Monday, December 24, 2018

France gave them a Republic they could not keep

At the ripe old age of 81, three years before he died, Benjamin Franklin, having participated in the deliberations pertaining to the Constitutional Convention, was asked by some delegates what exactly did they just create. He replied it was: A Republic if you can keep it.

The man was asked a short question, and he gave a short answer. But the history behind all of that, involved not only what happened before those words were spoken, but what happened long after them as well. It was the struggle, the sacrifices and the wars that the American colonies had to endure to gain full independence from Britain. And while all of this was unfolding — as most historians would agree — France played a major role in helping the American patriots win the struggle, achieve independence, and create the Republic they sought.

But here is the bad news: While the Americans have managed their Republic reasonably well, and kept it in a manner that would have pleased Benjamin Franklin for more than two centuries, they began the process of losing it after that. Now federated into a single country, the Republic is gradually turning into a massive Jewish colony. There are obvious signs this is happening, and there are clear answers how the trend can be reversed. But what is in doubt, is that the will exists in America to embark on such a project.

One of the obstacles standing in the way of the American public mounting a concerted effort to prevent their Republic from turning into a plantation in the service of Jewish causes, is the concerted effort that the Jewish leaders and their brainwashed Christian cohorts have mounted to defeat the spirit of independence that used to fire-up the imagination of Benjamin Franklin's generation.

One of those cohorts is David French whose specialty is to produce and purvey subtle deceptions. This time, he put himself in charge of interpreting current events in a manner that tells a story contrary to what's happening in reality. You can see this when studying the article that he wrote under the title: “Don't ignore the warnings in Gen. Mattis' resignation letter,” published on December 21, 2018 in the New York Post.

The task at hand being to force President Trump to reverse the Syria decision he took in order to end America's habit of hemorrhaging blood and wealth for the sake of others, David French volunteered to lead the charge against Donald Trump. His worry being that when America stops hemorrhaging, Israel begins weakening, he decided to turn up a sleight of hand that will make sure America stays in the business of hemorrhaging blood and treasure, thus strengthen Israel and weaken its neighbors.

The idea is to give the Jews a chance to establish the empire they have been dreaming about since the days of Moses. They want America to pave the way for them to walk all over a neighborhood that's weakened by American aggressive military, diplomatic and economic moves. To achieve all this, David French interpreted General Mattis' resignation letter in a way that gives the impression the General wanted to see the implementation of the Jewish scheme; when in fact, the General was opposed to the scheme they concocted for Palestine.

Here is the passage in the Mattis letter that David French is emphasizing: One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships … We cannot protect our interests without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies.

Given the history of David French's fanatic support for Israel, what he did in quoting those words, is give the false impression that General Mattis regards Israel as useful when it comes to protecting America's interests. But you'll find that the reality on the ground is the opposite of that. You’ll find it when you study what the General thought of America's relationship with Israel. In fact, in addition to opposing the ditching of the Iran deal, Mattis opposed moving the embassy to Jerusalem. And he spoke extensively about the occupation of Palestine. Here is some of what he said in that regard:

“I paid a military security price every day as the commander of Central Command because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and because the moderate Arabs who want to be with us can't support the people who don't show respect for the Palestinians ... If I'm in Jerusalem and I put 500 Jewish settlers to the east and there's 10,000 Arabs here, if I draw the border to include them, either it ceases to be a Jewish state or you say the Arabs don't get to vote. This is apartheid. It didn't work the last time I saw it practiced in a country”.

America is paying a military security price being too friendly with Israel, is what the General has said. He could not be more emphatic repudiating that relationship. It’s because when you sacrifice your security to the one that’s already bleeding you financially and in term of standing in the world, you become a colony of that someone. And the General would have none of that.

This is a situation that would have horrified Benjamin Franklin no less. He would have called David French a traitor, and would have demanded that he be treated accordingly.