Imagine the lawyer for the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) and the one representing the Jewish establishment, standing in
front of the nine judges of the US Supreme Court, arguing a bizarre case having
to do with the Jews trying to stab America in the heart by shredding its
Constitution.
One of the Justices asks the Jewish lawyer: Why is it
that in your view, it is acceptable for anyone to falsely accuse an Arab or
Muslim country of acting like the Nazi regime, then hear the President of the
United States regurgitate the same accusation in a State of the Union Address,
and later send warplanes to destroy that country, killing hundreds of thousands
of people –– but it is not acceptable for a researcher to point to Israel's
annexation of Palestinian land, and say this is the same as Hitler's act that
precipitated World War Two?
Can a scene like that play itself out someday? The
answer is yes, a scene like that can happen if Ziva Dahl and all those behind
her, have it their way. You can get an idea what this is about when you read
Dahl's article that came under the title: “Will Arizona Revise State Law to
Track Crimes Tied to Antisemitism?” published on May 18, 2020 in the online
Jewish publication Algemeiner.
The story is that––driven by the Jewish habit of
asking for more fingers when you make the mistake of giving them one
finger––the Jews are at it again asking for more fingers. It is that, having
gotten the law they wanted, they now seek to amend that same law so as to make
it Jewish-specific, thus exclude everyone else from enjoying the kind of
protection the Jews want for themselves, and them alone. Here is what happened:
The Jews began to play a new game in Arizona where
they succeeded in making the House of Representatives pass a bill that would
amend an existing crime law in such a way as to consider every real or
perceived prejudice against the Jews or against Israel –– a criminal offense.
It was expected that the State Senate will pass its version of the bill, says
Dahl, but did not because the ACLU and other interested parties have
articulated their side of the argument and won for now.
What is beyond the shadow of any absurd thought even
for a crackhead to imagine, is that the law would have adopted the definition
of antisemitism as stated by the piece of trash they call International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). This thing criminalizes––among other
things––something as real as pointing out that Israel's annexation of lands
that belong to its neighbors, is the same as Hitler annexing the Sudetenland,
an act that was instrumental in starting World War Two. Apparently, these
characters are rejecting the notion that what is sauce for the Nazi goose is
sauce for the Zionist gander.
In fact, if someone were to be accused of violating a
law along the line proposed for Arizona –– a law that is more virulent in its
implications than any pandemic to hit the planet –– a scene at the Supreme
Court like the one described above, would result. And whatever the Jewish
lawyer would say in response to the Justice's question, it will be followed by
another question that will go as follows:
Given that the law purports to criminalize denying the
Jewish people their right to self-determination, why is it that someone looking
to get promoted at CNN can convert to Judaism thus acquire––under the rubric of
self-determination––the right to go to Palestine, and deny a Palestinian family
its own right to self-determination by evicting it at gunpoint from the home
that has been its own for thousands of years? And the Jewish lawyer will remain
mum, or will spew the customary nonsense, and have everybody laugh at him.
Given the backwardness of this initiative, it is
impossible to imagine that the Jewish establishment did not think of all the
repercussions before engaging lobbyists to work on getting a law of this level
of horror to be enacted by the legislatures of the American states, and then
get Ziva Dahl to write the ugly story. They must have thought about it at the
establishment, but did not restrain themselves. Why not? Well, these people are
stupid alright, but not so stupid as to commit an error of this magnitude.
There is no doubt that they did what they did knowing about the ramifications.
But why did they? What could have been their motivation?
Well, here is a thought: The Jewish leaders know they
have but a small chance getting such laws passed and then accuse and convict a
few people under them. Even if they manage to pull it off at a lower court,
they certainly don't believe they could go through the appeal process and see
the law upheld in the end. But they embarked on that journey anyway to
demonstrate to their rank-and-file that this is a dangerous world; one that is
hard to fix even when the power of the entire Jewish establishment is brought
to bear.