They Only Reflect What America Has Become

On May 8, 2012, I came across two editorials on the subject of the military trials being held at Guantanamo. The first was of the Wall Street Journal, coming under the title: “The KSM Trial Spectacle” and the subtitle: “Is it too much for Eric Holder to defend these prosecutions?” The second was of the Washington Times, coming under the title: “The courtroom jihad” and the subtitle: “Islamist antics make a mockery of justice in 9/11 trial.” This was the day when the defendants were arraigned, and their courtroom behavior attracted much attention. You can be certain there were other opinion pieces on the same subject, and certain they were critical of the way that the arraignment proceeded.

But what was that all about? And why were so many observers surprised by what they saw? Well, it may be that because the defendants looked like grownups – which they are physically -- the observers were fooled into believing they were looking at adults. But the fact is that these are children who ceased to grow up mentally long ago given what they lived through. To understand their behavior, you need to imagine the police catching five rowdy young men who were playing a game of “catch me if you can” with the police. What you need to know is that it did not just happen that the men and the police (meaning America) came to play the game; it happened that they and the police had a long history together. And it was this history that prompted the men to develop contempt for the system which the police and the court have come to represent. Thus, you begin to understand that the behavior of the defendants only reflects the way that they see America through their juvenile eyes and through the experience that they had interacting with America.

The question to ask now is this: How much of what these men see about America is seen by the rest of the world. Let me tell you, my friend, if you realize how close the world view of America is to the view of these men, you would be horrified. It is that wise people have always said you earn the respect you deserve by the way you behave and the way you treat people. On the other hand, the ruffians have always said you earn the respect that you want by the way that you battle people and the way you rough them up. For a long time, America listened to its wise men and women, and was respected the world over. Then America started to listen to the ruffians that have infested it, and it lost the respect it earned. The result is the horrifying situation you saw in that courtroom and see around the world.

The ruffians have invaded superpower America, and their presence is felt in every corner and at every level of the Republic. Compared to America, they are small and powerless but like tiny Lilliputians, they encountered the giant that is Gulliver America while he was asleep. They managed to tie him down with strings but it must be said that unlike the work of fiction authored by Jonathan Swift, the reality of America today is that it is supplying the ruffians with the strings they use to keep it tied down, keep it paralyzed and keep it gridlocked. So you ask: Who are the ruffians and where did they come from?

It is no secret that the various groups who came to America from everywhere around the globe have from time to time asked that their adopted country intervene in matters concerning the country from which they originated. Such requests were of a short duration, limited in scope and clear in objective. The result has been that America responded in a way that helped the causes of these people while advancing its own interests. Thus began and ended America's involvement with every international conflict that has erupted during the Twentieth Century -- with one glaring exception. It is that there came a group of people calling themselves Jews who changed the rules of the game with respect to matters that deal with their agenda.

At first, these people looked like helpless Lilliputians but they turned out to be the sneaky ruffians that managed to tie down superpower America, mobilize it effectively, make it work exclusively for them and do so for a duration they promise will be unlimited, a scope they say is unbounded, and objectives that look as clear as their moral ambiguity. And the strings by which they tie down America are the use of the process of legislation, the law itself when it is enacted, and the way that the law is implemented. All these are procedures that the Jews manipulate and abuse; they are tools they use to freeze America's ability to act till they are certain the action will work for them, serve their interests and serve no one else.

You see all this at play in two articles. The first was written by Brett Schaefer under the title: “UNESCO: Not Exactly Indispensable” and the subtitle: “Contra Obama and the agency itself, there is no reason for the U.S. to keep funding it.” It was published in National Review Online on May 7, 2012. The second article is a column written by Clifford D. May under the title: “The Real Palestinian Refugee Problem” and the subtitle: “Most of them aren't really refugees. They're pawns.” It was published in the National Review Online on May 10, 2012.

The reason for writing his article, says Brett Schaefer, is that “Last Fall, UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, granted membership to the Palestinian Authority, which is not a state.” This being his motivation first and foremost, you expect that he will explain how and why the act of granting membership to a non state is serious enough a reason to cut off America's financial contribution to the Organization. But Schaefer did not have to explain this part because the funding had already been suspended due to a law that is on the books. What prompted him to write was that the Obama administration and UNESCO were pressing the Congress to repeal that law thus allow the funding to resume. And he is opposed to this idea.

To justify his position, he takes up the argument made by the administration and the Organization in favor of resuming the funding, and he refutes it point by point. The argument being of two parts -- one discussing the work done by the Organization, and the other discussing its role as a voice of moderation and integrity in the world -- he attacks the Organization on both fronts. There is no point rehashing those arguments given that they are there in print for everyone to see. Suffice it to say that Schaefer is not impressed with anything that UNESCO is doing except the work that relates to Holocaust education – but here too, he is not very enthused.

To mislead the readers in his presentation, the author ignores the fact that money is fungible which means that a shortfall to the funding of one program means a shortfall to general revenue, thus a shortfall to all programs. And so, he argues that it will be just fine to stop America's contribution to UNESCO because the programs it implements -- such as literacy in Afghanistan and the tsunami-warning systems -- are “not vital and in some cases minimal.” They can be tossed out the window, he says, while the Holocaust program can be funded by Israel alone. What he does not realize is that when ordinary human beings of any race, religion or color of the skin read paragraph after paragraph where everything is denigrated except the Jewish causes -- chief among them the Holocaust -- people tend to exclaim: the hell with the Holocaust, spread literacy in Afghanistan and keep installing those tsunami-warning systems! People that died seventy years ago are no more worthy than people dying today or may die tomorrow.

As to the UNESCO being a voice of moderation and integrity, Schaefer surpasses himself when it comes to the denigration of the world, which he does at the same time as he dignifies Israel and all the Jewish causes. He begins that part of the argument by saying this: “the organization and its executive board have exhibited repeated lapses in judgment.” From here on, it is open season on everyone where in paragraph after paragraph, he ignores the murderous rampage that Israel has been on since its inception but attacks everyone else for not being perfect. And he vehemently attacks the Organization for acknowledging the little things that people he does not like happen to do right. Here too, ordinary human beings of every race, religion and color of the skin tend to exclaim: the hell with Israel and the Jewish causes, tell us more about the beautiful people that live in Africa, Arabia, Asia and Latin America; tell us what they do that is right in their homes and their palaces; what they do in their churches, their mosques and their temples.

We now come to the Clifford May column. He begins it by doing something that is very much a Jewish habit. It is that he sets the stage in such a way as to draw a false analogy that will be hard to detect by someone not familiar with what is at stake in the matter he discusses. And so, speaking of what used to be the Indian Subcontinent, he says this: “[it] was partitioned into two … nations. One of them would have a Hindu majority, the other a Muslim majority … Muslims moved to the territory that became Pakistan … Hindus and Sikhs moved to India.” He then says that the same thing should have happened to Palestine where Jews moved to what is now Israel but where many Palestinians are still classified as refugees; a big problem according to him. This done, he argues for cutting American funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which he says is wholly responsible for this problem.

Whoa! Get a hold of this, my friend. This part fits with the subtitle of the article: “Most of them aren't really refugees. They're pawns.” Until now, this sentence was used to defame the leaders of the Arab countries who were accused by the likes of Clifford May for “using the Palestinian refugees as pawns.” Now here he comes; a quintessential mutilator of history reversing himself and basically saying this: Forget that old history; it is not serving our purpose anymore. We now decree that the real culprit using the Palestinian refugees as pawns is UNRWA and not the Arab leaders. And the reason for the change of heart; for the change of mind and the change of hat is that it suits us better to have the agency defunded than badmouth the Arab leaders. We did so for many decades but only managed to make people the world over view us, Jews as obnoxious stinkers. We want to stink no more -- obnoxious being all that we can live with at this time.

Thus, Clifford May starts a new argument that sets the legal, moral and humanitarian reasons why UNRWA must be hated and defunded. The aim of the argument is to demolish the tons of arguments that the Jewish propaganda machine has piled up over the decades to blame the Arabs for the criminal behavior of the Israelis. And when this is done, he and those like him will want you to start blaming the United Nation agency. But a liar is a liar is a liar, and having bathed us in a sea of lies, no one has the stomach to believe what Clifford May or anyone like him have to say now or ever again. No one, that is, except a couple of Congressional morons in the American Federal legislature.

What these morons seem to have done is buy the false analogy that was discussed earlier. They did so instead of recognizing what happened in the Indian subcontinent as being analogous to say, Belgium breaking up and each citizen going to the part of the country they feel most comfortable with. This is also something that could happen here in Canada where the Province of Quebec may choose to separate in which case the francophone individuals who live in the English provinces may choose to go live there, while the reverse migration may also take place.

What you will not see happen is people being bombed or machine-gunned out of their homes in Belgium or in Quebec – as it happened in Palestine -- in favor of airlifting hoards from places like Russia and Ethiopia to occupy the land and the homes thus abandoned by those who sought refuge somewhere else not because they like being refugees but because they had no other choice. And the question to ask is this: In the same way that the Muslims and the Hindus swapped places in India, will the Congressional morons now lobby Russia and Ethiopia to take in the Palestinian refugees? This would be the sort of thing that a moron would contemplate but don't hold your breath as to what the answer from Russia or Ethiopia will be.

What the Schaefer and May articles tell the world is the sordid story that has been trickling out quietly for several decades now; a story to the effect that America has become a private toilet and a urinal reserved exclusively for any Jewish leader that has a leak or a dump he wants to get rid of. These leaders are given the exclusive right to freeze the Congress and gridlock it till it massages them and relieves them of the stinking causes they go to dispense of in the toilet bowl they call Congress of the United States. It is in there that the Jewish leaders are given the right to do anything they want such as play with the rules and the procedures to advance their causes at the expense of the American people; to the detriment of the whole civilized world.

This is what the Guantanamo detainees have detected as did the rest of the world. Their case is especially acute because they are the people who, as children, were recruited to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan under the leadership of America that was then posing as the policeman of the world. These kids who never grew up since that experience were instructed to wear their religiosity on their sleeve and fight like the dickens in the name of Allah. In exchange for doing this, they were promised great rewards by the policeman when the Soviet bandits will have been defeated.

The kids fought till victory but then America was taken over by the Jewish organizations that made it start a war against their religion; the one they were told to wear on their sleeve and fight alongside America. This was the treacherous act – the one committed by a policeman they had come to trust -- that made them so cynical. They developed a big dose of contempt for what America has become, and they expressed that contempt during the court procedures on the day of their arraignment. Blame them if you want but then look in the mirror and spit in your own faces.

The rest of the world is now watching with amazement to see how much more people like Brett Schaefer, Clifford May and others will succeed at isolating America from the United Nations and the world, thus turn the superpower into an even more exclusive Jewish toilet bowl and urinal.

The New York Times Is Laying Eggs

If you want to know how the Jewish noise and spin machine works, read the series of columns that Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote on the Arab countries. As of now, the last column was published on May 9, 2012 (today) under the title: “Jobs[at]Arabia.com” It is about a business park in Amman, Jordan where start-up high-tech companies are nurtured. It is a good column but for the way it begins – especially that it comes after a number of bad columns in the series. In fact, this is how this last column begins: “Fortunately, there is another Arab Spring going on alongside the drama in the streets of Cairo and Damascus.” The column preceding it was published on May 6, 2012, under the title: “Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way” It was about the absence of leaders that Friedman says could have pulled the Arab countries out of their rut.

You clearly see in the first sentence of the May 9 column that the writer draws a contrast between the new Arab Spring which he associates with Amman, and the old Arab Spring which he calls “drama in the streets,” and he associates with both Cairo and Damascus. To someone who knows little about the Arabs, it sounds like there is nothing in their countries but that one business park in Amman. To those who know better, it sounds like someone went to a chicken farm, saw no chicken, roosters or chicks, and came back with one measly egg. Did Friedman neglect to see if there is something else in the Arab world? Or was this a deliberate act on his part to mislead his readers?

Those who know what goes on inside the Jewish noise and spin machine will tell you that his trip to the Arab world was planned on April 25, 2012. This was the day that the website CNN Money published an article under the title: “Inside Egypt's bustling start-up scene.” and the subtitle: “Despite the economic uncertainty and social unrest in Egypt, tech start-up investors are finding plenty of promising options.” It was written by Christopher M. Schroeder who is an American entrepreneur and investor. His description of what he saw in Egypt says that  Friedman only saw a drop in the bucket of the Arab high-tech parks; only one egg in the entire chicken farm. But try to imagine the panic that hit the people inside the Jewish noise and spin machine when they read the Schroeder article, and try to imagine the frantic phone calls they made to Tom Friedman and to others like him urging them to look for and find ways that will mitigate (or in Jewish parlance, balance out) the positive piece on Egypt. They must have looked like chicken running around with their heads cut off. It must have been a pitiful spectacle.

To better understand the workings of the Jewish noise and spin machine, we analyze the May 6 column. Friedman begins it by describing as being a “huge volcanic political eruption” what he calls the “post-Awakening Arab world,” and he claims that not enough leaders have emerged from all this. Okay, you say, let's assume this to be true, so what? And he tells you so what. He says he wants to see men and women who will tell their people the “truth [that is] required to get their societies moving forward again.” Hmm, you say and you scratch your head as if to stimulate a thought that would end your puzzlement. It is that you always thought if and when people wake up and cause a huge volcanic eruption, it means they already know the truth about themselves, so much so that they do not need a little fart from America to come and tell them about it.

Oh no, says he without actually saying it, I am not a little fart from America, I am juggernaut Thomas L. Friedman, columnist for the New York Times. In fact, he writes that he even discussed the problem with his Arab friends. He does not say what their reaction was, and he does not mention them again in the rest of the column. But he assures us that he was quick to note to them: “...my own country – not to mention Europe – has a similar problem.” You see, my friend, this is a guy that believes the whole world is missing something because nobody is telling it the truth – the truth that only he and no one else knows.

He elaborates on the theme by asserting that while there is a global leadership vacuum, it is particularly problematic in the Arab world today -- this being a critical juncture for it. He then blows in your face a typical friedmanite fart that stinks so badly, it takes you a while before you realize what he just did. Here is how he does that: “Every … awakening … needs to … transition from Saddam to Jefferson without getting stuck in Khomeini.” What? What is this thing he calls Saddam? Is it a chicken salami of some sort? And that Jefferson thing? Is it a motorbike like the Harley? And the Khomeini one; could it be a chicken dish stuffed with rice or something? This guy has the habit of throwing smart aleck remarks that do not inform or entertain but simply distract.

Now he gets serious enough to tell you why “the Arab awakening produced so few leaders.” There are technical reasons, he says, but there are also “deeper factors at work.” And speaking of depth, the absolute truth is that these societies are confronting a deep hole, he explains. So then, what do you do when you need to tell the people about a truth so deep they could never see it by themselves despite the fact that they woke up on their own and caused a huge volcanic eruption? Simple; you get them a Moses-like leader to preach to them from the mountaintop a sermon they will never forget.

And so, here comes T. L. Moses Friedman who ascends to the top of the mountain and delivers the holiest of sermons: “Who [but I] will tell the people how much time has been wasted? Who [but I] will tell the people that, for the last 50 years, most of the Arab regimes squandered their dictatorship moments. [Yes] dictatorship is not desirable, but at least East Asian dictatorships, such as South Korea and Taiwan, used their top-down authority to build dynamic export-led economies and to educate all their people – men and women. In the process [I assure you, my children that] they created huge middle classes whose new leaders midwifed their transitions from authoritarian rule to democracy. [By contrast,] Arab dictatorships did no such thing. [Instead,] they used their authority to enrich a small class and to distract the masses with 'shiny objects' – called Israel, Iran and Nasserism to name a few.” And this is where you come out of your snooze and yell: What? Shiny Israel? Shiny Iran? An object called Nasserism? What's that? Did he finally get to see a rooster in the chicken farm?

And you go on yelling: “What the hell is this self-styled dumbo/Moses talking about?” You do a little research and discover that there was a time when a debate had probed the reasons why South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong industrialized as rapidly as they did. The conclusion arrived at was that America and Britain invested in them enormous amounts to show to the communist Chinese, the North Koreans and the Soviets that Capitalism was better than Communism. To get there, they enriched a small class of tycoons that make the rich in the Arab oil-poor countries look like paupers, and make the rich in the oil-rich countries look like wannabe moguls on their way there but not yet there. And so, you ask, what was the role of Friedman in that debate? And the answer is zilch, zero, nada, zip, goose egg. In fact, while the debate was raging, he ran around yelling his own yell: The earth is flat, the oil is bad. High-tech is hot; the earth is hotter.

And this is where you wonder if he is preaching to the Arabs or preaching to us here. Reading further down the column, and giving the matter more serious thought, you conclude that being an important part of the Jewish noise and spin machine, he is talking to us here. What he is doing is implement a program of continuing education aimed at transforming the North American population into mindless human drones who live and die for the sole purpose of serving Israel and the other Jewish causes to the exclusion of everything and everyone else.

But what is he trying to “educate” us about? Not surprisingly, it is the same old propaganda of distortion and demagoguery; it is a package of things like: “Now … Islamist parties are trying to fill the void … Egypt and Tunisia … need loans.” And he goes on to say the things that show how little he knows about the debates now raging in the Arab world. In the same way that he missed the important debates in North America in favor of championing such Jewish causes as the threat of global warming and the evil of the oil companies, he remains deaf to the avalanche of ideas that emanate at this time from the Arab Revolution.

In fact, it is clear that he is oblivious of the debates which are now raging in the Arab world where they tackle subjects like governance in an age when the Left and the Right are seen to crumble under their own weight; the balance to aim for in education between the hard sciences and the humanities; the sort of economy that will ensure organic growth yet make room for innovation; the shape of a social safety net that will help the needy without encouraging the greedy; and so on, and so on, and so on. But to give us the impression that he is participating in the Arab debate over there, Friedman says this to us over here: “Islam is … not the answer … Math is.” What a joker wasting precious time and expensive space!

As if this were not enough, he takes advantage of the fact that he has rendered you giddy to sneak up on you and mug you. Look what he says: “Who will tell young Arabs that they have as much talent as young people anywhere?” Say that again, Tom. Are you saying that young Arabs need someone to tell them they have talent? Are you volunteering to do them this favor? Are you nuts or something? But he does not stop here; he goes on to tell us this: “Look at the worldwide trend their uprisings sparked.” Yes, we looked and we know what they have known for a long time which is that America needs a better press to help it create a better political system that will not waste time spinning every piece of news to serve Israel and the Jewish causes to the exclusion of everything and everyone else. At a time when America needs all its talent and all its energy to heal itself, the nation is being mobilized by the power of demagoguery so as to see but one foreign entity and serve it with utmost devotion. What a crime!

It is time for Thomas Friedman to get out of the way because he is doing America more harm than good. It is time for the New York Times to stop becoming worse than the rag it is now -- a toilet paper.

Incitement To Wage A Never Ending War

Clifford May has another article in the National Review Online. It was published on May 3, 2012 in a series I call: The Jewish American incitement to hate and to wage war. The article has the title: “The Foggiest War” and the subtitle: “We don't know the enemy. What's more: We don't want to.” May begins by telling the story of a Prussian military theorist who developed some kind of theory about a fog of war that envelops a fog of uncertainty whereby those who lead troops into battle lack what it takes to know whether they are winning or losing. And this, says May, causes them to take actions that weaken them and strengthen their enemies.

He makes it clear that this is an analogy to represent what he describes as: “a conflict so murky we can't even agree on its name.” He wonders if it is a war on terrorism, a long war, a war against al-Qaeda or just overseas contingency operations. He points out that the State Department and the White House disagree as to whether or not America is still pursuing al-Qaeda, and adds that this is the problem because it misses the point. In his view, al-Qaeda did not vanish with the death of Osama bin Laden; it is regrouping as a non-state actor in a number of places under its original name as well as other names.

He also mentions the state actors that have adopted views which are just as dangerous now, and will be more so in the future. He cites Iran as being the most significant example of a state that sponsors terrorism. But that's not all, says he, because what has come to be called “legitimate Islam” is also dangerous because even though its members do not embrace the means of the jihadis, they pursue the same ends. He predicts that because they sound moderate and act with moderation, such movements stand a good chance of being elected to power. The trouble is that once they get the power, they hang on to it and refuse to relinquish it as is the case in Iran despite the fact that the population there has become disenchanted with theocracy and wants to see change.

What worries Clifford May is that he believes we cannot escape the effect of what happens in that part of the world because it has the means to cross the ocean and spillover onto this Continent. He makes the point that even if the jihadis can no longer mount an operation that would be serious enough to endanger us, and even if we choose to deal with legitimate Islam at arms length, their influence will be felt here because our thinking has been befogged. Thus, we see that the author has painted a picture which is so comprehensive in its darkness and hopelessness, he leaves no possibility of a way out except through war. To his credit, however, he gives plenty of examples that illustrate every point he makes, and he discusses every one of them in depth.

But what is wrong with this? Well, what's wrong is that every age tends to construct a version of a debate that is comparable to the one sparked by the question: “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” This is a debate that the best minds in the Middle Ages spent endless days and nights hashing and rehashing in depth without ever getting somewhere. Why is that? Because the very premise of the debate was so absurd, the discussion could never go anywhere. The same applies to a modern day discussion whose premise is that the world must engage in an endless war. It is a concept worse than absurd; it is Jewish.

What should happen now is something similar to what happened then. It is that the great minds of the Middle Ages became tired of trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; and so they used their skills to determine why they were so foolish as to waste time asking a baseless question in the first place. In this same vein, we must turn away from discussing the launch of an endless war, and discuss instead why someone has been advocating this sort of absurdity in the first place, and deal with this question rather than worry about the planning of an endless war; how to execute it and how to maintain it for ever.

Advocating an endless war is not a new phenomenon; it has been the main motivation behind the activities of Jewish leaders for nearly two thousand years. The Jews have often been accused of causing many of the wars that have plagued mankind since the beginning of time but they always denied the accusation and they always complained of being singled out. In turn, they accused their accusers of being antisemitic. They kept denying the charges and kept accusing their accusers till they could deny no more, and could never accuse again. It is that they had generated a mountain of evidence they could no longer hide or explain away.

Thus, in the absence of a better way to proceed with what they seek to accomplish, they now accuse the people who reject their warlike attitude of being antisemitic. They make this accusation not to deny that they are constantly inciting a war here and a war there (they are proud of this and they wear it like a badge of honor) but because some people do not accept them for what they are or what they do no matter how abhorrent that is. To them, being an obnoxious Jew is a natural state of being; one that is analogous to being a person of color. Thus, to reject this attitude is to commit the offense of discriminating against the Jews.

If we consider the mountain of evidence they have created as being made of stones, one stone in that mountain would be the incitement to war that Clifford May has packed in the article we are here discussing. What he is advocating is a war that is as futile as the one the Communists have waged against Capitalism and lost. But as they often do, the Jewish leaders have turned their coats, have shed their communist ideology to embrace Capitalism, and have gone after the Arabs and the Muslims. To do this, they allied themselves with what they call the West; a group of virtual nations that is supposedly headed by America. They pitted this group against the Arabs and the Muslims, and they turned the engine of hate and incitement to full power. The result has been that the repulsive history of Jewish self-inflicted agony has started the cycle of repeating itself once more.

The Communists lost to Capitalism because their aim was to conquer the world by the trick of badmouthing their opponents. They had bet on the old saying: If you kill everybody, you get to be king. But what happened was that the people who believed in the promise of Communism did so for only a short period of time. It is that the opponents had a weak side which the Communists exploited to the hilt. But when the people began to realize that having a weak side was a natural state of the human condition given that nobody is perfect, they started to have doubts about the Communist ideology.

On the other hand, when you constantly accuse someone of being bad, you imply that you are perfect. Thus, when the inevitable happens and the people you incite to hate others for being imperfect, see that you are less than perfect yourself, they grab the hatred you stuffed into them and they throw it back at you. As if hit by a boomerang, you become the victim of your own doing. Thus, to  preach hate and to incite war has forever been the boomerang that turned around and hit the Jews in the face. They are the eternal victims of their own doing; the miserable people who forever drag into their wretched existence those they convince to follow in their footsteps.

But how do they drag people into their sphere of influence? In fact, we have an example in the May article that shows how they do it. Look at this quote: “Iran's rulers do not think that their war against 'the world of arrogance' is over.” If you remember that Iran was once a close friend and ally of America and of Israel, you wonder what happened that made the Iranians undergo a change of heart, and view themselves as being at war against a world of arrogance that used to be their friend and ally. But you do not have to go too far to find the answer because all you need to do is look at the paragraph below the quote on Iran to see a quote on Egypt. When you consider that Egypt has been a friend and ally for more than three decades, you get to understand how the obnoxious Jew can turn a friend of America into an enemy.

Pretending to speak for all Americans, here is how Clifford May, the Jew has characterized the people he wants you to hate and fight: “As for the Muslim … Brothers [they] and the jihadis … sing from the same hymnal … Both believe in Islamic supremacy; both are committed to the establishment of Islamic hegemony over the Middle East ... and beyond; both seek the power to silence critics at home and abroad; both are engaged in persecuting religious minorities in 'Muslim lands'; both are committed to the destruction of Israel.” Now imagine what this kind of talk will do to the relationship between Egypt and America if and when enough people repeat it, and do so for a long period of time. In fact, this is what happened to America's friends in Iran and elsewhere when they refused to bow to Israeli demands or refused to genuflect to American Jews. And the aim of May and all others like him is that it happens with Egypt as well.

That sort of characterization was responded to on this website on previous occasions, and I shall not take them up all again this time. I shall only take up the subject of religious persecution because it keeps recurring in Jewish writings over and over. What I have to say is that I lived in Egypt as a teenager and a young adult for seven years, and I never felt discriminated against overtly or covertly because of my Christian faith or anything else. When I came to Canada, the people in the media where I tried to start a career assumed automatically that I was a Muslim and told me openly that I will have to write anti-Arab and anti-Muslim articles if I want to be published or I shall never be published. I told them off and they blacklisted me.

In the meantime, I did not completely distance myself from journalism but stayed close to it, even had a few successes. What I did most of the time was try to lead as normal a life as I could while studying the Jewish character and the Jewish methods because I had in mind to write a book one day that will tell future generations how to decipher the Jewish doings and avoid the calamity that the Jewish existence keeps inflicting on the human race. And in my study, I came upon the monumental effort that the Jewish organizations were making -- first alone and then in conspiracy with the Christian fundamentalists -- to start sectarian wars in Lebanon and in Egypt. The plan was to start the wars then call on the American Congress of low-life imbeciles to bankroll them till both sides in each war finish off each other. Apparently they believe that this would be a good thing for Israel; something I was never able to figure out why or how.

They had a limited success in Lebanon but they failed miserably in Egypt. However, there was one incident during last year's revolution when a fire was started in a church. It was put out quickly, and the church was repaired in a day or two. No one knows exactly what happened then but you keep reading about it here both in the Jewish and non-Jewish publications. The writing is done by people who use the incident to make you believe that they have succeeded at long last to start the sectarian war in Egypt for which they schemed so diligently; about which they dreamed for so long. It is the victory lap of the mentally challenged.

But let me tell you what this is, my friend. It is nothing less than the cannibalistic hunger of delirious Jews and that of their running dogs. You see, I was reading the other day about ordinary air travelers who crashed on top of a mountain range in South America and were forced to eat the dead bodies of their fellow passengers. Eventually, they ran out of food and started to turn delirious. When found by a search team, they were clutching a piece of bone and sucking on it in the belief that it was the only thing keeping them alive. They would not let go of it even in exchange for real food.

In that same way, those who talk about religious persecution in Egypt are delirious Jews and their screwed up friends clutching a piece of bone and sucking on it in the belief that a sectarian war will soon explode in Egypt, and get this now – deliver them from their miserable existence. It is that these people consider a wish to be a prayer, and they see a Moses-like Messiah come to help them with every plague they wish upon Egypt. It is absolute lunacy but a fact of life.

So you ask: How miserable has Jewish existence become? Well, look what Clifford May is lamenting about: “Last week, General Martin Dempsey … ordered all military schools to make sure they are not including 'anti-Islamic themes' in training courses. Dempsey's order prohibits … 'advocating ideas, beliefs an actions … disrespectful of the Islamic religion.'” This is the writing of someone who first complains about religion being treated badly then laments that someone has ordered that religion be treated well. It is absolute lunacy but a fact of life.

To the delirious mind of Clifford May, this is the fog of war that the Prussian military theorist has warned against. The remedy according to the Prussian is 'a fine, piercing mind.' to which May adds that “it also requires intellectual courage – something not often exhibited by Western leaders in the current era.”

This man, and all cannibalistic Jews in his condition, need to stop sucking on the bone of dead issues and start nourishing themselves with the wholesome food for thought they will find in publications they have not yet contaminated with their dead and decomposition ideas.

Between The Incitement And The Act

I have been reminded by a number of correspondents that the Likud Party was not asked to form the government in Israel until February of 2009 which means that Benjamin Netanyahu could not have ordered the attack on Gaza that came at the end of 2008. And yet, I said in my last posting that Netanyahu was the one who ordered the attack on Gaza that killed 1,300 Palestinians. Moreover, I failed to mention that the acting Prime Minister at the time was Tzipi Livni who had replaced Ehud Olmert at the helm of the Kadima Party.

All this is true when you look at it from the point of view of histrionics which I should have given weight to and considered in my presentation. But I neglected to do this because I was geared to the theatrics of the whole event more than the sequence of its parts. The way my thought process was geared at the time was that I concentrated on the ceasefire that was brokered by Egypt between Hamas and Israel earlier in 2008. It was accepted by Kadima but rejected by Netanyahu who was in opposition and had, in fact, refused to join the coalition government of Ms. Livni. He attacked the ceasefire vehemently in the Knesset, and to my mind, this was the incitement that led to the shooting war that came about later in the year.

Thus, to my mind, even though Benjamin Netanyahu may not have been legally responsible for the crime, he was behind it wholeheartedly thus morally responsible for it as much as anyone else. I understand that there is a warrant to arrest Ms. Livni in England for what happened during that war, but I believe that a few other people must also be given the same treatment. I should have thought of this while writing the article, and should have clarified what I meant. But I did not have the presence of mind to do so then and I recognize my failing.

I thank those who reminded me of these facts, and I hope that everyone else will forgive me for the confusion I created.

A Ship Of State As Ship Of Fools

In Israel, they talk about having an election in October of this year which would be a year ahead of schedule. If and when this happens, it will probably look like an ordinary exercise in democracy but will be something else in reality. What is important to know is that democracy in Israel is a tool they use on the world stage the way that smoke and mirrors are used in a Broadway show. It is to create the right kind of illusion at the right time to keep the fake narrative of Israel going. In fact, the current government came to power when it became clear to the leaders that America was going to have a new President who will need to be educated in the Judeo-Israeli ritual. This is a practice that is not much different from the ancient sacrifice of children to please the gods. In modern Israel it is the use of American weapons and ammunition to welcome a new American President with the blood of unarmed Palestinians, both children and older folks.

To make the theatrics look authentic, the leaders of Israel needed to remove the Kadima Party which had been in power for some time, and replace it with a Likud Party that was headed by the notorious addict to Palestinian blood -- Benjamin Netanyahu. That was then; what they have now is a situation that is somewhat similar where an election will take place in America in November of this year, an election that may result in a brand new situation. Depending on what happens in America, they will modulate the events in Israel to get the result that will suit the new circumstances while making the whole thing look like coincidence. The way things stand now in Israel is that the Jewish state has managed to make itself isolated from its neighbors and from the world like never before. It is that the people at the helm have behaved so strangely, the people below them have started to speak out. Thus, a conflict was created that needs to be resolved. The denouement of the play will be written depending on how the American campaign will unfold.

We have an indication as to how this may happen when we study the events of four years ago. The idea then was to remove Ehud Olmert from power and call an election that will bring the Likud Party to power. They created a side show to the effect that Olmert had committed a few criminal offenses in the past (no surprise here given that criminal behavior is the natural way of life in Israel) and they said he should call an election then resign and prepare himself to go to jail. Except for the jail part, it all happened as planned when Kadima under a new leader lost the election, and the Likud under Netanyahu won. His first act was to launch an attack on the unarmed people of Gaza and kill 1,300 innocent Palestinians in three weeks which, when scaled to the size of the American population comes to 300,000 dead Americans in three weeks. Thus, even before ascending to the helm of American power, the newly elected President had been baptized in the reality of Judeo-Israeli democracy with the blood of Palestinians being shed with the use of American weapons.

So then, what theatrics are they preparing to stage in Israel at this time? To search for an answer, we begin by noting that the people at the helm of an institution do sometimes lose touch with reality and begin to do such things as to imperil the institution itself and all those in it. In the majority of cases, the big institutions would have a protocol spelled out in their code of conduct by which the lower ranking personnel in the command hierarchy are authorized to take steps that mitigate or neutralize the negative effect of illegal orders issued by the person at the helm. If necessary, that person may even be relieved from command altogether. This can happen in a relatively small institution and it can happen at the national level.

Something close to that happened in America in the year 1973 when the secretary of defense issued a directive to the military instructing them to check with him before obeying an order that may come from the commander in chief. The secretary of defense at the time was James Schlesinger (a Jew), the commander in chief was President Richard Nixon and the occasion was the combination of two major events unfolding simultaneously. At home, there was a Watergate affair raging in the media and in the Congress. Abroad, there was a full scale war raging in the Middle East. Schlesinger had feared that Nixon may go crazy under the strain of the Watergate revelations and do something – well, crazy.

What is known so far is probably as much as we'll ever know about what happened during those crucial days in 1973. There was the fact that America had participated directly in the Middle Eastern war to rescue Israel. And there was the fact that President Nixon had ordered the worldwide mobilization of American forces, something he did apparently based on reports -- never substantiated -- to the effect that the Soviet Union had mobilized its forces in response to the American participation in the war.

As it happened, President Nixon resigned shortly after that, the consequence of which being that the world will never know what the response of the American military to the Schlesinger order had been. It is also doubtful that historians will ever know whether or not Schlesinger or anyone in the military would have been summoned to the White House or to some congressional committee to tell how each one of the participants took the Schlesinger order.

Some people have called the Schlesinger move a mutiny. Of course, the American military, like everyone else, has a protocol to follow when a number of officers deem that a higher ranking commander is no longer fit to command. But Schlesinger never consulted with anyone before issuing his order, and there is no indication that anyone below him took the order seriously. But what if Nixon had issued an order after the Schlesinger directive was given out? Would the chiefs of staff have obeyed it, or would they have checked with Schlesinger?

Very few people in 1973 believed that America was at peril, therefore, the unfolding of those events were of little consequence to the nation. Still, it was a situation that America will never again want to be in regardless as to what pickle Israel will put itself in. By contrast, what is happening in the Middle East at this time looms large in the imagination of Israeli leaders such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the minister of defense Ehud Barack. Opposed to them and worried about what they might do next are Yuval Diskin who was the head of the domestic intelligence agency, Meir Dagan who was the head of the foreign intelligence agency, and General Benny Gantz who is the current chief of staff.

All three believe that the Prime Minister and the minister of defense are approaching the subject of Iran the wrong way. Diskin has said that the two Israeli leaders are messianic in their responses, and that attacking Iran will accelerate the nuclear program of that nation instead of retarding it. Contrasting the messianic leaders of Israel are the leaders of Iran who, according to Gantz, are a very rational people as it is apparent from the way that they govern their country. As to Dagan, he put it succinctly when he said that a military action against Iran is the stupidest idea he ever heard of. Thus, the accusation leveled by the Israeli leaders to the effect that the Iranians are irrational and messianic has been thrown back at the Israeli leaders, not by the Iranians who would not waste their time responding to a barking dog in Tel Aviv, but responded to by second tier commanders in the Israeli hierarchy itself.

Piling on top of the Iranian problem are a few other problems that will play a big role in pushing Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barack over the edge. One of those is the fact that the Israelis need as much as a billion dollars right away to get out of their financial difficulties. They have approached America to bail them out again but even the threat that they will default on the loans endorsed by America could not persuade the Congress to hand them this much money. And you know how dire the situation is when they put out stories to the effect that the girls in Israel are skinny not because they are starving but because they are fashionably anorexic. When presented with the fact that poverty in Israel is a serious problem approaching the level of famine, they blame the shortage of food on the Ethiopian women who, they say, are eating more than their fair share of the available meat, amounts they never ate in Ethiopia before they were brought to Israel.

This tells you that Israel which has been up to now a powder keg full of explosives made in America, has become a ship commanded by irrational and messianic fools who, when they look in the mirror, do not see themselves but see someone else as being irrational and messianic. It is the height of madness.

Watch how the staged play will play itself out but do not be fooled by how the fools will try to mislead you.

Are They Stupid Or Something?

What's wrong with these people? Every time that the thing seems to have quieted down, and you begin to believe that the world is getting back to normal, someone comes up with something more bizarre than before, and you wonder if these people are stupid or something. This time you have not one, not two but three Jewish lawyers -- prominent in the field of human rights, I might add -- demonstrating in black and white that they know as much about human rights as the bird which my neighbor keeps inside a cage. Their demonstration being a testimony to the reality that the human race is still ailing.

If you want to see for yourself why that is, get a hold of an article published in the Wall Street Journal on May 2, 2012 under the title: “Inciting Genocide Is a crime” and the subtitle: “Even if Iran's radicals could be deterred from attacking Israel, their actions are already illegal under international law.” The article is signed by Robert Bernstein and Stuart Robinowitz both of whom are current members of the so-called Advancing Human Rights, and Irwin Cotler who can be seen everywhere in Canada where he should not be, doing everything he should not be doing and failing to do what he is supposed to do.

The three authors begin their article in the typical Jewish fashion of inciting the reader to hate someone they are about to attack with assertions they have no intention of backing with proof. Here it is: “Many of Iran's crimes are well-known to Americans and observers world-wide.” They list a number of what they call crimes then give the reader this follow-up: “Less recognized, however, is the legal significance of Iran's genocidal anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric, which constitutes one of the most serious crimes under international law.” As can be seen, what they complain about is Iran's rhetoric -- nothing more than that. But to counter this rhetoric, they come up with their own rhetoric which is to accuse Iran of committing “serious crimes.” Thus, what we apparently have here is one rhetoric countering another rhetoric.

Now, let us get something clear before going any further. In the balance between free speech and the laws of libel, I can say, for example, that the three lawyers have brains that do not measure up to the brain of my neighbor's bird. What I cannot say without submitting proof is that a test was conducted in a nearby hospital whereby the brains of the lawyers were weighed and were shown to be less massive than that of my neighbor's bird. This would be libelous, therefore criminal.

Let us now suppose that the Iranians did engage in rhetoric injurious to Semites and to Israel. If we reject the notion that two wrongs can make a right, we would have to conclude that the three human right lawyers are as guilty of committing a serious crime as the Iran they accuse of committing serious crimes. What is left for us to do now is weigh the rhetoric of each side, thus determine which of the two is more guilty than the other.

There are two groups of allegations leveled against Iran by the three lawyers. The first group is listed in the first paragraph of the article. It comprises the following: The regime wants to build a nuclear weapon; it supports Syria's Bashar al-Assad; it sponsors terrorism; and it is engaged in domestic repression. The authors do not bother to give any proof of this, and they do not try to expand the discussion. They simply state that these are crimes well known to Americans and to the world. Given that the allegations were stuck in there for the purpose of inciting the reader to hate the Iranians, we dismiss them without further ado for the sake of brevity.

As to the second group of allegations, the lawyers attempt to give proof as to the kind of rhetoric that is used by the Iranians. They mention a website “affiliated with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei” where a declaration of some kind was made. The trouble is that the declaration is reported twice in two different ways in back-to-back sentences. The first reporting is this: “Iran would be justified in killing all Israeli Jews.” The second reporting is this: “...there is 'justification to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel...'” What this says to someone that might be completely detached from the issue is that the Iranian declaration was made in a context that the lawyers are distorting but are not smart enough to do so intelligently.

But to those who have followed the escalating rhetoric between Iran and world Jewry (especially the extremists among American Jews), this is nothing more than Iran's response to the Jewish threat of attacking Iran either by Israel alone or by the combined effort of the Israeli and American militaries. In fact, the rhetoric got so heated at one point that even the mild mannered Secretary of State in America threatened to obliterate Iran. And while it is clear that the Iranian rhetoric reflects a kind of wrestling with the moral issue of having to kill innocent people in the process of defeating Israel's military, the Jewish rhetoric never carries with it a hint that someone regrets what they call “collateral damage.” On the contrary, they describe the death of innocent people as part of the business of conducting a war; or worse, they present it as the fault of the civilian victims who do not leave the scene of combat even if such move were impossible for them to make when there is no time to escape or because the victims have nowhere else to go.

What the three lawyers do after that is throw at the reader the sick joke that used to carry weight but carries weight no more. It is that people used to be hauled to court and tried for denying the Holocaust. Some people even went to jailed for that. I remember a time when the crimes of the Nazis used to stir the emotion even of people who abhorred the Zionist movement. But when the Jewish leaders came up with the notion that to deny the Holocaust is deemed to be crime, they trivialized the Holocaust to such a degree that most people now could not care less about Jews being gassed or cremated or having their skin turned into lampshade. It is just that people have it up to here with being forced to believe in a historical event when they – as Mother Theresa herself – have trouble sometimes believing in the existence of God. Criminalizing the denial of a historical event is now seen as being a stain on the conscience of mankind as bad as the Holocaust itself.

From this point on, the writers formulate a dissertation in which they argue that to incite genocide is recognized in international law as being a crime. They also make the point that to insult Jews by characterizing them as being this or that is a precursor to genocide, therefore a crime as well. It surprises me that Irwin Cotler should sign an article that says such a thing when he is old enough to remember how it was like before the wave of political correctness that swept North America.

He should remember that there was a time when the Arabs were characterized as nonhuman or subhuman: “bloodthirsty, viruses, a metastasizing cancer, mad dogs, wild animals” and so on. Like he and his colleagues are saying, I am inclined to believe that such behavior can lead to genocide but I say so with a caveat. It is that to lead to genocide, you must also have the ability to silence the opposition. In fact, this is what happened here in Canada when I and people like me were silenced and subjected to the cultural genocide of being blacklisted. By contrast, the Jews are more vocal everywhere in the world than anyone else. Because they have the means to respond to every allegation leveled against them, they will not be subjected to genocide even if it is true that the Iranians characterize them as being this or that.

While the Jewish leaders were committing all these horrors in Canada, Irwin Cotler was already a prominent lawyer laboring in the field of human rights or pretending to do so. And yet, he did not lift a finger to put a stop to the Jewish genocide of the Arab character, a genocide that has destroyed many careers I, being the exception that refused to die at the hand of Jewish inhumanity and Jewish treachery. I stayed with it till I had the opportunity to start this website and tell my story.

Like they say it themselves: “Silence is no option.”  Thus, I advise Irwin Cotler to surrender himself to the International Criminal Court and be tried for being silent when crimes were committed against humanity. I say to him: Speak up, Irwin. Speak up against yourself and tell the truth; tell the whole truth.

A Tale Of Two Dogs And Their Achievements

On April 27, 2012 the Earth-bound Wall Street Journal published an editorial under the title: “The Growth deficit” and the subtitle: “The slowest recovery plods along.” I have a few things to say about this editorial but first, I must confess something to you. I am actually not from this Universe but am a time traveler. It means I travel through space and also through time such as the past and the future. This gives me the means to also travel between parallel Universes. In fact, I just came to this Universe from one that closely resembles it but for a few exceptions. It is that the intelligent beings who inhabit one of the planets in that Universe are not two-legged human beings but four legged dogs. And so, to follow what I am about to say, you will have to imagine a planet that looks more like Planet of the Apes than Planet Earth but that is really a Planet of the Dogs.

There is on that planet a country called America where the dogs are preparing to conduct a presidential election. The campaign is in full swing, and the big issue is the record of the challenging dog as it stacks up against the record of the incumbent dog that happens to be the younger of the two. And so, let me tell you this story before I take up the editorial of the Earth-bound Wall Street Journal. Because it would have been impossible for me to go through the full length and width of the nation to gather the relevant information and give you a comprehensive assessment of the situation there, I have assembled a sample of the views expressed by the writers who contribute to the Wall Street Journal of Planet of the Dogs. Here is what they have been saying lately:

In this election year of the dog, it is worth remembering what is often said, mainly that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. If this is true, the implication is that if you have new tricks up your sleeve and you're looking for someone that can deliver on them, you'll be better off getting a young dog and teach it the lessons you have in mind than getting an older dog who may know a few tricks already but cannot learn a new one.

These days, the self-deprecating inhabitants of America think of the economy as having gone to the dogs, and what they want as a society is to avoid being reduced to eating hot dog with a piece of bread and little else, or eating dogs of the tail-wagging kind made into Indonesian stew. For this reason, they have abandoned the idea of placing their dogs onto the roof of the car to head to Canada, preferring instead to stay at home and make a decision as to who they will vote for in the upcoming election. They hope that the decision they make will be the wise one and that it will get them out of the rut very soon. The choice they have is between a challenging old dog who knows a few tricks from his days in the field of tricking the populace, and the incumbent young dog that has learned a few tricks of the trade only recently, has learned them on the job and has done so before their eyes.

The old dog has on his list of accomplishments a history of flipping properties whose glory days had come and gone. They added real value to the American GDP when they produced real goods and real services, but had little value left in them by the time the old dog and his associates had taken them over. The latter cut up the properties into pieces and sold them as scrap, moves that added a bubble-forming phony dollars to the GDP of the nation. And the dogs paid themselves a handsome amount of real dollars to reward themselves for their troubles. At one point, the challenging dog had also used his charm and know-how to trick the government of America into giving him gobs of money to stage an Olympic event that added little value to America but a lot of it to the rest of the world. All in all, that dog spent a lifetime adding perhaps a billion dollars or so of real and phony dollars to the American GDP. And he managed in the process to keep a few million real dollars for himself.

As to the young dog, he came into office at a time when the administration that preceded him had made a mess of America's finances. Standing at the edge of a frightful precipice, the nation was so close to a fall into the abyss of no return that the existing Secretary of the Treasury literally went down on his knees and begged the Lady of the House to pass a bill that would allow the flooding of the market with freshly printed real dollars. The Lady acquiesced to the request thus saved the phony economy which the Secretary of the Treasure and his boss had inflicted on the nation of America, something they did on the advice of the know-nothing devils of ignorance who usually disguise themselves as the all-knowing gods of enlightenment.

Taking over from an administration of fools shortly after that, the young dog started to repair every part of the economy that was damaged by his know-nothing and do-nothing predecessor. He saved the auto industry that was then and still is the backbone of every modern industrial economy, and he called on the traditional industries both in the goods making sectors and the service sectors to return to America, a call that made the businesses respond affirmatively. Yes, the nation is still staggering from the blows delivered to it by a previous administration that spent eight years serving a foreign entity of parasites rather than serve the inhabitants of America. But what must be well understood by everyone is that building an economy is something very different from managing an armed conflict. In fact, when it comes to execution, the two fields are very much the opposites of each other.

The truth is that the top dog in America – also called president -- runs the economy while playing the role of commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He inherits from his predecessor an economy that is like an ocean-going massive ship. It takes long to get the ship going in a given direction and just as long to have it change course. Thus, the mistakes of the predecessor stay with the new dog for a long time after he takes the helm. By contrast, a military situation – especially when there is an ongoing conflict – is where the decisions are made on the spot such as it is described by the proverbial telephone call which comes to the president at three o'clock in the morning.

What all this means is that a bad economy belongs to the administration that planned it years ago, while a military success belongs to the leader who makes the current on-the-spot decisions. The dogs of America understand these realities and this is why they give credit in foreign matters to the current administration while attributing the difficulties of the economy to the previous one. This makes them tolerate an economy that moves forward at a slow pace, and makes them admire the military operations which are conducted by the current commander-in-chief who happens to be the incumbent in the current election season.

Looking at the record of this young dog -- in charge of the nation for more than three years now -- the electors see the experience not of someone who spent a lifetime adding a billion or so phony dollars to the GDP of the nation, but see the experience of someone who spent nearly four years adding something like 50 trillion dollars of real wealth to the GDP of the nation. In addition, they see that the old dog made millions in commission for himself while the young dog made only a couple million in salary and perks for himself and his young family. They conclude that he has the experience needed to maintain the nation on the path of recovery he put it on, having saved the nation from a depression that was staring them in the face.

And so, the Americans now feel that it is better to stick with the devil they know a great deal about and have seen him do good things for the nation, than go with the devil they know very little about except that he wants to make America produce phony wealth by flipping what used to be worth something but is worthless now. In fact, to create new wealth that is real and useful -- the sort of wealth that can replace imported goods -- is so alien a concept to the old dog, he will never learn to do it having spent a lifetime pulling old tricks while the nation was borrowing from abroad to import what it used to make but made no more. And all this was happening because he and other dogs like him had deemed it more advantageous to flip property and make a quick buck rather than create real wealth by producing real goods and real services. This would have been the way of true entrepreneurial capitalism, something that the old dog will never grasp having lived a life of flippant trickeries.

What is at work at this point in time is the reality that those who are well versed in the art of creating phony wealth are also well versed in the art of creating phony narratives to impress the electorate; something they are doing now at full throttle. The phoniest thing you can do while advertising your narrative being to turn reality upside down, this is what the spin doctors who are attached to the campaign of the old dog are doing at this time. They are doing it to snatch the credit from where credit is due and give it to whom it does not belong. Thus, you see them hard at work trying to take away the credit that the young dog has earned with the brilliant snap decisions that he made in military matters. And they try to attribute these successes to the previous administration; one that sat like pieces of furniture in the Oval Office wondering why they are here and not somewhere else. In addition, the spin doctors are trying to shift the blame for the state of the economy from a previous administration that spent eight years deforming it, onto the new administration because they say that the young dog has failed to turn around the ocean going ship with a snap of his finger.

This, my friend, is the story of Planet of the Dogs as told in the Wall Street Journal of the other Universe. Contrast it with the editorial in the Earth-bound Wall Street Journal, and you will see that the Earthlings are neither as smart nor as equitable as the dogs of that other planet. The bone of contention in the America of Earth as described by the Journal is this: “The economy has been growing for 11 quarters since the recession officially ended in mid-2009, and quarterly growth has averaged 2.4%.” And they go on to lament it like this: “That's slower growth than in every modern expansion and about half the growth rate of all the recoveries since World War II...” True but this is not the whole story.

What the editors of the Journal have omitted saying is that since World War II, America was never hit with a blow half as severe as the blow it received in 2008. This was a time when the value of real estate dropped by as much as 30% in many places when it never dropped by as little as 5% on previous occasions. Moreover, many parts of the World who are traditional buyers of American goods and services – Europe being foremost among them – went into depression level declines thus negating to America the advantage it had in the export sectors of the economy. Given the reality of this “perfect storm,” it must be said that America under its young president has done very well given the hand that he was dealt.

And this is why it makes no sense that after analyzing the current situation and having omitted the most crucial part of the argument, the Wall Street Journal should conclude with this: “President Obama … never explained why the Reagan recovery that followed policies [he] rejected was so robust while the current recovery is so anemic.” The fact of the matter is that it is not the job of a sitting president to explain what a previous president did or compare that with what he is himself doing at this time.

Such analysis and comparison would be the job of a journal such as the Wall Street Journal. And what the editors of this Earth-bound journal should be doing instead is follow the example of the writers on the Planet of the Dogs and bark their opinions in a manner that is a little more just and a little more evenhanded.