the word 'ransom'
and proceeding to show that it is (or is not) what the White House did when
dealing with Iran, the editors started like this: “The Obama Administration's
handling of the Iran ransom-for-hostages story brings to mind the Chico Marx
line in the movie “Duck Soup”: “Who are you going to believe – me or your own
eyes?”
In the absence of a mature effort to clarify what they mean
by their use of the word 'ransom,' you can struggle all you want with the
editors' piece of work and you'll come no closer to understanding what they try
to convey with the use of the term “ransom-for-hostages,” or indeed, what
purpose is served by the editorial other than it is an exercise in futility – a
term, by the way, which defines Jewish haggling perfectly.
Jewish haggling is an end in itself, therefore has no
purpose except to exist for its own sake. This, however, does not preclude the
unintended consequences which may flow from haggling being done in the first
place. And this leads to the question: Can the Journal editorial – as silly and
pointless as it is – be responsible for American citizens being killed in the
future? To find the answer, we look to the question that the editors have
asked, and what response was given. Here it is:
“One may reasonably ask: Why did the Obama Administration
persist with such an obviously preposterous cover story? Mr. Obama offered one
honest answer amid the original denial. We didn't pay a ransom, the President
said, “precisely because if we did we'd start encouraging Americans to be
targeted”.
The way this exchange has unfolded is that President Obama
first asserted that no American has ever been targeted. He went on to explain:
if we say ransom-for-hostages, what we fear the most will come to pass, which
is why we don't say it. So the editors reacted by shouting to potential hostage
takers: But he did, he did, he did.
So now, those who never intended to target Americans have
been assured by the editors of the Wall Street Journal that despite the
denials, they'll be paid well if they target Americans. And of course, if no
payment is made, the hostages may be killed. This is the unintended consequence
of juvenile editors that never let an opportunity pass without milking it of
every drop of sensational value they can draw from it.
How did America
handle such situations in the past? And how did America get to where it is today?
Paying ransom is defined as exchanging something that is
yours – such as money – for something or someone that is also yours. Thus, the
transaction that took place between America
and Iran cannot be called
ransom because it only swapped Iranian money that was held in America for American prisoners that were held in
Iran .
What happened instead is akin to what America used to
do during the Cold War when prisoners were exchanged by their simultaneous
release on a bridge that connected the Eastern and Western blocs of nations.
There was no fuss and no muss then because no Jewish haggling was allowed to
interfere with the business of the nation.
What happened subsequently is that the Jews infiltrated America to such
depth; they pushed out fruitful debates and replaced them with useless Jewish
haggling. This had the effect of creating a sea of ambiguities that froze the
debaters in place and pushed democracy out, replacing it with Jewish authoritarian
rule.
And this happened because haggling has paralyzed the nation
and opened the door for the Jews to dictate their daily demands, and have them
fulfilled promptly while the business of America remains dead in the water
like a ship of state that's frozen in a sea of defunct ideas.
Frozen and going nowhere is what the Congress of the United States as well as the legislatures of the
various States in the Union , have become under
Jewish authoritarian rule.