To Detect The Superficial Smart Aleck Types

It happens at the start of every school year that a teacher would receive a student who puzzles him. At times the student would show a high degree of intelligence; at other times he would show the opposite. The way to assess the intelligence of such a student is to probe his depth of understanding in the subject where he seems to display a high degree of intelligence.

It is important to do this because it often happens that a student would come from an environment where he was immersed in a subject he learned something about, but learned it at the superficial level only. Thus, a probing of the depth to which the student understands the subject will help the teacher determine the student's level of intelligence.

That same technique can be used to assess the level of intelligence shown by the editorial writers of a publication – people that may puzzle you at times by their erratic performances. It is not that their intelligence or lack of it should be of interest to you; it is that you need to know how much credibility you should assign to the points they make in the areas where your knowledge is not complete.

We have an example against which we can apply that technique and see what comes of it. The piece is a Wall Street Journal editorial, published on January 31, 2013 under the title: “Hagel and the Shrinking Gulliver”. The editors who wrote it begin with this confident assertion: “The Senate needs to pin down the Defense nominee on big issues.” And they give their reasons as to why it should be so. They say that a few things happened which tend to negate President Obama's declaration to the effect that “a decade of war is now ending.”

And they itemize those things: Israel bombed a neighbor yet again. An American Commander in Afghanistan has once again made a prediction that was not too rosy. The French conducted a successful military operation in Mali. Egypt's military chief has hinted for the umpteenth time that if the street demonstrations do not end, he may order the troops to intervene. The Chinese navy conducted another legitimate exercise along its coastline. And the Pentagon announced plans concerning cyber defenses and air bases in North Africa.

Based on that litany, the editors of the Journal draw the conclusion that “war is not ending” which, in their view, negates the President's declaration. And so, they go a step further and question the qualifications of Mr. Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. To do that, they bring up the subject of the Pentagon budget. Since your knowledge in this field is limited, you want to know if you should believe what they say. How do you do that?

You do it by returning to the litany they say proves the war is not ending. Knowing what wars the President was talking about, you ask: What war are the editors of the Journal talking about? Do they consider the litany they gave as proof that some kind of a war is still on? You go through the whole article in search of an answer to that question. And this is what you encounter at the very end: “The US [is] the world's superpower. This has … kept Europe peaceful, Asia mostly stable, the seas secure … and the US safe for nearly 70 years.

And so you ask: But what about the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cuban revolution, the Bay of pigs fiasco, the Cuban missile crisis, the Cambodian Genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the Balkan genocide, the Spanish Revolution, the fall of Communism, the Eastern European revolutions, the various South American revolutions, the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe transformation, the South African transformation, the various African tribal wars, The Sri Lanka civil war, The East Timor uprising and the hundred other wars that erupted in the past 70 years? Don't they count for something?

If the world was manageable while those wars were happening, why the panic now with a litany that only looks like this: Israel bombed a neighbor yet again. An American Commander in Afghanistan has once again made a prediction that was not too rosy. The French conducted a successful military operation in Mali. Egypt's military chief has hinted for the umpteenth time that if the street demonstrations do not end, he may order the troops to intervene. The Chinese navy conducted another legitimate exercise along its coastline. And the Pentagon announced plans concerning cyber defenses and air bases in North Africa.

You see a puzzle here that leads you to conclude the editors of the Wall Street Journal do not know in depth what they talk about. It is that they were immersed in the subject for a while, and they have learned to rattle off a few smart sounding utterances but these are superficial utterances of the Smart Aleck kind.

The Human Drama And The Tragedy To Come

Boy have I got an idea for a movie script! It is the story of a town that gets invaded by a bunch of outlaws. The cavalry comes to the rescue but stops at the gates of the town instead of going in and confront the evildoers. No one knows why the chief of the cavalry has so decided at a time when the outlaws are looting the place, raping everyone and murdering those who stand in their way.

No one inside the town or outside of it is buying the argument put forth by the cavalry to the effect that it is better to negotiate with the outlaws than to confront them. On the contrary, many believe in the rumor which says that the chief is in cahoots with the outlaws, but they cannot explain why this is so or how the relationship works. All they know is that the chief has allowed food and water to be brought to the town – supposedly to keep the population in good condition. But the move also serves to keep the outlaws in good condition, and some people are uneasy about that.

Well, my friend, you must be thinking this is a metaphor I created to analogize a real situation, and you would be correct. The town of my story represents Palestine, the outlaws represent those who call themselves Israelis or Jews or Zionists, and the cavalry represents the bipartisan politico-journalistic establishment of America.

Here is a revelation: The muse that got me to think up that story came to me in two steps.

The first step was the time that I was reading about Israel boycotting the Human Rights Council of the United Nations whose job is to conduct a “Universal Periodic Review” of the human rights condition in all countries. The Council wanted to review the Israeli policy of looting Palestinian lands on which it built Jewish settlements. The policy resulted in the violation of Palestinian human rights, and the Council wanted to ask a few questions but the Israelis did not show up for the meeting this time even though they did on all previous occasions.

The second step of the muse's work happened when I was reading Reuel Marc Gerecht's article in the January 30, 2013 edition of the Wall Street Journal. It came under the title: “Israel's New Islamist Neighborhood” and the subtitle: “If Western history is any guide, the growth of democracy slowly diminishes religious imperatives.” It is a rant that is so rambling and so meandering, it shows that the author is not trying to impress the people of the neighborhood he is talking about but trying to impress the bipartisan politico-journalistic establishment of America that nurtures the ongoing horrendous situation in Palestine and maintains it at a great cost to the country's credibility.

Gerecht begins the article this way: “Israel last week held … elections, and many … are interpreting the results as a triumph for moderates that means new hope for the … peace process.” And he ends it this way: “It is conceivable that Israelis, Arabs and Iranians will finally find a modus vivendi based on something more profound than land-for-peace.” In other words, he is saying forget about the peace process, forget about the outlaws returning the loot they hauled, and forget about them ending the pillage and the rape. The outlaws need not change, says Gerecht, what needs to happen is for the town to adapt to them and learn to accommodate their whims now and in the future.

If we take the performance of these types in America as a guide, we conclude that they will not stop escalating their demands even after they turn the place into a giant whorehouse full of male and female bimbos, all biting each other in the back, and vying to become the preferred male or female hooker of the Jewish master. This is the reality of the bipartisan politico-journalistic establishment of America today, and the Jews are viewing it as a model to duplicate everywhere else in the world.

But no, the history of the Middle East is not unfolding along a similar line. It is unfolding as it must, and will continue to do so whether Israel is there or it is not. The history of the Middle East is the telling of the human condition with all its sorrows and all its triumphs. Invaders have come and gone throughout history in that part of the world more than they did anywhere else. But guess what, my friend; the Middle East has remained true to itself throughout; always triumphant and always human.

What is wrong with the current invaders is that they are the most destructive recidivist outlaws in history. They never cease to see themselves as being at the center of history, and they perennially come to think that the world revolves around them. They keep thinking that way till they discover otherwise; till they discover that the moment the world notices them is the moment it wants to do away with them, and usually does.

In fact, this scenario has repeated itself so many times, the world no longer considers it to be a noteworthy part of the human condition. It views it as something that happens because it must happen – nothing more serious than that; nothing to get excited about.

The outlaws can change all that by adapting to the world but they will not do so because they want the world to adapt to them. They have achieved this much in America, and they believe they can duplicate the feat everywhere else in the world – using American power if they must.

What they fail to see is that this is a recipe that will not change the world but will ruin America and take them down with it.

It happened this way many times before, and will happen this way again unless America wakes up and says enough is enough.

They Better Get The Right Expert Witnesses

It seems that John Bolton is mediocre in physics as much as he is in the law. He just shot himself in the foot on both counts. Let me admit at the outset that I am neither a lawyer nor a physicist – especially not in nuclear matters – where I am about to challenge him. I also know that he is a lawyer, one that may well be good in theory but is lousy when it comes to arguing a case for his client. This is because he has consistently made the mistake of saying anything to make a case for his client which is a strategy that has always backfired. This is why he joins the likes of Alan Dershowitz at consistently failing to argue a convincing case for Israel.

Bolton displays his deficiency in both those fields in an article he wrote under the title: “What to Ask Chuck Hagel About Iran's Nuclear Threat” and the subtitle: “Senators should probe if he endorses the dangerous step of letting Iran enrich uranium to reactor-grade levels.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on January 29, 2013.

So let me begin with the lawyering part of my argument. Here is what he says in the article: “Materially breaching a treaty voids the entire agreement, including “rights” found elsewhere in the deal. Iran has readily exploited the West's bad lawyering.” If this is true and if everyone is equal under the law, then the resolution to recognize Israel as a state has been voided by Israel's breach of its obligations under international law. And the consequence is not only that Israel no longer has the “right” to defend itself; it has no right to exist at all. This, my friend, is the consequence of the sort of lawyering that Bolton and Dershowitz have been doing on behalf of Israel.

Now to the physics part of my argument. I never studied or worked in the business of enriching uranium. But what is involved here are science and technology; two things I spent a lifetime doing – along with a few other things. What is usually done in research, often successfully, is that a researcher would see the analogy between a newly observed phenomenon and one that is understood. For example, the theory of light as being an electromagnetic wave was understood and formulated by analogy with the dropping of a stone in a pool of calm water.

Likewise, my argument about what it would take to enrich uranium to different levels rests on my understanding of two phenomena I know well because I studied them, worked in them and taught them. The first phenomenon is electromagnetism; more specifically self-inductance. What applies here is something called Lenz's Law. It says this: “The direction of the induced current is such that its own magnetic field opposes the action that produced the induced current.” If you want to know more about this, you will find a book authored by yours truly under the title: “Fundamentals Of Circuit Analysis” which, I was surprised to know, is still being circulated on the internet.

When the students asked me what that Law meant, I explained it this way: When you pump air in your tire, a lot of it goes into the tire in a short period of time at the start. But the more air you have in the tire, the more it pushes back against new air going in. That is, it becomes more difficult to put a little bit of air in the tire towards the end than it takes to put a lot of it at the start. The same applies when a current tries to produce a magnetic field because the field will push back against the current that produced it in the first place.

The second phenomenon that comes to mind is something I worked on one Summer while attending college. It was a company that produced components for other companies. One of those components had to be vacuumed to better than 98% before sealing it. To do this, the company had a vacuum machine with a gauge on it that indicated how much air was left in the chamber where the component was held. Upon starting the machine, you could see that a large amount of air was sucked out in the first few minutes. It then took several hours to bring the vacuum level to 98%, and another 24 hours to do a little better than that. I don't remember ever getting to the 99% level.

Thus, whether you pump air in a tire or you pump air out of a component, you have an easy time at the start of the process, and a more difficult one towards the end of it even if what you reap in terms of result is mathematically inferior. Now, given that the “work” so liberally used by Bolton in the article but never defined by him, actually has a definition in physics which says it is equal to the force applied for the duration it is applied, he better explain if he means to say it will take the Iranians less force to attain the higher levels of purification, or if it will take them less time to get there.

Where I take issue with John Bolton is this passage: “recent efforts have added debilitating mistakes in basic physics.” He later says this: “Mr. Obama's negotiators are playing with numbers they don't really understand. Their crude physics is seriously flawed.” But then admits the following in the paragraph that comes after that: “Here's the basic fact that puzzles us laymen, but not nuclear physicists.” Note that he has physicists in the plural. Well, I only know of one that attempted to make such argument but was shut down in flames by a few others. Most other nuclear physicists did not bother getting involved in this kind of silly talk.

Yet, John Bolton rests his argument on this sort of flimsy approach to lawyering for the cause of Israel, and tells the senators who will be questioning Mr. Hagel to ask him what he thinks of Iran's nuclear program. Before the senators do that, however, they better get expert witnesses for both sides of the argument to give them a true picture of what is going on here.

The truth is that Bolton and Dershowitz are as useless when it comes to litigating this cause as a monkey would be when it comes to giving a lecture on the legal implications of Einstein's Theory of Relativity being used in the making of the GPS gizmos.

Failed Putsch To Secure A Harem Of Bimbos

The would-be Fuhrer King had it planned to the last detail. His rival who was holding the power, was going to be yanked out of his post and replaced by a poodle that he personally handpicked. In fact, the poodle was an old acquaintance of the Fuhrer; an individual known to sell himself to the highest bidder for a value that never exceeded a fistful of dollars given his low caliber.

The rival was Barack Obama who was then President of the United States of America, seeking to be reelected for a second and last term in office. The poodle was Mitt Romney, the individual that the Fuhrer had bought for a million dollars – a trivial sum if you compare it to the billion dollars or more that were spent by the candidates during the election campaign of that year.

As to the would-be Fuhrer King, he was none other than Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel who had another year to go before he would have to call an election. What he did, however, was exercise his right under parliamentary rules to call for an early election. He designated January 22, 2013 as the day on which the election was to be held in Israel, an extremely significant date for, it came only two days after the inauguration of the new American President, the one that the Fuhrer thought was going to be Mitt Romney but was not.

Thus, in the mind of the would-be Fuhrer King, America was going to flip from being the unofficial Israeli colony in the Americas to being the official colony, and was going to be run in his absence by a viceroy, Mitt Romney. As to the Fuhrer himself, the fantasy was that he will be reelected two days later as the absolute monarch of the New Kingdom of Israel with a majority that will look like a near unanimity. It will be the kind of majority he has been getting from the shameless bimbos who were in charge of America's congress.

In reality, none of these events were going to happen haphazardly as they were planned to the last detail in an elaborate putsch that was put together by the would-be King working with collaborators in the Likud Party of Israel. He and they manipulated the bimbos in their American political hangouts such as the two wings of the Congress, and in the media watering holes that were frequented by characters who could not tell Right from Left anymore than they could tell right from wrong. And of course, there were the characters of the septic tanks that pretended to be think tanks but got their thinking material from the unthinking Likud. Finally, there were the freelancers who volunteered to add their two cents worth to the pot in the hope of being considered valuable contributors to the ongoing effort of anointing World Jewry as master of the universe.

One particular media outfit that had both a print publication and an audio-visual network, was instrumental in making the haggard eunuch that is Netanyahu appear like a Fuhrer King possessing absolute wisdom when it comes to the art of wielding power by which to deter the world, and the science of using that power to make himself feared by the enemy of the day rather than be loved by the friend of everyday. More specifically, that media outfit had the Wall Street Journal with which to attack those who stood in the way of World Jewry from conquering the world, and had the Fox News Network with which to sing and celebrate the fictitious potency of the eunuch that was Netanyahu – now disguised as a would-be Fuhrer King.

Unfortunately for the suckers out there who made the wrong bet, it happened that by the time the calendar was showing the date January 20, 2013, President Barack Obama had been reelected and was officially inaugurated on that day. He had also increased his majority in the Senate of the Congress, and had managed to diminish the majority of his opponents in the House of Representatives. As to Netanyahu, instead of increasing the number of seats under his control in Parliament, he decreased it substantially. You can only wonder what song of regret he has been singing ever since for calling an early election when he didn't have to.

But what was it that gave those suckers the impression they were going to pull off a putsch of this magnitude, anyway? The regrettable answer is that they had a few small successes in the past; enough of them to signal that they had a chance at winning big this time. In fact, just a few months before those events, Netanyahu and his Likud collaborators had organized a spectacle by which to show President Obama and the world what kind of harem full of male and female bimbos the U.S. Congress had become. To this end, Netanyahu had himself invited to the White House where he figuratively urinated on the rug, then went to the Congress where the bimbos there gave him 29 standing ovations.

As to the ongoing contribution made by the media outfit which stood by him all along, there is a recent example in the Wall Street Journal as to how it paved the way for Netanyahu to play the game, and paved the way for World Jewry to advance towards its goal. The example is an article written by Thane Rosenbaum under the title: “A Bleak Anniversary for the Arab Spring” and the subtitle: “The riots and deaths in Egypt signal another grim turn in a story once filled with hope.” It was published in the Journal on January 28, 2013. The author mentioned a number of Arab countries but I shall take up only one, Egypt.

As you begin to read the article, you quickly get the sense that Rosenbaum is not talking to the Arabs in an effort to give them insights they can use to ameliorate their situation. Indeed, you discover that he is talking to the existing bimbos in America and to future bimbos anywhere in the world. He is leading them all to the conclusion that he has at the end of the article. It is this: “There is a reason why realpolitick … has … guided American foreign policy … Democracy in some countries won't make America any new friends, nor is it likely even to last.” What Rosenbaum is doing here is what a harem guard would do when seeing a stranger approach the harem. He tries to fend off the stranger while reminding the harem population (males and females alike) that it is forbidden to talk to strangers let alone seek to be friends with them.

Thus, to warn America that it is dangerous to be friends with Egypt, Rosenbaum must tell lies about that country by distorting and exaggerating what is happening there. The truth is that on January 25, 2013 – the second anniversary of the Revolution – Cairo saw a demonstration in Tahrir Square. This is not a bad thing in itself; it is the civil right that the Revolution had fought to acquire for the people of Egypt. Unfortunately, however, a handful of people got hurt and a couple may have lost their lives when opposing factions fought each other.

By coincidence, something else happened the next day. It was unrelated to the Revolution and was far away from Cairo. What happened was the work of soccer hooligans calling themselves “Ultras” who styled themselves after some European and North American gangs. As a result of what they did, something like 30 people died in the battles that ensued.

How bad is that? It is bad for Egypt, a society that has been as calm as a sleeping baby for thousands of years. But when you compare the death toll that resulted from a revolution that has occurred in a country of 85 million people with revolutions that have occurred in Europe, Asia and America, you realize that Egypt still remains as quiet as the sleeping baby it has been all these years. To take an example, in the span of a year and a half, as many people were killed in the city of Chicago alone as did during the entire Egyptian Revolution.

Thus, when Thane Rosenbaum describes the situation in Egypt as being bleak and grim, he tells the Netanyahu harem of American male and female bimbos in the Congress and the media they should not be talking to Egypt or seek to be friends with that country because they belong to their master Netanyahu and only to him. He is, after all, more than a Prime Minister of Israel; he is a wise King and a Fuhrer with an iron fist. And don't you, bimbos, forget this for a minute.

All in all, we see that as he works to realize a putsch that will forever turn America into a colony of Israel governed by a loyal viceroy, Rosenbaum is also working to protect the Netanyahu harem from a putsch that would pivot the harem in the direction of someone else.

Pity the man for, he is trying to do two impossible things at the same time.

When The Brain Is Tiny And The Mouth Is Big

If you want to see a glaring example of the mentality that powers the Judeo-Israeli movement, there are a plenty of them around; all provided by the self-appointed leaders of that movement. One such leader is Clifford D. May whose gift to us this time is a column he wrote while visiting Israel. It has the title: “Discussing Islam: A Religious Taboo” and the subtitle: “American officials can kill our enemies. They just can't discuss our enemies' beliefs.” The column was published in the National Review Online on January 24, 2013.

Despite the author's effort to be subtle, the column demonstrates how these people use trickery to confuse their interlocutors and score a success. To be sure, this would be the kind of success that history says cannot be a lasting one. The reality has been that the aftermath of each act of trickery was never the concern of the people that pulled it because they believed that no matter how much they blundered, God will come to their rescue in the end and give what they started a happy ending.

Alas, this has remained the fantasy they held onto for thousands of years despite the fact that they could see they lost the trust and the goodwill of their interlocutors each time that the latter put the pieces together and saw the full picture of the tricks they were pulling. As to the anticipated rescue by the divine, that thing never came, and the happy ending never materialized. On the contrary, the end of each episode in Jewish history has been a calamity for the Jews and a difficult time for those who stayed close to them.

With regard to the latest Clifford May column, the picture he is painting can be framed in the reader's mind by looking at the start of the presentation then looking at the way he ends it. Having such a frame in mind at the outset will help the reader formulate a better understanding of the tricks that the author uses while taking the reader from point to point, and working his subtle magic to affect the psyche and shape the thinking.

Here is how he begins the discussion: “Can we at least agree that reports of al-Qaeda's death have been greatly exaggerated?” And here is how he ends it: “Can we at least agree that … the death of the peace process have not been exaggerated – and that Israelis' constructing … in and around Jerusalem … is not the reason why?” Thus, we see that after hitting us with a title that speaks of Islam, the author makes the point that the war against the Muslims is not over because al-Qaeda is still alive. And this leads him to conclude that the peace process is dead therefore Israel can go ahead and steal Palestinian lands. What can be more Jewish than this?

How the author gets from the beginning of the column to that conclusion is what the rest of the column is about. Indeed, what we have here is an example of how these people dismantle several historical events and – using parts from each event – manage to assemble something new; a monstrosity that will support their newest argument. And here is how Clifford May does it this time: “In stump speeches [Obama] said al-Qaeda had been 'decimated' … in his inaugural address … he claimed that 'a decade of war is now ending' [but] the evidence that AQ is alive and lethal is abundant.”

The truth, however, is that President Obama was talking about a war in Iraq that he ended as he promised he will do. As to the war in Afghanistan, it too was coming to an end which is what the President promised he will do also. This is what he was referring to in his speeches, nothing more and nothing less. Come to think of it, the Iraq war had nothing to do with al-Qaeda (AQ). As well, the Afghanistan war was launched not against AQ but against the Taliban who refused to hand over the leaders of AQ; those responsible for the 9/11 event. Bringing these people to justice being the goal of the Afghan operation, the President achieved that goal by decimating the AQ leadership. This is also what he was referring to in his speeches, nothing more and nothing less.

Thus, for a Jewish author like Clifford May to take bits of those speeches and bits of the events to which they refer, then assemble the pieces into an argument that leads to the conclusion Israel can steal with impunity what belongs to the Palestinians is the sort of mentality that someone has called the Jewish hunger to acquire and use the proverbial one-way ticket to the gas chamber. And from the looks of it, these people have no intention to stop buying that ticket now or ever.

But contrary to May's conclusion, we reach our own conclusion which is that each event mentioned by the President was correct when looked at in the context in which it came. When taken out of that context, and when assembled with other pieces that were themselves taken out of their contexts, an author can give himself the possibility of putting together a new picture showing an al-Qaeda Islamic army marching across the Globe the way that the Nazi army marched across Europe. This is what Clifford May has done. It is a Jewish montage of pieces of truth assembled in such a way as to produce a big lie.

However, because the assembly is made of pieces that reflect a half truth here and a partial truth there, it has the ultimate effect of deceiving the onlooker as to its veracity. And that's where the confusion begins; one that these people turn to their advantage till they are unmasked and dealt with harshly.

And the author of the column does not stop here for, he starts what may be called the second act of his dissertation. He does so with a preface which he sticks in the middle of the presentation – one that is worthy of a book on philosophy. Take a look at this: “Serious analysts sometimes arrive at wrong conclusions. But serious analysts acknowledge their errors, attempt to determine what data or misassumptions led them astray, and work to reshape their narrative in conformance with reality.”

To show how and where this philosophy may apply, he does something that is very Jewish. Here it is: “I spoke with someone I'll identify only as a senior American military official.” He then proceeds to put words that will make his point, in the mouth of that mythical someone. But because you know of the standard Jewish practice of arguing he was led to a conclusion that had been developing in his head for ages, you say “bunk.” You skip the useless verbiage, go directly to the conclusion and see for yourself what he is up to now.

And this is his conclusion: “American officials can kill our enemies … They just can't analyze, criticize, or challenge the beliefs that motivate them. Fighting a kinetic war is permitted, but waging a cognitive war is prohibited. If we are to avoid defeat, we need to be fighting both.” In other words, Clifford May is saying he went to Israel where he met a senior American official who told him that if the politicians and the media types in America do not start frothing at the mouth the kind of lies and insults that he and those of his ilk froth regularly, America will be defeated on the battlefield no matter what weapons of war she uses and what strategies she employs. It all boils down to this: It's not the drones or the smart bombs, stupid; it's the shower of Yiddish style insults. And so you think to yourself, no wonder these Jews always end up in the gas chamber.

Is that the end of May's presentation? Of course not. Why would he end here when the going looks so joyful in his eyes? See for yourself what comes next; it is what may be called the third act of his presentation. Here it is: “Closely related to the 'AQ is dead' thesis is the 'Muslim Brotherhood is moderate' thesis.” Thus, in line with what these people do which is to identify a new enemy each day and call on the Americans to join in the celebration of hate and incitement, Clifford May has called the Muslim Brotherhood enemy of the day.

To incite the Americans, he is doing yet again what he has been doing for years. He is doing the two things where I repeatedly challenged him on this website. It is that he mutilated history, and he accused someone of saying something in a foreign language he did not say. This time, he tried to malign the President of Egypt.

I shall not discuss every distortion he made this time but will take up one point because it is the one that pops up everywhere these days. Here is what May wrote: “he [Morsi] called Jews and Israelis 'the descendants of apes and pigs.'” In fact, Morsi did not speak of Jews or Israelis; he spoke of the Zionists who were at the time bombing with unusual savagery the unarmed women and children of Palestine as they slept in their bedrooms. Thus, Clifford May did what the Jewish leaders have been doing for ages which is to treat as synonymous and substitutable the words Jew, Israeli and Zionist.

What is noteworthy about this is that the discussion these days concerns the latest Jewish lament to the effect that someone has called the “Israeli lobby” a “Jewish lobby;” a confusion that reeks of antisemitism, they say. But what Clifford May has inadvertently demonstrated is that these people will do it to themselves then complain that someone has hurt them by not saying exactly what they can never get exactly right themselves – either because they are confused or because they want to confuse someone else. Who cares anyway? I don't.

As to Mr. Morsi calling the murderous Zionists a bunch of apes and pigs, I apologize to the apes and the pigs in the zoos and the jungles of the world, especially those among them who will never fly an American warplane or drop an American bomb on women and their babies. They did nothing to merit being so insulted.

John Barrosso Is What He Says He Is Not

He is intimidated and scared stiff but he is in denial. That's Senator John Barrosso who says he is offended by the remark made by Senator Chuck Hagel to the effect that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people” on Capitol Hill. The occasion is that Mr. Hagel was nominated by President Obama to be Secretary of Defense, and Mr. Barrosso will be asked to give his “advice and consent,” something he does not seem too eager to do. And he tells the reason why: “My national-security votes are based on America's national security – not lobbyists' issues, interests or intimidation.”

It would be nice to think of it that way. You may even have wanted to accept his denial without question. But Barrosso did not only assert that he bases his votes on America's national security interests, and he did not only deny that fear and intimidation motivate him; he did more than that. What Barrosso did was write an article under the title: “Chuck Hagel's Unsettling History” which also came under the subtitle: “A senator on his doubts about the nominee's judgment regarding Iran, missile defense and much else.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on January 24, 2013.

What you encounter in that article tells you that Hagel is correct and Barrosso is wrong. It also tells you why Barrosso dropped another remark said to have been made by Hagel concurrently with the one he made about the Jewish lobby. It was a remark to the effect that he is an American senator, not an Israeli senator. All these realities hit you in the face like a cannonball when you read the very first sentence in the Barrosso article. It is this: “I recently returned from meeting in Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” No, John Barrosso does not take his orders from lobbyists; he only listens to them, and then goes to get his orders directly from the horse's mouth.

Yes, Barrosso did mention that he also went to Afghanistan and met with U.S. generals and troops in the field. But you ask what did he get out of his one-on-one meeting with Netanyahu? And what did he get out of his meeting with the many generals and the many troops who assembled in a single field to be with him? What did the Israeli Netanyahu say to Senator Barrosso, and what did the multitude of Americans say to him?

In fact, the man tells you what he got out of those meetings. Here it is: “The discussions touched on some common themes: supporting Israel, America's strongest ally in the region, and protecting U.S. interests in the Middle East.” You stop to think about it only to come to the conclusion that Americans fighting in Afghanistan are not going to sit with a senator and say they want America to support Israel. And they are not going to say they want to see America protect its interests only in the Middle East because what they live and die for is to protect their country everywhere in the world.

As to Israel being America's strongest ally in the region, you analyze this part in conjunction with what else Barrosso says: “These talks have reinforced my understanding of the tremendous challenges the next secretary of defense will face on a range of national-security issues. Strong leadership and sound judgment will be required day in and day out.” You see what it's all about, my friend? It's about fusing the idea of “strong ally” with “strong leadership” so as to produce sound judgment. So you ask: But will Chuck Hagel not deliver as much?

No, no, no says Barrosso. The proof is that Hagel the American, made controversial statements which prove him to be less qualified than the Israeli Netanyahu to judge what is good for America. From this point forward, Barrosso goes on to echo-repeat the talking points concerning the reasons why America must bomb Iran, and why it must prepare to get into a never ending war against the rest of the world; something that Chuck Hagel has rejected.

Barrosso ends his article with this: “When we are faced with unpredictable national-security crises, we can't afford to have a secretary of defense who has unpredictable judgment.”

Well, there is nothing unpredictable in this matter for, it can safely be predicted that Chuck Hagel will consult with Americans to find out form them what is best for America whereas John Barrosso will run to Netanyahu, throw himself at his feet and beg the master to tell him what is good for America. For cover, Barrosso may even assemble a few thousand Americans in one field and talk to them for a minute or two so that he may swear he consulted with Americans too.

The truth of the matter is that the man is terrified of the Jewish lobby, and he is in denial about it. He will not admit it because if he did, he will want to go back being a medical doctor again where he stands to do more good for his people than get together with other dogs and bark the Netanyahu praises.

The Obama Vision And The Murdoch Trickery

On January 21, 2013, President Obama of the United States of America gave his inauguration speech in which he described a vision he formulated for the future of the country. The next day, the Wall Street Journal – which stands as the current megaphone for the alien movement known as World Jewry – published a piece in which it inadvertently exposed the sort of fake arguments and fake approaches it will employ to try and thwart the President's vision. These would be the same arguments and the same approaches that Rupert Murdoch, the majority owner of the Journal, has been employing for a long time now.

The President's speech is made of something like 20 paragraphs each of which is full of ideas worth reading and worth mulling over. But for the purpose of this discussion, however, two paragraphs stand out because they contain the ideas that hint at the ground on which the upcoming battles will be fought.

The abridged version of one paragraph reads as follows: “We believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For, we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicate, and social security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us.”

What this set of ideas says is that America must now face the reality that its reach can no longer be allowed to exceeding its grasp. This is because the memory of the choices that poor people were forced to make in their twilight years, and the choices that parents with a disabled child were forced to endure are no longer acceptable. There is now a better set of choices to make, says the President, and the abridged version of the paragraph describing these choices reads as follows:

“We believe that security and peace do not require perpetual war. Our men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. [Such] knowledge will keep us vigilant. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace, who turned enemies into friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.”

Thus, what the President says is that the big choice to make at this time is not between having to provide for the current generation or having to provide for future generations; it is to provide for all the generations by returning to the role that America used to play so well in the past. It made friends out of former enemies, and pared down its military after each victory rather than spark a useless war here and there the way that it did in more recent times to satisfy an approach called Pax Americana. This is what sapped the country's human resources and eroded its economic potential; an approach that can no longer be sustained.

Opposed to the President's vision are the advocates of Pax Americana. They are the characters who run World Jewry, and who operate in America under the banner of the Neocons. Their vision for America and for the world is spelled out in a piece of writing that comes this time under the signature of Bret Stephens, a columnist at the Wall Street Journal, and one of its editors. The column is titled: “Obama's You're-On-Your-Own World” and has the subtitle: “George McGovern wanted America to 'Come Home.' In Obama's second term, he may just get his wish.”

The most striking point made by Stephens is this: “Americans need to think carefully about what the retreat from Pax Americana will mean.” He articulates this point of view by standing on two pillars. One is history; the other economics. I have always taken the view that Jews are incapable of talking history because all that they are capable of doing in this field is mutilate history beyond recognition. Stephens gives me no reason to change my mind, hence I shall not take up the historical argument he is advancing.

As to economics, even though the Journal employs people who know their stuff, Stephens himself is illiterate when it comes to math and to economics. Thus, I must assume that the arguments he is presenting in this column are not his own but those of his comrades.

He mentions – on their behalf – figures without saying how they were produced. However, by doing a little bit of forensic work on them, we can expose the principles that went into their production. In turn, these principles will unveil a philosophy that says: It is perfectly acceptable to let the American people live in misery now and in the future because the aim is to maintain this nation in a perpetual state of war whether it manages in the end to achieve Pax Americana or not.

Stephens says at the start of his column that the United States has “haggle[d] with France over the federal equivalent of a $2.15 check.” You ask: Where did this figure come from? And he says that France asked America for logistical support consisting of 30 flights that would cost 600,000 dollars each. You do the math and find that the operation would cost the American taxpayers 18 million dollars. No chicken feed, you say, which is probably why his comrades did not provide that figure. Instead, they spoke of a federal equivalent of 2.15 dollars.

But where did that last figure come from? Well, this is the point where things get complicated because these people don't tell you what assumptions they made while doing the math. All that can be said is that the ratio between the little more than 10 billion dollars they say the government spends each and every day, and the 18 million dollars that the taxpayers of America would have had to fork out is approximately 560.

Now, if this ratio is supposed to mirror the ratio between the spending powers of the federal government and the spending powers of the citizen they have in mind (an average citizen or not), it means that their man spends each and every day 560 times 2.15 dollars, which comes to 1204 dollars. Multiply this number by 365, and you get the value of 440 thousand dollars that the citizen they have in mind is supposed to spend in a year. And that's certainly no average citizen in anyone's book.

This is complicated stuff, and there is a reason why they make it so. It is that they always seek to confuse the people. In fact, that's not the only thing they do to confuse people. When you look closely at the totality of their daily arguments, you'll find that they use two kinds of measurements. Think of one measurement as being a yardstick that is a foot long, and think of the other measurement as being a yardstick that is a mile long.

When these people speak of their side getting something, they say, for example, we only got a tenth of a mile. When they speak of the other side getting something, they say he got a whopping five hundred feet of that something. But you know what? Contrary to the psychological impact that such figures have on us, five hundred feet are less than a tenth of a mile. By the same token, it is more convenient for the Murdoch people to speak of 2.15 dollars than to speak of 440 000 dollars. It's psychology, you see.

But why do they go through all that? What does it mean to them in the final analysis? It means that the neocons will use every trick in the book to deceive the population so as to keep America in a perpetual state of war and serve their religious purposes which are to provoke Armageddon, and fulfill a prophecy that has motivated them for thousands of years. They hope to establish a Pax Americana which, for now at least, will serve as proxy for what they ultimately aim to accomplish – the establishment of Pax Judaica.

And they consider the American people to be the suckers on whose shoulders they will climb to realize their ancient prophecy, even if it means that America must go broke in the process, and its people must live in misery for ever and ever.

These are the Murdoch ideas, principles and approaches and – come hell or high water – they will be pitted every inch of the way against the vision that the President has for America.