Michelle Dunne, PhD in economic Ignorance

An average length feature film runs about 100 minutes. If you are inclined to spend this much time to be entertained, I recommend that you spend 101 minutes watching a far more entertaining video online.

The way to get to it is to go to the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. Once there, go to the Elliott Abrams blog which came under the title: “Doubts About U.S. Assistance to Egypt,” published on April 28, 2017. This is a short article that says Senator Lindsay Graham held a hearing about Egypt in which the witnesses were a comical character named Elliott Abrams, an ignorant character named Michelle Dunne and a miserable character named Tom Malinowski.

Two links are given at the end of the article. One sends you to a 9-page PDF containing the Abrams testimony; the other sends you to the above-mentioned video, which runs for one hour and forty-one minutes. In it, you'll see and hear the testimony of Malinowski, a third generation Holocaust psycho advocating the idea of telling Egypt it must let the Congressional saboteurs – disguised as human rights workers – sabotage Egypt or else. You'll also see and hear the testimony of Dunne who knows enough about economic matters to make only six errors balancing her checkbook. That's an improvement over last year when she used to make seven errors.

And you'll hear and see the testimony of Abrams who has the habit of going comically ballistic when money is mentioned. The last time he did so is when the decision was made to give the 5 million Jews of Israel only 38 billion dollars instead of the 45 billion that Netanyahu wanted for putting America into trouble everywhere in the world. This time Abrams was able to suppress his ballistic instinct as he registered his anger that 94 million Egyptians were receiving a whopping 1.3 billion dollars for helping America navigate speedily from Europe and the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea and the Orient – and back.

Where do these people get the information upon which they build their cases? Well, like any country, Egypt has opposition that ranges from mild to severe. You'll find these people express their views in local and foreign publications. Depending on their political orientation, they paint a picture of governance in the country that ranges from the mildly inept to the extremely destructive.

What happens subsequently is that the “highly educated” ignoramuses of America seize upon such sayings and build their cases. The trouble is that they don't even have the IQ to understand what's going on in their own country. For example, time and again, they prove incapable of differentiating between the sayings of those who like Donald Trump and those who hate him. And yet, they want you to believe they can differentiate between those who hate the current set-up in Egypt just a little and those who hate it a lot. And so the ignoramuses of America rely on the enemies of Egypt – local and foreign – to help them blurt out the nonsense that they do.

Which is why it is necessary to show how useless the testimonies of these people are when the time comes to put together a foreign policy for America. As far as their views with regard to Egypt are concerned, their testimonies must be treated with the fear and dread one would have for vials containing the Ebola virus. Thus, the Senators who listened to the testimonies of those characters should be aware of the following:

First, in the human rights category, there has been no hunger strike or riot in any Egyptian prison like there has been in Israel and in Latin America. That's because in Egypt, people are incarcerated for a reason. If and when they are, the state treats them with dignity.

Second, in the economics category, the smart money from East and West, and from North and South, is now going to Egypt, the country that was recently deemed the best place to invest. And get this now, my friend; one of the reasons given for such honor is that Egypt has a well trained labor force.

Third, in the global likeability category, America does not have to pimp for Egypt the way it does for Israel. And nobody is BDSing Egypt like they do Israel. Thus, to say that foreign leaders express their astonishment at America's tolerance for Egypt's style of governance is to tell a lie like only a very psychotic Holocaust psycho is able to fabricate one.

It is obvious that World Jewry is panicking at the goodwill they see forming between Egypt and the Trump Administration. It is therefore responding by trying to recruit the Congress, and have it work to sabotage the rapprochement that's resulting. Those who join the crusade are not patriots; they are traitors.

They falsely accuse others and milk America

I once received a missive from someone that lived somewhere on this planet, informing me that he stayed in our neck of the wood long enough to learn that the liberties we say we enjoy are not what the rest of the world associates with freedom of thought or speech.

He argued that political correctness and the taboos we place on many subjects – especially those associated with Jewish matters – make a mockery of that claim. He went on to say that the only subjects we can discuss safely in North America are those pertaining to the genitals and their stimulation. He concluded that we make the mistake of believing we have a vibrant democracy because we confuse the idea with the vibrating instruments we buy in a sex shop.

I remember that missive every time I read a sentence like this: “Israel's vibrant democracy has always been one of its great strengths.” Most of the time I would encounter it in rags such as the New York Times. This time is no exception but for the fact that there has been a small deviation. It is that the sentence came in an editorial that's critical of Israel. No, it's not a simple criticism even if it sounds friendly on the whole. Rather, it is a devastating criticism because it lends credibility to the mysterious missive I received long ago.

The New York Times piece came under the title: “Israel Sees Critics as Enemies,” published on April 28, 2017 in the New York Times. The editors discuss Netanyahu's refusal to meet the foreign minister of Germany because the latter met with a nongovernmental group called “Breaking the Silence” whose work has been to “gather anonymous testimonies from Israeli soldiers about their service in occupied territories, often highlighting hardships imposed on the Palestinians”.

Think about it; if Israel's prime minister snubs the foreign minister of “Israel's staunch supporter” because the latter did nothing more than talk to someone who wants to break the silence in what the editors continue to call a vibrant democracy, imagine what the Jewish organizations of North America will do to those who violate political correctness or break the Jewish taboos. This reality alone should say volumes to us about the content of that mysterious missive.

It is up to us now to look at ourselves and ask if we have not allowed the Jewish organizations to inject into our culture a kind of hallucinatory serum that makes us believe we are free when in fact, we have been reduced to a flock of sheep incessantly corralled and guided – not by the Jewish masters themselves – but by their barking dogs. They send us to pasture when it is time for us to feed, and they send us to the slaughterhouse when it is time for them to feed.

If this sounds like George Orwell's Animal Farm, it's because it is a close approximation. A Jewish organization that keeps the farm in good order calls itself – what else! “Foundation for Defense of Democracies.” Its founder, Clifford D. May, happens to have written an article that shows why the Jews think of themselves as Lords of the farm, and the rest of us as their flock of sheep.

May's article came under the title: “Why Boeing and Airbus deals with Iran shouldn't fly” and the subtitle: “Aiding and abetting terrorists is bad business.” It was published on April 25, 2017 in The Washington Times.

First, Clifford May makes the point that Iran must be checked. He then tells the Trump administration that “some measures can and should be taken immediately,” the most important being: “suspend licensing for aircraft deals.” He urges the administration to proceed with the cancellation despite his acknowledgment of the fact that “Executives, stockholders and [workers] for Boeing and Airbus will not be pleased by what I've written”.

And here is his rationale for putting the American people and the nation through that wringer. Speaking of the Iranians, Clifford May says this: “They're the world's leading sponsors of terrorism, vowing genocide against Israel … Mr. Trump should not allow Boeing nor any American company to be in the business of aiding and abetting terrorists and war criminals”.

But the fact is that whatever Iran is doing, it is not occupying another country. Israel is occupying Palestine, and that's the highest form of terrorism you can imagine. Moreover, while Israel is terrorizing the population, it is working on achieving cultural genocide by calling on America to help it starve the Palestinian people so as to wither away in situ or be forced to leave their property and put themselves in the hands of human traffickers that may end up drowning them.

The terrorists and war criminals are in Israel and nowhere else. In the name of a fake democracy that's vibrating the wrong way, America is aiding and abating Israel by financing its occupation of Palestine, and by allowing American citizens to also contribute in this horrific crime of the ages.

In addition, America is arming Israel to the teeth and protecting it from the kind of criticism it badly needs to reform. This makes America the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world today.

The trouble is that America's senses are being stimulated to orgasmic bliss by Jewish vibrations like those produced by Clifford May and amplified by the editors of the New York Times and their likes. The result is that the nation's brass fails to realize what the Jews are making it do.

And this must have been the message of the mysterious missive I received long ago.

The Haggle that paves the Way for Travesty

If you are omnipotent and wish to renege on a contract (whether written or verbal) you entered into with someone, you simply state that you'll not honor the agreement, and that's that.

But if your potency is somewhat limited, and you need friends to join you when entering into a contract with someone … and then decide that you want to renege on it, you look for a roundabout way to do so. The idea is to make it look like bolting out of the deal was a preordained proposition you had nothing to do with. To help you pull off a trick like this, you'll most likely seek the counsel of experts in this kind of games. They would be the Jews who engage in this sort of thing as a matter of habit if not religious obligation.

This is what John R. Bolton and Paula A. DeSutter must have done before writing a piece in which they advise the White House on how to pave the way for reneging on the Iran nuclear deal. They co-wrote “Tangled in Obama's Iran nuclear trap,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Certification of Tehran's compliance is neither wise, necessary nor accurate.” It was published on April 26, 2017 in The Washington Times.

Because the subject of Iran entering the Nuclear Age was deemed to be of great importance to the security of the world, America called on the other permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as Germany to join it in negotiating a deal with Iran that will guaranty the country will never develop nuclear weapons. The (P5+1) as they were called met with Iran, negotiated the deal and signed it.

Upon this, the Jews who had managed to establish Israel as a kind of Jewish version of al-Qaeda in occupied Palestine immediately started pulling strings to do what they have been doing since they got into the region. In the same way that they called on Joseph Stalin to help them get established, and called on Anthony Eden and Guy Mollet to help them attack Egypt, and called on John Foster Dulles to deny Egypt a bank loan to build the Aswan hydroelectric station – they called on America to destroy an Iran that was becoming too influential. Instead of doing that, the Obama administration partnered with its allies and forged a nuclear deal with Iran.

True to form, the Jews waited for the next American administration to come into office, and try convincing it to renege on the nuclear deal. To this end, the Jews recruited the usual mouthpieces – Bolton and DeSutter among them – and showed them how to go about educating the new administration and the Congress on how to renege on the deal. They showed the mouthpieces how to conduct the kind of haggle that will overload the mental capacity of their audiences, thus force them to accept the Jewish position just to end the haggle and have some quiet.

The opportunity to do it was there because the President is required by law to certify to Congress whether or not Iran is honoring the terms of the agreement. The White House did just that but the two writers objected. Here is what they say in this regard, and it's up to you to make sense of it: “The president was required only to decide whether he could avow Iran's implementation of the agreement. He was not required to make a choice, either certifying that Iran was complying or that it was not. He could have sidestepped not to mention what we know about Iran's violations”.

Whatever that means; when translated into simple English it can only mean one thing. It is a plea for the President of the United States to lie about Iran not complying with the terms of the agreement the next time he reports to Congress. The goal is to trigger the consequences that stipulate expediting “legislative consideration of new anti-Iran sanctions legislation.” In other words, Bolton and DeSutter are telling the President he must lie to Congress so as to commit a legal travesty, and hope to get away with it.

What puts the Jewish stamp on this kind of haggle is what comes next in the article. Simply put, the writers call Trump's first certification to Congress a mistake. Worse, they attribute the mistake to the evil motivation of the two main actors: Former President Barack Obama and current President Donald Trump.

They say that Mr. Trump failed to rise to the challenge of distorting the truth in the name of the greater good; something he should have done. And they say that Mr. Obama was gripped by the idea of fulfilling the promise to save lives by keeping America out of wars; something he should not have done.

In trying to make it look like the Iran deal is so bad, America must renege on it, Bolton and DeSutter made themselves look so bad, nothing they say should be taken seriously.

Massaging America's Ego to Bankruptcy

Half a century ago, in the year 1967, there were no signs that the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact nations were under any kind of economic stress. A year later, Czechoslovakia erupted in a revolutionary fever, and the world began to wonder if the Communist Bloc was as solid as it appeared. Twenty-three years later, the world got the answer when the Soviet Union dissolved. Why did it happen?

It happened because the Russians were given a magnificent inheritance made of two parts: one cultural, and one that counts as natural wealth. Unlike the Germans who only inherited a magnificent culture, the Russians relied on their natural wealth to make it through the turbulent times of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. But their policy carried them only so far, and then let them down. To understand this part, we need to compare what the Russians did with what the Germans did to survive the plots that the colonial powers unleashed against them both.

What is loosely termed “Western Europeans” is a group of nations that became the colonial powers of their day. They were the Seven Sisters of Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium and Italy. It was in those countries as well as Germany and the Eastern Europeans (including Russia) that the Industrial Revolution saw its genesis. But only the 7 sisters got the idea that the new industries could produce the guns that will allow them to conquer the world. They did just that, and kept the other Europeans out.

Eventually, the Sisters got wealthy plundering the ancient worlds as well as the New World. They even had enough energy to turn against each other when they were not fighting a common enemy. Left out and in need to survive economically – especially after the Second World War – the Soviets relied on the natural resources they had inherited. To survive militarily, they relied on the entire gamut of their human resources, a move that forced them to neglect building a civilian industrial base. By contrast, the Germans, who originally relied on their human resources to fulfill their military needs, turned to civilian production when they lost the war and chose to shed their militaristic posture.

With the advances achieved in the design and use of the mining and agricultural machinery, the natural resources became plentiful and cheap. They gained their value back only when processed into useful products. The consequence of this has been that the Soviet economy began to sink whereas the German began to thrive. Eventually, the Soviet Union collapsed and Germany became an economic superpower. Is there a lesson in this history for the United States?

Before we can answer this question, we need to look at something that is specific to the United States. There was a time when gold – being a natural resource – had an intrinsic high value compared to what the world was producing in terms of goods and services for civilian consumption. This made it ideal to use as reserve by the banks to back the notes they were printing. But then the amount of gold produced in the world plateaued, even declined. Meanwhile, the production of goods and services experienced an explosive growth. Printed money flooded the economies of the world like tsunami, and there was not enough gold to back them unless its value was artificially inflated to levels that would put it out of everyone's reach except the banks.

That's when the idea of using gold as reserve was dropped, and the banks relied on the accumulation of foreign currencies to back their own. But to acquire foreign currencies, you must have an economy that satisfies local demand and produce a surplus for export. This meant that the value of your currency depended on your balance of payment. In fact, this is how the nations of the world have operated for three decades with one exception: The United States of America. How and why did this happen?

Having won the Second World War, and having helped to rebuild the nations against which it fought, America saw its dollar replace the British “sterling” as the currency that everyone asked for when the time came to be paid. When the banks set gold aside, they first used a basket of currencies as reserve to back their own. Because it was abundant, the dollar gradually became the preferred currency to use as reserve. And that's precisely where the danger lies for the American economy.

The nations that hoard the American dollar know that it is overvalued – not because of the strength of the American economy but – by the fact that they and others are hoarding it. Still, they continue to hoard it because everyone else is doing it, and the practice is working for them at this time. They know that one unforeseen event could send it crashing, but they are keeping their fingers crossed. Meanwhile, they are building their own economies to such size and strength that when the end will come for the American dollar, they will not be seriously affected by the loss.

In addition, a number of nations, spearheaded by China, are in the process of creating a parallel banking system for international interchange to replace the one that's now dominated by the United States. And the way things are moving – whether or not the dollar will crash – America will find itself isolated economically from a world that will soon attain several times its current size.

But why will America be isolated? It will be because the world will want to crackdown on it. If you want to know why, read the article that came under the title: “The coming US crackdown on Iran,” written by Benny Avni and published on April 25, 2017 in the New York Post.

You'll discover that the world will want to make America drink from the cup of its own evil … actually from the cup of its Jewish evil. Here is the revealing passage that tells you why: “Wouldn't a rush to unilateral punishment leave America all by our lonely self, as many allies resist reimposing international sanctions? … 'The US has a lot of power' says Anthony Rugierro. America can block access to world banking and force companies and institutions to choose between doing business with us or with them”.

For fifty years, the Jews have been telling America, go destroy this one, smash that one, and punish this other one because they all hate us and they hate you too. Go censure this one, and impose sanctions on that one because you are so big and powerful, you can do it and nothing will happen to you.

This may have been true while America – like the old Soviet Union – could live on its inheritance. But now that the inheritance is about to be depleted, the fantasy world that the Jews have created continues to marvel only the congressional fools who repeatedly and unanimously vote to put America on the road to bankruptcy. If and when this happens, you'll know who to blame.

Single-minded Lawyers, open-minded Judges

Before being appointed to sit on the bench, a judge would have served as defense lawyer or prosecutor. As such, he or she would have been single-mindedly biased in favor of their client, be that a citizen or the state.

Of course, this level of dedication to the client does not give either counsel the right to take a stance so extreme as to (1) violate the rules for disclosing the evidence that one side may have but not the other; or (2) violate the rules that prohibit interference with the normal conduct of the case.

And when a lawyer is appointed to the bench to sit as judge, the rules of the game change. He or she must now approach every case with an open-mind. It means that judges are expected to remain absolutely impartial till all the evidence is in. Only then, do they render a decision in favor of one side or the other.

In a manner analogous to that, journalism is divided into two categories. There are those who report the news and are supposed to do so evenhandedly as if they were judges. And there are those whose job is to express opinions. These are the pundits who act like lawyers in that they defend one side of the argument; or act like prosecutors, in that they attack the opposite side. Most of the time, however, they do both simultaneously: build up one side while tearing down the other.

If we accept those views as being a reasonable and desirable code of conduct for both the legal profession and for journalism, we can begin to evaluate some of the things we see happen in today's journalism. To this end, we can study an article that came under the title: “Presidents damagingly politicized the Holocaust long before Sean Spicer,” written by Rabbi Avi Weiss and published on April 24, 2017 in the New York Daily News.

Though not a professional journalist, we may consider Weiss to be an advocate for the Jewish causes, therefore a player analogous to a lawyer dedicated to his client: the collective Jews. In choosing to prosecute former Presidents of the United States for “politicizing” the Holocaust, he names four Presidents he says were guilty of that sin. The first is Jimmy Carter, to whom he said in his face, he was outraged that he (Carter) sold warplanes to Saudi Arabia, then committed to building the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Weiss would have preferred to see the museum deal but not that of the warplanes.

He goes on to say he was also outraged at the late President Ronald Reagan because he did two things during a trip to Europe. He visited a concentration camp where the Jews were kept before being exterminated. And he visited a cemetery where Nazi soldiers were buried. Weiss would have preferred to see Reagan visit the concentration camp but not the Nazi cemetery.

And he was outraged at Bill Clinton for inviting Yasser Arafat to visit the Holocaust Memorial in Washington – an event that was superseded by a bigger event, causing its cancellation to the relief of some people including Rabbi Avi Weiss.

Finally, Weiss says he was outraged at Barack Obama for suggesting that Israel arose as a result of the Holocaust. He explains that such is the line that the Arabs are taking, and he doesn't like it.

He ends by saying: “We must applaud those who remember the Holocaust with honor, respect and fidelity, and call out those who don't.” Well, it is obvious that the Rabbi is old enough to remember who was the first to politicize the Holocaust. It was Abba Eban who, in 1967, accused Gama Abdel Nasser of being like Hitler in a speech he gave at the Security Council. He was booed by the attendees and never made that mistake again.

But despite all that, it is a glaring reality that literally tens of thousands of Jewish leaders and pundits have been politicizing the Holocaust for decades, and continue to do so with gusto. Heading the list is Benjamin Netanyahu that never gives a speech at the UN or any forum without milking the Holocaust for all he can draw from it. Maybe the good Rabbi should make a complete list of these leaders and pundits, and call them out as per his own suggestion.

He should do this because the sum total of what he has been saying amounts to pleading for future Presidents of the United States to do things for Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel. If it happens that they must conduct business with someone else and affect the Jews if only tangentially, the Presidents must not try to soften the effect because to do so makes it look like they are equating a Jewish cause with a gentile cause. And that's an absolute no-no in Jewish thinking.

Unfortunately, this is the virtual apartheid wall that the Jewish leaders are building around their followers to mimic the brick walls they used to build around the ghettos of olden times. The world is moving forward, and they are moving backward.

Keep the Plantation Coolies quiet and happy

Once in a while someone takes pleasure scolding me for saying that the Jews treat America like a private plantation. They tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I never heard the stories they heard from relatives whose ancestors used to own or run a plantation on some Caribbean island … or something like that.

I never responded privately to these people because when I have something to say, I say it openly for all to see and hear, and for all to judge me as they see fit. As it happens, I now have an answer for these people and for those who read this blog. They can begin by reading the article that Elliott Abrams wrote under the title: “How to restore Free Speech on Campus” and the subtitle: “It's a simple solution, and sure to be wildly popular,” published on April 24, 2017 in the Weekly Standard.

After complaining that Conservatives such as himself get heckled when they try to give a speech on a university campus in America, Abrams tells how it happened that he discovered a solution to the problem by accident. He says he spoke at Berkeley just last week where he was not silenced at a time when the university is “mired in a dispute over letting Ann Coulter [also a Conservative] speak.” So, how is it that he made it without incident; not even a little dispute?

In fact, his story begins a few hours earlier when he went to a nearby institution where he visited an old boss he had worked for at the White House eons ago. That's when the old man warned him that if he gives a speech at Berkeley and doesn't get rioted, his reputation will be ruined. Abrams took a chance anyway and went to Berkeley where he gave a speech … and no one rioted. Oh no! God forbid. Was he ruined?

Actually no he says; that didn't happen because he got lucky. He explains that the day he gave the speech at Berkeley was April 20. This happens to be a special day of the year, nicknamed “420,” which is code that means marijuana. No one knows why it was given this name, but that's the way it is (Forgive me, Walter Cronkite.) On that day, says Elliott Abrams, “pot smokers on campuses across the land [of America] gather to celebrate,” which they do by consuming cannabis, he goes on to say.

And that's what saved his reputation, he cheerfully asserts. How is that you ask? He tells you how: “As I walked across the campus I crossed a field of pot smokers. You could get high just walking through the crowd, and a smoky haze hung over the happy students. Of course no one showed up to riot … It was that they were Too Stoned to Riot”.

Well, he says you could get high walking through the crowd. He also says he walked through the crowd. Did he get high? He is not saying. But what if he did? How can we be sure that what he's telling us is the true story of a sober Abrams, and not the fantasy of a stoned Abrams? You figure it out.

But being the genius that he is, he knew he had stumbled on his eureka moment even if he's not an ancient Greek philosopher. He instinctively exclaimed: “This is the solution!” What? Come again! Solution? Solution to what? Solution to the problems of a plantation whose future workers are learning how to be restless at an early age instead of learning how to be quiet, obey their masters and prepare to serve them well.

The solution, he goes on to explain is for “administrators and faculty members not to bar controversial speakers. Just announce a brief celebration of cannabis and all will be calm, even joyful. Too Stoned To Riot––I can see the T shirt now.” Here it is, my friend, now you know why the eureka of a contemporary Jew is superior to the eureka of an ancient Greek. It is that the Jew knows how to get blood from a stone without being stoned.

But how can I look at this scene and honestly say it makes America appear to be a Jewish plantation? The answer is that I lived in a French colony called Djibouti in the middle of the last century, and this scene reminds me of what used to go on in that place. The paramount objective of the colonial power being to keep the “natives” happy and quiet, the state supplied them with the narcotics that kept them stoned. Elliott Abrams would have loved that place.

To understand how crucial that service was to governance, the reader needs to know that Djibouti was of great strategic importance to the French but a hot and arid place, and of little use to large scale agriculture. Thus, the available land and water were used to grow food and nothing else. It meant that the narcotics “Khat” had to be imported from Yemen across the Red Sea. The trouble is that Khat is effective only when it is fresh. This meant that a daily supply had to be flown-in to Djibouti come hell or high water.

But the time was five years after the Second World War, and the French had only one plane on the Djibouti to Aden run. It was a rickety old “Junker” that the French had captured from the Germans. Even then, they gave it the number one priority of getting the Khat from Yemen … and then do the other tasks if not in maintenance preparing for the next Khat run.

Unlike Djibouti, America is not an arid place, but the Jews think of it as a colony the same way that the French used to think of Djibouti. Whatever the world may think of America, the Jews – Elliott Abrams among them – think of it as a plantation that's perfectly suited to serve the Jewish needs.

Congratulations and Advice to Ann Coulter

They made me do it. Were it not for the editors of the New York Daily News, I would not have written to congratulate Ann Coulter for the decision of the University of California at Berkeley to invite her back, having canceled the original invitation for her to give a speech on campus. But the editors wrote a piece, and I had to respond. You'll know why by the time you've read the entire article.

It's a long story that started before Ann Coulter was born, even before I was born. It simmered for centuries, then spiked sharply just about a decade ago around September of 2007 – at least as far as I am concerned. That's when I started this blog, and all hell seemed to break loose when the criminal syndicate known as World Jewry tried to muzzle me. It had been doing it for several decades already, but this time the syndicate's level of hysteria was reaching new heights.

I wrote several articles denouncing the censorship imposed by a worldwide syndicate that had grown to such massive size in America, it was able to prevent people of the Bishop Tutu caliber from speaking in America, and able to prevent publishers such as the British based Pluto Books from partnering with American universities to publish works that might offend Jewish sensitivities.

No, I am not trying to tell Ann Coulter she'll be able to give her speech because of what I did. I am only one among the millions of people who suffered under one sort of tyranny or another, and fought back to make life easier for those who would come after us. And believe it or not, there is more to the story of the struggles unleashed against tyranny than the fight for the right to speak freely.

The truth is that all struggles started when someone fought to be free of one kind of despotism or another. A few struggles were related to religion or culture, but most were related to race or gender – a pair of truly epic fights. Descendents of the African Americans fought the hardest and longest but so did the Natives, the Latinos and the Asians. And then there was the fight to end the second class status of women.

What Ann Coulter and those like her need to know is that the fight for liberty of any kind was not initiated by those who were given liberty as a matter of birthright. Thus, she must never forget that the fight for the equality of the races was initiated by non-Whites. After that, the Whites who were suffering other kinds of discrimination such as religious, sexual orientation, physical challenges or what have you, joined the fray and asked for equal treatment. Coulter must also understand that the fight for the equality of the genders was initiated by women.

There is one crucial point that Ann Coulter must sear in her mind because it will do her a lot of good. It is that the two epic fights happened sequentially rather than simultaneously or in parallel. That is, the fight for the equality of the races came first, and had been going for decades when the movement to “liberate the women” started.

And here is what will blow Coulter's mind: To start and maintain their struggle, the White women borrowed heavily from the struggle to liberate the races. This is why initially, the women made common cause with the Black, Brown, Red and Yellow skins … often taking a more extreme anti-White stance than did the races.

Then, relative to the other struggles, the women gained equality in the blink of an eye, leaving behind the races that continued to fight for their rights. But what did the White women do after attaining equality? They split into philosophical groups that matched those of the White males. That is, some women – such as Coulter and the Fox News crowd – joined the hardline supremacist movement that only yesterday was calling them not women or even girls, but broads and the C-word.

Let me now fulfill the promise I made at the start of the article. The piece that was written by the editors of the New York Daily News came under the title: “Berkeley comes to its senses about Ann Coulter's right to free speech,” and was published on April 23, 2017. To begin with, a headline like this in a rag like that would have been as hard to imagine ten years ago as seeing Netanyahu kiss a picture of Hitler. And yet, here it is.

Look what else the editors have inserted in their piece: “After the University of California at Berkeley canceled a planned speech by Ann Coulter, [its] brass thought better of their censorious decision and invited her back … Give credit to left-wing Democrat Robert Reich”.

Is this a big thing? Yes, it is. In fact, it is a huge thing. The young readers should know that the women's movement, which started in earnest in the late Sixties, was led by ordinary White women who asked for a little respect and some appreciation for what they were doing. But the media and the politicians ignored them.

Seeing a vacuum that can be filled and exploited, a number of Jewish women jumped in and led the movement. This is when the media took notice, and they were followed by the politicians.

Because the word “Jews” has become a four-letter word, rags such as the Daily News sometimes use the euphemism 'left-wing Democrat' to refer to them. That's how they have referred to Robert Reich who is Jewish.

What they did is ignore the fierce struggle that has been raging for decades to end Jewish censorship in America. And they gave credit for ending the scourge to a Jew that never said a word about the subject till now.

With this, we are reminded again that whereas the normal state of the universe is that everything in it changes with time, the Jews remain fossilized in the Stone Age of biblical times.

Please choose not to be my Friend

What do you think is worth more: a pound of organic fertilizer or a ton of Jewish haggle? You're probably saying you don't know and you don't care what either is worth. Fair enough. But you will care if someday a Jew of the Jonathan S. Tobin caliber chooses to be your friend, and decides that you need his protection.

Oh no, don't get me wrong! I'm not saying Jonathan Tobin believes you're a democracy and he is a member of the notorious outfit pretending to defend the democracies of the Western world. It is just that he wrote a whopping article in almost 1,300 words in which he haggles interminably a number of ideas that will make you thank the heavens you're not President of the United States at this time.

The article came under the title: “Trump Isn't Flip-Flopping on Iran” and was published on April 21, 2017 in National Review Online. The genius of this guy is that he had an idea; he thought it was a great idea, and he decided to use it to defend President Donald Trump in an area where the President doesn't need his defense. This is like gifting someone that has no garden, a pound of organic fertilizer.

Tobin's original idea that started his chain of thoughts is that he believed some people are fundamentally evil, and everyone should know who they are even before they do anything evil. That's the story of the Iranians, he says. The trouble is that former President Barack Obama never knew this, Tobin goes on to explain. Had he known – which he should have, being President – he would have guessed they were going to cheat on the spirit of the nuclear deal, if not the letter of it, even before they did.

And that's not all, says Tobin, because even if the Iranians had not cheated, Barack Obama should have known that the deal itself was a bad one. He should never have negotiated it, and he should never have signed it. This is what brought Tobin to the realization that the Trump Administration “is facing up to the implications of the mess Obama left behind.” In fact, this is the sentence with which Tobin started his article.

What brought this problem to the fore in the eyes of Tobin is that “Trump acknowledged that Iran is currently in compliance with the nuclear deal,” and that his critics “smirked” and “guffawed” because they saw this “as yet another Trump flip-flop.” No, says Tobin, it is not a flip-flop because “those who focus on Iranian compliance are missing the big picture.” That's when he started explaining his theory about some people being fundamentally evil, and that everyone should know it instinctively. People should know it, says Tobin, before the evil ones commit any evil; even if they go through life never committing any evil; even if those who accuse them are themselves irredeemably evil. Get it? If you don't, you need to take a lesson in Jewish logic.

In any case, now that you are so wise as to know all of that, Tobin has something else to say to you. Despite the fact that the Jews have been in charge of America's foreign policy since Barack Obama was a toddler, Tobin wants you to know that the blame for America's troubles on the world stage falls on Obama's shoulders. This is what the new President, Donald Trump, is facing, he asserts. And being the loyal American that he is, he feels obligated to tell the President what to do next to fix all those problems.

His first advice to President Donald Trump is that “he shouldn't shelve efforts to rethink Iran policy [because] Washington's problems with Iran shouldn't be underestimated.” This done, Tobin thanks the Congress for refusing “to repeal U.S. laws that impose penalties on entities doing business with Iran.” He goes on to assert that “this gives Trump the chance to make it even harder on Europeans looking for opportunities in Tehran”.

And so, despite the fact that it was an older generation of Jews that was responsible for getting America mired in a global diplomatic quagmire where the country made enemies everywhere you look, this young Jew is now telling Trump how to complete the job and make the few nations in Europe that still sit with America and talk, how to antagonize them and turn them into enemies.

You can do that, says Tobin to Trump, by making it difficult for the Europeans to do business with Iran. Of course, being the businessman that he is, Donald Trump likes to do business with everybody. Thus, Tobin does not tell him to cancel the deal that Boeing inked with Iran. But the Europeans should not do as Trump does, says Tobin, they should do as he says. That's because it is the only way he'll remain friends with them, says Tobin the Jew who chose to be the friend of the American President.

The Mob at the Helm of the American Titanic

Whereas the Congress of the United States of America is a glaring symbol that all is not well on the American ship of state, the study of three other markers more readily explains how and why America has descended so quickly into its present state of disrepair. They are the media, the general discourse and foreign policy.

Three articles published on April 21, 2017 discuss these markers. Studying them clarifies many points and offers a great deal of insight as to what happened in the recent past that got America to where it is today. These are: (1) “How James Murdoch could turn Fox News into something to be proud of,” written by Jennifer Rubin and published in The Washington Post. (2) “If US campuses can't protect free speech, they need new management,” a NY Post editorial. (3) “Iran on Notice,” written by Lee Smith and published in the Weekly Standard.

Jennifer Rubin describes Fox News as a network that pretends to be a news organization but is, in reality, anything except a news organization. Look at the following passage:

“Under new leaders the pretense that the prime-time shows are 'news' should be dropped. Their hosts complain that they should not be held to journalistic standards because they are not true journalists. Fine. Remove the 'Fox News' logo and the news-desk set. Would that shatter the pretense that the worldview is not factual? The news division should not be staffing evening hosts who help along their favorites in a sort of post-debate political [diplomatic] ad”.

It is obvious that Rubin is only interested in America's political life at the national level. But the fact remains that Fox News stands out among the networks because it is, at its core, a foreign organization. Its founder is a foreigner that studied the weaknesses of the American scene, and exploited them to the hilt. He thus created a money-making caricature of what a news organization ought to be. Fox is entertaining without being funny because it is a mighty dick-teaser for the nostalgic sexagenarian window shoppers. And while this is unfolding with regard to the National scene, the real message that's drummed into the subconscious mind of the viewers is one that comes from overseas. More about this later.

As to the editors of the New York Post, they have engaged in the American pastime of blaming their cultural shortcomings on the wrong people. Even as Jennifer Rubin's article clearly shows that the media are playing a big role in polarizing society, the Post editors explain the deterioration of the general discourse in America like this: “The kids are plainly learning this nonsense at college –– which means professors and administrators are failing at their most fundamental duties.” Someone should tell these editors it is more likely that Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly were the ones to inspire those kids than the other way around.

As to Lee Smith, having admitted at the outset that, “the Trump administration certif(ied) that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear deal,” he went on to say that “the administration is split into rival camps––one that wants to go hard on the Iranians and another that wants to take it easy.” He then explained that: “Numerous agencies are carrying out the review––including law enforcement and the intelligence community, the State Department and various embassies around the world, the Treasury Department, Justice, and the Pentagon. The process is being managed by National Security Council staff”.

That settles it, does it not? I mean you have all these professionals spending all that time putting together a policy that will be coherent; that will be understood and respected by the world, and that will be effective and designed to work in the best interest of America. Right? Well then, should the editors and pundits of America not wait till that group has pronounced itself before saying anything more on this subject? Well yes. In fact that's what has happened generally in America. Make that––happened generally but with an exception.

The exception is due to the fact that when it comes to Jewish concerns, the message that's drummed into the subconscious mind of the viewers, is one that comes from Israel. Iran is a Jewish concern, and Lee Smith is showing us how the matter is handled: “Critics of the Iran deal, eager for stronger action taken more quickly, should probably see certification not as a disappointment, but as a delay”.

Thus, Smith and the rest of the Jewish mob of pundits will start doing what Netanyahu of Israel said they do well. It is to keep echoing the Jewish agenda till they drown everything else, thus force their point of view on the feeble minds inside the Congress and the Administration.

As to the public at large, Smith seeks to convince it that the Jewish point of view does not come from Israel but is an official White House leak. He does that by claiming that a Trump official whispered the information in his ear. He elaborates by saying that the certification was meant to “buy time for the administration to muster its resources”.

This is where the reader should wonder if that claim is real because it sounds more like an advice from him to the Administration rather than a leak from the Administration to him. In fact, Smith does not stop here. He goes on to betray himself by doing a very Jewish thing. Having advised Trump on what to do, he now advises the Iranians on what to do. Here it is: “The Iranians might also see it as an opportunity to get their act together”.

With the Jews at the helm of the American ship of state, you'll know who is responsible if it hits an iceberg and gets swallowed by an ocean of Jewish nonsense.

A one-sided Equation and a two-sided Mouth

To say that Israel can have privileges no one else has is to try writing a one sided equation. It is so absurd; you don't need a degree in science or math to figure that out.

But can someone who talks from both sides of the mouth convince a group of scientists that he discovered something so freakishly far-out, it can only be written into a one-sided equation? Maybe. After all, scientists are trained never to dismiss an idea off-hand before giving themselves the chance to look at it and determine if it has any merit at all.

When a subject like this comes up and the scientists look into it, they need very little time to see through the quackery. They dismiss it and go back to doing the things that consume them. But in their daily lives, scientists are not confronted with scientific questions only. They often face difficult social matters that burden them as much as any human being and they respond to the challenges the way that any human does.

In America, the subject of Israel – like everything Jewish – has been sucked into the cesspit of moral, political and diplomatic dimensions. Like a quagmire with a black hole at its center, it sucks into nothingness the massive galaxies that wander near it as easily as it sucks a single grain of sand. Between the mass of the galaxy and that of sand, there exist the scientists who are often approached by charlatans equipped with a two-sided mouth. These characters try to suck the scientists into the belief that Israel has rights and no obligation such as can be written into a one-sided equation. And true to form, the scientists reply: let's hear it.

Ruth R. Wisse says she has seen this phenomenon in action, and so she wrote about it. Her article came under the title: “Scientists Take a Stand Against Academic Boycotts of Israel” and the subtitle: “How can scholars reconcile opposition to the Trump travel ban with blacklists aimed at the Jewish state?” published on April 20, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

Wisse says that the movement to boycott Israel is unfair to Israeli academics who seek to interact with their American counterparts, which is why the practice must end. She is happy that this is beginning to happen in some places, but says more needs be done because – as some scientists put it: “collaboration of Israeli scientists in lifesaving treatments is reason enough to protest the blacklist”.

It is obvious that some scientists have responded to Israel's dilemma in a manner that is typically theirs. When they heard the plea of someone speaking like Ruth Wisse, they gave a typically positive response. However, this being their initial reaction – motivated as it was by one side of the story – it remains to be seen what they will do when they will be given the full story.

To guess what they might do, we can only go by the examples that were set during the apartheid regimes of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and South Africa. At that time, the scientists of the world told their counterparts in those two places, they can no longer interact with them knowing that they are succeeding because others were robbed of the success that is due to them. This prompted the scientists of Rhodesia and South Africa to tell their governments they must end apartheid or they will leave the country and go live somewhere else. Thus ended the apartheid regimes of Rhodesia and South Africa.

Bear in mind also that neither Rhodesia nor South Africa prevented the indigenous inhabitants from traveling abroad to participate in symposiums of any kind, in sports events or what have you. By contrast, this is what happens in Israel where the indigenous Palestinians are prohibited from traveling abroad where they could participate in symposiums; in the Olympics or in gatherings that would be happy to receive them.

When America's scientists become aware this is how Israel treats the Palestinians, they cannot sit with an Israeli scientist and look him in the eye knowing that a more deserving Palestinian was left behind because Israel closed the door on him. Hell, he can't even travel from village to village to go see his dying mother because Israel closed the checkpoints which are strewn along the Palestinian roads … at a time when the Palestinians are not allowed to use the “Jewish only” roads.

America's scientists who might have reasoned that the “collaboration of Israeli scientists in lifesaving treatments is reason enough to protest the blacklist,” have a quick change of heart when they learn that a Palestinian cannot go see his dying mother because he is not a Jew. And they develop a severe repugnance toward Israel's scientists upon learning that Palestinian women are forced to have their babies on the sidewalk because the checkpoints leading to the hospital are closed to them.

Thus, when exposed to both sides of the equation, America's scientists conclude it is morally abhorrent to protest the blacklisting of Israel; and by that allow the continuation of the horror they leave behind when going abroad to attend a gathering of civilized people.

If they can bring themselves to talking to Jewish scientists, the Americans tell them to force their government to change as did Rhodesia and South Africa, or stay at home and never show their faces around here again. Amen.

Dennis Prager Lucidity as clear as Jewish Mud

Let me start by asking a question. What do you think this is: “a black radical and disturbed young American Jew living in Israel”? Well, it is what it sounds like it is: A young man that happens to be American, a black, a radical and a Jew.” Right?

That's what Dennis Prager wants you to believe. Be warned, however, that it is a lie. He, being the ignoble example that he is; he relied on the Jewish clarity of mud to transmit a falsehood disguised as truth. You'll find that sentence in the article he wrote under the title: “Two Weeks of Great Clarity,” published on April 18, 2017 in National Review Online.

The article is Prager's latest salvo in the Jewish civil war that is raging between the base which began to mellow, and the neoconservative splinter that hardened some time ago, and kept on hardening ever since. Prager being of the latter variety, used the missile attack against Syria – launched by Donald Trump's Conservative administration – to launch his own attack against the previous Progressive administration of Barack Obama, accusing it of not doing what it was supposed to do. To describe what the event has meant to him, Dennis Prager said this: “If you prize clarity, these past weeks were some of the best in memory”.

Moreover, this being a war, Prager understands that it is not enough to attack without also defending your turf. He felt the need to defend because the Progressives had attributed “bomb threats phoned in to Jewish community centers and Jewish agencies” to Trump supporters and to white supremacists. And so, Prager felt obligated to mount a defense based on the premise that the mischief maker was neither a Trump supporter nor a white supremacist, but “a black radical and disturbed young American Jew living in Israel”.

But this is a deception of the kind that only the Jews are capable of hatching. The fact is that two individuals were apprehended in connection with that complex incident. The first individual was a non-Jewish African American who made a single threatening call – not to a Jewish center, and not in the same time frame – just to lash out at someone because he was distraught that his girlfriend had dumped him. It's like being frustrated at something all day and going home where you kick the cat.

The second individual was an American Jew who made several dozen threatening calls to Jewish centers in the United States, Canada and Australia. He made the calls from Israel using equipment and techniques that say the event was deliberately devised by an evil genius. And you don't have to be a genius to figure out the intent behind it all. Simply stated, the man wanted to turn the civil war that's raging among the Jews at this time into a war between the Jews and the larger societies of the United States, Canada and Australia.

If you want to know what will happen next, the answer is that nothing will happen. No open trial will be conducted in Israel or anywhere. No extradition of the accused will be done to the United States or Canada or Australia. And no connection will be established between that incident and the vandalism that happened to Jewish cemeteries at the same time … all this despite the prima facie evidence that one and the same group was behind the threatening phone calls and the vandalism at the cemeteries.

If you ask: Why is it that nothing will happen? The answer is that the culprit did not act alone. Despite his genius, he is no more than a small cog in the big Jewish wheel that keeps hurting itself for a reason. But what kind of a reason is that?

Well, when it comes to Jewish matters, there happens to exist a simple way to find out the reason. All you need to do is sift through what they say, and try to spot what false accusation they might be throwing at someone else. When you find one, it'll tell you what they are themselves guilty of.

Look now what accusation Dennis Prager is throwing at what he calls the Left: “These groups aren't downtrodden; they are merely a vehicle by which the Left attacks America and Israel to gain power.” This is it; he falsely accuses others of attacking America and Israel to gain power.

Had he explained how attacking America and Israel gives power to the attackers, the readers might have believed him. Until he does, what will stand is what has been explained thousands of times on this website and elsewhere.

It is that accusing others of anti-Semitism gives power to the attackers because they silence the opposition and monopolize the marketplace of ideas. And there is no greater power than to have monopoly over something.

All in all, Denis Prager has muddied the waters by pretending to bring clarity to the subject he is discussing. He also accused others of what is attributable to himself and to those like him.

The Incitement Machine that never relents

Their state of desperation must have reached a record level, the reason why they are responding with revving up their hate and incitement machine to unprecedented heights.

You'll see that in the article which came under the title: “Trump's Syria strategy must target Assad's chief protector: Iran,” written by Emanuelle Ottolenghi, and published on April 17, 2017 in The Hill. The current obsession of the Judeo-Israeli syndicate being Iran, the mob of Jewish pundits in America is gathering every scrap of ammunition it can get its hands on, and use it to incite the Congress of fools against Iran. As usual, the mob is telling the Congress to stop everything it may be doing to serve the people of America and devote its time to making life miserable for the people of Iran.

Right now, Syria is the place where the mob of pundits can pick up abundant scraps of ammunition with which to bombard the legislative fools of America. And so, you see Ottolenghi – who is of the think tank (more like septic tank) calling itself Foundation for Defense of Democracies – horde every shrapnel, every nail and every bolt he sees, to make the IEDs and suicide vests he'll hand to the twin-chambers of retards. He'll then sit back and watch the idiots blow themselves up and take America down with them into the bottomless hole of political and diplomatic abomination.

I know this to be true because I have been, and may still be, the obsession of the Canadian branch of that evil syndicate – for something like half a century. I knew they were doing horrible things to me behind my back, and I am now getting reports as to what else they were doing that I didn't know about. Because there are no adjectives in any language to characterize this kind of behavior, I'll simply tell what they were doing, and let the readers decide what to call it … and what to call them.

One story has it that the Canadian Jewish Congress is monitoring the activities of every Arab (Christian or Muslim) and every Muslim (Arab or otherwise) that has the potential to rise in Canada and become a somebody. And they work relentlessly to ruin their lives before they get their first big break. If he or she does something they believe can be made to look objectionable, they report it to the security apparatus, exaggerate its significance and recommend severe punishment. If that doesn't work, they try to entrap the person or frame them. If they cannot do that, they enlist the services of one or more government ministers, and have them pressure the security apparatus to find something they can use to crucify “the bastard”.

You know what, dear reader! I was that bastard for many decades before I launched this website, and for a short period of time after it. The Jews had managed to recruit two ministers of a previous government, and they pressured them so much that one minister used to have a nervous breakdown pounding on the table as he shouted to a representative of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), “I know it, he must be doing something illegal, and you must find what it is. We need to nail this guy”.

But time after time, the RCMP would tell him they had me under surveillance for decades, and they can assure him that I am as clean as a whistle. But the ministerial animal kept repeating his refrain, only to get the same response over and over again. Now my friend, can you think of an adjective that would describe this situation? Why don't we just use the word animals? It fits them so nicely.

But let us never forget that this is how far the Jews will go – mobilize a nation of a trillion and a half dollars economy – to harm and silence a single individual whose crime has been that he wrote half a century ago Egypt was a civilized country ... Well, to be accurate without being modest, let me add that the Jews also admitted I proved to their satisfaction I have the talent to stand up to them and beat them. What they did not say, however, was that I can beat them when they play by the civilized rules of human beings. Where they beat me is when they get behind my back and play the game of savage animals.

This is why I don't believe any hate or incitement they spew about someone. They proved they'll spend half a century slandering an individual that's armed with nothing more than the truth, and this says they'll paint a totally false image of someone like Syria or Iran.

The sad part is that they do all this and get away with it (in the so-called democracies) because they get paid to live the high life with money that's taxed on the victims they seek to destroy.

Being Tone deaf and Logic challenged

Politically speaking, we say that someone is tone deaf when they fail to grasp the meaning of what is said all around them. Another expression of the same sort is the one which refers to the writing on the wall a politician fails to see or understand.

When you probe into the reasons why these people are so removed from the realities that surround them, you quickly discover they have more than a difference of opinion with the rest of the clan. You find they live in a universe that's put together differently from the one in which we live.

You know this to be true because those who live in our universe and have differences of opinion with some of us, are still able to explain their points of view by referring to the realities with which we are familiar. They may or may not convince us with their point of view, but we understand where they come from. By contrast, the tone deaf and those who fail to see the writing on the wall refer to realities that are so alien to us, we can only think of them as being from out of this world.

When you parse what these people say, as you try to identify what makes them so different, you find that their ability to maintain a logical argument is battered and seriously damaged. Most of the time, the politicians who suffer from this condition would be those that run for office in the so-called Liberal Democracies. That's where politics has become a blood sport played-out in the arena where dog eat dog, and the winners come out with a challenged logic they live with throughout their political career.

The distressing part is that the phenomenon is beginning to spill out the political arena and permeate the rest of society. I learned something about it because I once had a student who used to come to class late every day. When I told him he should come on time, he came a little earlier but still late. He did not express regret that he came late again, but wanted me to praise him for doing better than yesterday. After several such performances, I told the principal of the school, and he dealt with the situation. I never saw that student again.

It was much later that I learned he was a “special situation” student who was put in a regular school to see if he can be rehabilitated. Though bright academically, he had a difficult time adjusting socially because he had a difficult upbringing as a child. A good part of the therapy he received consisted of praising him when he did the right thing. This was the reality of the universe in which he spent his early years, and that's what he expected from me. I was not told any of this when I had him in my class, and he was not ready to join the universe of a regular school.

Whereas this case was cruel because it happened to a child that spent his early years in a bad nuclear family, you may view the political arena as a big family in which today's participants are forced to grow up under difficult conditions. By the time they reach the finish line, they are so badly battered; their psychology resembles that of the difficult-to-rehabilitate kid. And that's not all because the proliferation and prevalence of confusing news and opinions in our daily lives has dragged the entire society into the political arena. In fact, society was made a part of the game when the taking of opinion polls became an important part of the “democratic” process.

This explains why it is that some groups – especially the religious ones – are now creating realities of their own to compete against those espoused by the politico-journalistic world. One group that has deviated the farthest from the norm is the Jewish establishment. You can see its effect in the article which came under the title: “Israel Dismantles Another Settlement, Gets No Credit,” written by Stephen M. Flatow, a lawyer, who is also vice president of the Religious Zionists of America. The article was published on April 7, 2017 in Algemeiner.

Like the difficult student I once had in my class, this lawyer cannot begin to understand that the Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine are being dismantled because they were built illegally in the first place. Thus, the criminals who built them cannot ask for credit when they are forced by the world to take them down. In the same way that we feel sorry for the kid that had a difficult childhood and grew up with a challenged logic, we feel sorry for a society whose lawyers are operating with logic as challenged as that of Stephen Flatow.

Frankly, I don't know what anyone can do to bring sanity back to those who still think of themselves as a Liberal Democracy. But then again, we may be at the cusp of something that's totally different. Who knows!

Will Trump succeed where others have failed?

How do you know that the general condition of a leper is worse than it appears?

You know it when you hear him or her say something to the effect that “I am glad to know that someone has decided to clean up this town of its lepers. It's about time we have a healthy place in which to live.” And that, my friend, is what tells you the specimen in question is both a leper and a mental case.

This is the reality that hits you in the face when you read the article that came under the title: “Trump juggles the foreign policy balls Obama dropped,” written by Claudia Rosett and published on April 16, 2017 in The Hill. She says she is happy that President Trump has decided to clean up the planet of “predatory regimes” that occupy other people's lands. When you discover that she is not pointing the finger at the international leper that is Israel, you realize that Claudia Rosett is at least a borderline mental case.

She begins by saying that “America badly and urgently needs to restore its lost credibility.” She goes on to explain that “predatory regimes tend to observe each other and learn from each other. When Russia snatches turf from a neighbor and gets away with it, that sends a message to China,” she asserts. And this serves to show us how a diseased mind actually works.

Look what Rosett did: instead of saying that Russia snatched Crimea because it learned from Israel that had snatched Palestine before it, Rosett speculated that China will do it to someone because Russia did it to Ukraine. Yet, the writer makes no mention of Israel that started the trend. This is like infecting a neighbor with one's leprosy, and asking that she be kicked out of town because she might infect others in the neighborhood.

And Rosett does not stop here. On the contrary, in her eagerness to fully elaborate on her point of view, she exposes the extent of her deficiency at reasoning. As a Jew who believes that Jews – and by extension Israel – are a unique breed that must not be affected by what applies universally to the human race, Rosett advises that “in matters involving aggressive tyrannies, words must be backed by the credible willingness to use force.” This means the launch of a missile strike such as America did in Syria or the launch of a full blown invasion such as America did in Iraq.

In practical terms, Claudia Rosett has just advised President Trump – not only to stop helping Israel rob the Palestinians of their properties, which is what America has been doing for seven decades but – that he must warn Israel he'll use force if it does not get out of Palestine now, and then carry out the threat if Israel does not heed the warning. Rosett did all that not realizing it was the implication of what she was advising. Apparently, however, this is doable when it comes to dealing with the formidable Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, but not so when it comes to dealing with the little fart that is Israel. Go figure.

Another thing that Rosett does – having separated Israel from the rest of humanity – is to offer an insight on what goes on inside the heads and hearts of the Israelis and their enablers when they get together and work on plans to attack and rob a neighbor of Israel. Here is what she says in that regard: “For these tyrannies, Obama's neutering of American power created opportunities that they seized. Given the character of these regimes, they would be fools not to”.

In other words, Rosett is saying that in the absence of a warning from the American President, the Jews will be fools if they stop taking advantage of the foolhardiness that's exhibited by the Congress of brain-dead zombies who continue to encourage and finance Israel's never-ending war crimes.

And there is more because what should stagger the reader at this point is the memory of Israel receiving a cash bonus from America each time that it murdered Palestinian women and children in their homes in the middle of the night. What is even more poignant is that Israel committed these crimes using American-made precision weapons, which they describe as being so smart, they get into the chimney and blow up inside the building.

In fact, as a reward for its last assault on Gaza, Israel received a billion dollars from America, a thank-you gift for murdering 2,100 Palestinians. This comes to 476,190 dollars per head, which is America's contribution to the wholesale murder and cultural genocide of the Palestinian people.

This depraved enterprise shows that war crimes – while a huge burden on the American taxpayers – are a lucrative business for Israel; one that will be difficult to forfeit.

Will Donald Trump pull off the miracle that will free America's neck from the Jewish grip strangling it?