Passed on from One Generation to the Next

If you want a good reason as to why the 50 million dollars that the Holocaust Memorial in Washington D.C. is receiving annually courtesy of the American taxpayers, must be cut off – read the article written by David Feith, published in the Wall Street Journal on August 6, 2013 under the title: “Iran's 'Moderate' Holocaust Denier.”

David Feith is the son of Douglas Feith who was a member of the Dick Cheney war sub-cabinet inside the W. Bush shadow cabinet. This was the group that fabricated the false evidence about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, the reason why the American military was sent to kill Iraqis and have America's own children killed for the glory of the eunuchs who sat in Israel dreaming to conquer the world using the power of their client superpower now operating under the banner of Pax Americana.

That was a war sub-cabinet populated by mentally and emotionally mutilated characters calling themselves children of Holocaust survivors whose publicly stated goal was to “fix” the world and redesign it according to their vision; a world made safe, as they said, for the Jews to live in. And if you think that a mental and emotional disease of this kind is not passed on from one generation to the next, the David Feith article will show you otherwise and prove it to you.

Here is a third generation of so-called descendants of Holocaust survivors looking at something and seeing something else; an absolutely typical and reliable clinical sign of mental and emotional instability too dangerous to let loose on the public or worse, allow it to come close to the nuclear button of a superpower. And you can bet that the passing of the disease from one generation to the next was facilitated by the Holocaust memorial, a monument that keeps these people in a permanent state of internally generated terror. This is the terror they project onto the external world, making them look at one thing and seeing something else. They are walking time bombs perpetually plotting for the next WMD hoax.

Read the David Feith article and look at the video for which he is providing a link. You may not even have to look at the video if you don't want to because he provides a transcript on which he comments. And it is in the difference separating the reality that comes out the video from the comments he makes about it that you realize this individual is wired to self-destruct and to take humanity down with him.

He begins his article by attacking the “journalists and diplomats [who] are still talking up the 'moderation' of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.” He then lists a whole bunch of reasons why the man is worse than he is made to be. But in the absence of evidence, you can only brush that aside, and continue to read to see what else David Feith is saying.

And what he says pertains to the person that is slated to become foreign minister of Iran. Feith says that this man, Zarif, lived in the United States for a time and speaks fluent English. In fact, the video bears him out on that score. But where he goes way off the mark is when he describes Zarif as: “sounding a lot like now-former President Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust-denying firebrand.” Never mind what Ahmadinejad said – after all, he did not speak English, and no official translation was ever provided as to what he actually said in another language.

But here is Zarif speaking in fluent English saying nothing like would be said by a “Holocaust-denying firebrand.” The man is innocent of the accusation – if indeed, this qualifies as an accusation – which makes it so that Ahmadinejad himself has now been proven innocent of that same so-called accusation. And it took a mentally and emotionally mutilated third generation so-called descendant of Holocaust survivor to make the point. He made it loudly and clearly for the whole world to see and hear now and forever.

May this be the incident that will show the world that Holocaust memorials are a danger to the human race because they are horror laboratories in the business of incubating monsters that grow to roam the earth like time bombs ready to do to it what the Dick Cheney gang did to Iraq and to America.

They Call This a Religion? Really?

A guy who goes by the name of Tad Taube has written an article that tells you why it has been difficult for people around the globe and around the epochs to consider Judaism a religion. Of course, Taube himself did not mean to say that, but that's what he said inadvertently trying to make another point. His article is titled: “Jerusalem, Israel” and has the subtitle: “The Obama State allows 'Jerusalem' but not 'Jerusalem, Israel.'” It was published on August 6, 2013 in National Review Online.

The reference to Obama that you see in the subtitle is a theme that recurs several times in the article. More than anything else, to make such a reference and use it the way it is here, points to a mentality which shows that no matter what Judaism was meant to be at the start, it is not now a religion but a disease. And look how the disease progresses inside this one article in which the author goes from: “In the eyes of the Obama State Department” to “the Obama administration's Orwellian approach” to “Barack Obama, in 2008, was no exception” to “the Obama administration has fought the law in court” to “a State Department policy that singles out Israel and Jewish Americans.”

Can you see how the progression went from the State Department of an Orwellian Obama to the victimization of Jewish Americans? And that's what it's all about. It is: gimme, gimme, gimme because if you don't, you're an Orwellian evil, even if the policy you are pursuing was here before you came on the scene. And if you don't gimme, you're singling out not only me but the entire Jewish American community and Israel ... says I because I appointed myself spokesman for every Jew who knows about me – whether or not they agree with me –  and every Jew who never heard of me and could not care less if I were hit by a truck when I'm finished with you.

But what is it that this “gimme” is supposed to be about? You want to know what it's about? Don't be surprised because here it comes: “You're an expectant parent and, surprise, your child decides to come into the world in, of all places, Jerusalem.” That's a surprise, alright, but how many such surprises have occurred? You want to know how many surprises? I'll tell you how many surprises. It happened to “50,000 U.S. citizens … They're now Americans without an official birth country.”

And all this has to do with the fact that Jerusalem is Palestinian territory which Israel is occupying by force of arms. Because America, along with the rest of the world, does not recognize the robbery as legitimate, it avoids doing anything that would imply condoning it. But that's exactly what the Jewish lobby in America is trying to achieve. So far, it has persuaded 50,000 women to time their “surprise” pregnancies with their travel plans to Israel so as to put pressure on the State Department by voting, as they say, with their genitals.

To that end, they cry out: Gimme a birth certificate that mentions “Jerusalem, Israel” because I was in Israel when my water broke in Jerusalem exactly where stands “the Shaare Zedek Medical Center, directly opposite Mount Herzl and Israel's national cemetery.” That's where I delivered my baby, you see. It was all a coincidence, of course, and it was a surprise to me as it should be to you – 50,000 times a surprise to all of us. And why not? After all, Jerusalem is the city where miracles happen, right?

With a story 50,000 times as intriguing as this, with the sense of victimization behind it, the author of the article can now go on the attack. And so he does: “How could something so outrageous occur in a nation that recognizes Israel's right to exist?” Did you get this, my friend? Do you know what it means? It means that if Obama continues to refuse uttering “Jerusalem, Israel” ... it means he does not recognize Israel's right to exist. And given that Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran are terrorists and members of the Axis of Evil who do not recognize Israel, it follows that Obama, like them, is a terrorist and a member of the Axis of Evil.

Upon seeing this, if there is any humanity in you, my friend, you cannot help but be convinced that Judaism is not a religion but a disease.

Still, Taube is so outraged by now that he lashes out at everyone. Responding to his own question as to who may be responsible for the outrage, he goes beyond blaming Obama or the State Department, and attacks the American courts; even the American Constitution. He bundles all of them into one salvo: “You can thank the federal courts – a three-judge appellate-panel ruling that the U.S. president, not Congress, holds the power to recognize a foreign sovereign.”

And what would be a Jewish bellyaching of this magnitude without a demand for moral clarity? It would be nothing, of course, which is why Taube now demands clarity – something he does in his own typical manner: “Instead of offering progress and the promise of clarity, Obama … sends a chilling message to America's Jewish community.” But because he does not expect a response from the White House, he offers his own brand of solution which he wraps in his own model of clarity.

What was that again, my friend? You want to know what that solution consists of? I hesitate to tell you but I have no choice if you insist. I must, however, warn you that … how can I say this? Well, remember those 50,000 surprises I have been telling you about? … well, they are nothing compared to what will jolt you now. You still want to know?

Okay. Here is how Tad Taube formulated his latest surprise: “What if Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky were Taiwanese Americans? And, instead of Jerusalem, their son was born in Taipei? … they are free to list 'Taiwan' as the country of birth, even though the United States doesn't formally recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation.”

Do you realize what Taube is now advocating, my dear reader? He says America should recognize Jerusalem as being in Israel, or it should follow the Taiwanese example and drop the recognition of Israel as being a sovereign nation. Neat huh!

To which we should all cheer: What a wonderful idea! Do it, America. Do it and solve all the problems of the whole World with one stroke of the pen. And save the Jews from their self-appointed leaders.

They Made Them Strong. Now They Fear Them

There is the old saying: What does not kill me will make me stronger. If you do not believe this is true, just look around, see what's there, and marvel at the wisdom of those who first uttered that saying. To be sure, you will not have to go too far for a list of where to look because Josef Joffe is offering you one.

He wrote an article under the title: “Exploiting Obama's Foreign Policy Retreat” and the subtitle: “Why did Vladimir Putin thumb his nose at the U.S. in the Snowden affair? Because he could.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on August 5, 2013.

Having told you in the title that the article is about the consequences of Obama's retreat, Joffe wants you to know that you must not take him seriously because he is only clowning around. He tells you this in the first paragraph with these words: “Washington is now looking at the greatest counterintelligence failure since the Rosenbergs betrayed nuclear know-how to Stalin some 60 years ago.” Do you realize what he means by that, my friend? He means to say that this sort of thing has been happening since before Obama was born, and so you cannot fault him for that.

Now you want to know what else Joffe is doing to entertain you? Well, what he did was make a list of the things he dislikes about Mr. Obama's decisions, then summed it all up like this: “Mr. Obama's America seems to be withdrawing from the great-power table in favor of 'nation-building at home.'” Why is this a bad thing in his eyes? you ask. You look for an answer and find it in his writing. He says this: “Putin has it in his hands to endlessly embarrass the U.S. by releasing choice bits and pieces from the Snowden trove, or threaten to do so.” Does that mean Obama must abandon nation building at home and … and do what?

Joffe answers that question by telling you not what Obama must do but what he must not do. Here is how he put it: “Traditionally, the might of nations was hemmed in by others in an endless game of pressure and counter-pressure. Now, the reigning superpower is proposing to neutralize itself – no foes needed.” And this is where you decide you must pause for a minute to assimilate what he has given you so far.

He says that Russia's Putin has a way to endlessly embarrass America or threaten to do so. That's putting pressure, alright. But why is it that Russia can play this game now – whether or not Putin will actually play it? Is it not true that Russia is the offshoot of the Soviet Union; the one that pulled back when it realized it was preferable not to play a game it cannot win? Yes, this is that same Russia, but having done nation-building at home, and having regained its strength at a time when America was weakening, why not assert itself now and reclaim its old glory? This is what Putin is doing for his country. No more and no less.

The Russians knew when to withdraw and when to stand up for their right. This is wisdom; it is what gave Putin the excellent hand with which to play the game the way he is playing it now. Just imagine what would have happened if Gorbachev or Yeltsin had tried to play the game when Russia was at its weakest point. Well, my friend, this is what Joffe and all those like him are trying to have President Obama do. They want him to play a hand that is so lousy, he will make America fall flat on its face.

In a sense Putin is a lucky man because there are no Joffes to bark in Russia the way that he and the other Jews do in America. This is why Russia grew tall again, and why it is starting to look up at a time when America's nose is being pulled down and rubbed into the Jewish-Israeli mud.

But how exactly did the Jews and Israel manage to diminish America this badly this fast? They did it by attacking the people they could not kill, which made these people grow stronger. Furthermore, given that the Jews and the Israelis have conflated themselves with the image of America, everything they did rubbed on America, and dragged it into the mud. This is why no matter how hard Mr. Obama worked to polish the image of America; he could not erase all the Jewish mud off its face.

Joffe complains about Hezbollah, but there was no Hezbollah before Israel attacked Lebanon; there is now. He complains about a nuclear program in Iran, but there was no nuclear program – civilian or military – till Israel attacked the civilian station in Iraq, and then bragged about the ambiguity of a program it may or may not have. Now Iran has a nuclear program.

These developments are a monument to the failure of the policies that were advocated by the Jewish lobby in America, and pursued by Israel in the Middle East for more than half a century.

Yet, they are what Joffe and those like him wish to hand to America, and have it continue the futile struggle of imposing the Jewish will on others. And they want this done before America has had the chance to do its own nation-building at home.

In short, these people want America to abandon doing the self-healing that Russia did successfully for itself. Instead, they want to see America pursue the self-defeating policies that made Israel fail, and made it call on America to hurry up and come to the rescue.

But who will rescue the rescuer when America will fall flat on its face? This is something you can bet will happen as certainly as the sun will rise tomorrow because a foolish act is always paid for by the sucker who shoots himself in the foot on command from a perennial loser such as the Jews were proven to be.

Law of Diminishing Returns in Economics

The law of diminishing returns is known – if only instinctively – to most people; and there is no need for me to go into an elaborate mathematical demonstration of it here. What it says basically is that a good thing is good till you realize that too much of it is beginning to work against you – turning increasingly into a bad thing the more that you use it. In other words, you can exploit something up to an optimum point after which the exploitation of the thing becomes an abuse that diminishes the benefit you seek to derive rather than increase it.

This law comes to mind when you follow the American debate with regard to the employment situation in that country. The point hotly debated these days concerns the participation of the working age group in the workforce. Yet, the questions that nobody seems eager to ask are these: Is there an ideal level of participation? If so, how do you define working age group? If a family has several small children, and one of the parents stays home to raise them, is that parent counted as participant in the workforce?

To give the matter a context that illustrates it better, it is useful to mention that a few days ago; the American Labor Department issued a report indicating that of the 245 million Americans in the working age group, 155 million were working. This comes to about 63 percent participation rate in the labor force. In other parts of the world, they call participation rate the ratio of those who work to the entire population. Applying this to the American scene, it would mean that the participation rate is 155/310 which comes to exactly 50 percent. This means one American works to support two people.

To get a sense of what all this means, we need to look back at history. For thousands of years, the human race has lived by hunting, fishing and farming; all of which were family exercises in which children that were barely able to walk, participated in the effort under the watchful eyes of their elders. As to the children themselves, they considered the exercise to be a game they enjoyed playing because it allowed them to explore nature and discover its mysteries. They learned new things and acquired useful skills which they honed in anticipation of a future when they will be on their own. They knew that to survive, they will have to rely on their own wits, and perhaps supervise and coach a younger group of children at the same time.

If this situation can be called a near 100 percent participation in the workforce, we ask: what happened after that? What happened when knowledge progressed, and highly developed skills were now required to make the new weapons that would be needed to hunt a different sort of animals? When new fishing gear was called for to go farther into the sea and catch a different sort of fish? When new farm implements were necessary to engage in farming techniques that would increase the yield of a plot of land?

All those requirements demanded that some people free themselves from the daily chores of having to gather food, and spend time learning new trades. These people spent a portion of their childhood absorbing the knowledge and developing the manual dexterity that were required to make the products upon which they and the others will rely to gather the food and take it home safely. And so, the question we must now ask is this: In view of those developments, what happened to the 100 percent participation in the workforce?

There is no doubt that the participation rate was reduced. In return, however, new products were created, and they helped to increase the food supply. And this was the start of a trend that has continued to this day. The more that the trend took hold, the more positive the return to society, a reality that became stark at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, this was the time when the energy that was used to make new products was no longer restricted to human or animal muscles. It was gradually replaced with the use of the wind and the water falls, themselves augmented at a later date by energy derived from coal and petroleum products; and later still with energy derived from nuclear material and other inventions.

The effect of all that was to usher the heyday of family life. This was a time when the common sight was a family containing half a dozen children or more. In general, the wife stayed home to raise the children, and the father went to work, able alone to provide a decent life for the whole family. So we ask: What was the participation in the workforce at the time? And the answer is probably no more than 20 percent. But this would be true if we ignored the work done at home by the wife and the older siblings who looked after the younger ones.

But then things began to change, and they paved the way for the returns to become negative. That is, the phenomenon of diminishing returns began to show itself. The starkest manifestation of this being that today – a middle class family in which both parents work – they cannot afford to have more than two or three children. Anything beyond that would strain the family budget. In terms of participation in the workforce this translates, as we saw, into a 50 percent rate. And this is more than double what it was in the heyday of family life.

And so, the question to ask is this: What caused the returns to go from positive to diminishing? To answer the question simply: There comes a point (call it optimum) when it takes more time and more resources to make a labor saving device than the device will save when finished and put to use.

Can the phenomenon of negative return be reversed? Possibly. In fact, the Japanese car manufacturers tried something in the 1970s when they put teams to work assembling cars rather than leave individuals to the monotony and drudgery of the assembly line.

The experiment seemed to work well, and the whole world tried to emulate it. But then, the Japanese went crazy and started thinking in terms of “just in time” manufacturing. This blew away the experiment, and my hope is that they will return to it, and see if they can make it yield a tangible result this time.

Recurring Mental Disorder in American Politics

Like says Desiderata, the universe is unfolding as it should. I would add that it is unfolding and will continue to unfold its own way despite what Robert Kagan says, what anyone says or what I say. But I am commenting on an article by Kagan, not because I believe that the issues he is raising will make a difference one way or the other in the grand scheme of this unfolding universe, but because the article shows where the mental disorder that is plaguing the American political scene today may have originated.

Published in the Washington Post on August 1, 2013, the article in question is titled: “American aid makes the U.S. complicit in the Egyptian army's acts”. Whether you are reading the Kagan article or any other article, the sign that should alert you to the possibility you may be looking at a case of mental disorder is when you encounter a word, a term, a phrase or an iconic expression that looks like an automatic insertion in the text – placed there as if to contaminate the discussion with Jewish moral syphilis disguised as moral clarity.

What you encounter in the Kagan article that should jolt you off your chair is this: “Combined with the arrests on trumped-up charges.” You see, my friend, it is almost a rule of thumb by now that anyone arrested in the world – whether loved or hated by the Jews – they are said to have been arrested on trumped-up charges. The reason is that the Jews do not need a trial or the presentation of evidence or the cross-examination of witnesses to know that the charges have merit or not. In fact, what the Jews care about is not to seek the truth by tasting the pudding; what they care about is to use the pudding as weapon to contaminate the discussion with the moral syphilis that ultimately leads to mental disorder in the political system.

And when a system is in a state of mental disarray, what you get from it is not a plan to govern the country or solve any of its problems, what you get is a bunch of people who love the sound of their bark so much, they bark and bark and bark. They bark at this one who is across the street, and they bark at that one who is across the ocean. They do all that while seeking to recruit anyone they can reach out to, and have them join the barking chorus of politicians, talking heads and running dogs who love to serve their Jewish masters.

Thus, they barked at Mubarak of Egypt while he was in power because he did not appreciate the so-called military aid he was receiving from America. But after he was gone, they kept barking because he was so appreciative of the so-called military aid, they miss him now. And look who replaced Mubarak for a while. It was none other than the Egyptian military at whom the barking crowd started to bark because, apparently, it was not appreciative enough of the so-called military aid that America was giving it.

And then the military was replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the barking crowd in America started to bark again because the Egyptian military that was appreciative of the so-called military aid, was no longer there to appreciate what it was getting from America. In its place, there was now the Muslim Brotherhood that did not appreciate the so-called military aid it was receiving from America, which is why the barking in America had to continue unabated.

But then a military backed civilian government came to power in Egypt, and now you see Robert Kagan and those like him bark again because they miss the Brotherhood that used to appreciated the so-called military aid it was receiving from America. And the barking crowd sees no way that the new Egyptian government will ever appreciate the so-called military aid that Egypt is receiving from America – the way that the Brotherhood did.

So then you ask: What comes after the barking? What comes is a skull full of syphilis in the business of generating a whole lot of Jewish nonsense. You get from Kagan what you get from every Jew – the same old menu they serve with their syphilitic pudding. Thus, Robert Kagan will want you to believe that he knows exactly what will happen in Egypt if the so-called military aid is continued. And he knows exactly what will happen if the so-called military aid is discontinued.

He will recommend that it be discontinued. But the only thing you can be certain of as a student of the Jewish mentality is that the barking will continue. It will continue this time because they will cry out: Look here, you Obama, look what you did to the Camp David Accord. You nullified it. You ruined more than three decades of stability in the Middle East.

Bark, bark, bark. They never stop barking.

Global Security to Replace National Security

The American House of Representative – the legislative body that can do nothing to move the business of America – has again voted something like 400 to 20, approving a resolution that is intended to cause serious damage to the Iranian economy; all of which is done in favor of Israel and the other Jewish causes.

The arguments that underlay this sort of insanity in America and elsewhere have something to do with the security of one country or another, of one continent or another, even the security of the whole world. And this is why we need to take a serious look at security.

Although the threat still exists that small powers may engage in skirmishes along their borders, it is unlikely that a national army of any size will want to attack another nation with the view of occupying it. With one exception – the world Jewish movement that is based in Israel – no one today who is in his right mind would eye the territory of another people and wish to colonize it for the purpose of exploiting it in one fashion or another.

Aside from that exception, the colonial mentality of the old days has for ever left the thought processes of world leaders. This means that thinking in terms of national security must now be replaced by another paradigm. We must accept that if there is going to be a serious threat anywhere in the world, it will be one involving the whole world. Thus, when it comes to thinking about providing security, we must think in terms of global security, not only in terms of national security. And this prompts us to ask the question: From where could a threat to global security possibly originate? In trying to answer the question, we are taken to the following train of thought.

In Israel and around the world, the mentality of Jews is rooted in the colonial past of centuries ago. These people live on a land they stole from the Palestinians, and also live everywhere else in the world. They say they belong anywhere they live, yet claim to also belong in Israel – even those among them who never lived there. These people are not satisfied with their occupation of two-thirds of Palestine; they want all of it. They talk openly about the Jew being put in this world to “fix it” which, in their mind, means they have the right to take control of the world and dominate it the way they took Palestine. In brief, the Jews want the whole world to be their Palestine.

Everything these people do, be it in Israel or America; in Europe or anywhere that the local people will tolerate them, they work toward one goal and one goal only; the destruction of all that may stand in the way of their achieving world domination. Like a parasitic mole, they infiltrate every place where they go, and work inside the setup abusing it to the limit. When they feel it is safe for them to go beyond all limits, they do so without a moment's hesitation no matter what the consequences will be to the body that is hosting them. And this is where things stand in America today.

For these reasons, the leaders of the world must now agree that the Jewish ambition – whoever may be leading it or stirring it at any given time – is the single most serious threat to world security, therefore a threat to the national security of every country. And those leaders must come to the conclusion that they have to work together to deal with the Jewish question the most effective way that they can. They should not seek a final solution that will be savage or primitive, but seek an ultimate solution that will be humane and civilized.

To that end, and no matter what ideas will be generated for the plan to contain the Jewish threat on the way to terminating it once and for all, a number of actions must be taken at the outset, and a number of points must be observed along the way. For one thing, all the laws and resolutions that were passed in any country favoring Israel or the Jews must be rescinded at the outset. As well, the damage that was caused by such resolutions must be repaired where possible, or apologized for where necessary no matter whom the aggrieved party may be.

As to the points that must be observed along the way in the implementation of the plan to terminate the Jewish threat to the world, no law or resolution favoring Israel or the Jews must ever again be passed by any country. As well, no help of any kind, moral or material, will be offered to Israel or any Jew or non-Jew operating on behalf of Israel. In addition, all countries will be urged to cut their relations with Israel, be they diplomatic, commercial, cultural or otherwise.

Only when this is done will the world be safe from the wars and the horrors that the Jews always denied they caused till they could deny them no more at which point they started to brag about their ability to hurt all those who dare to defy them. Well, the time has come to say to the Jews enough is enough.

Lopez and Shea Encouraging Pedophiles

At a time when defenseless children here in North America and elsewhere in the world are being abused sexually by Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, politicians of all religions, and anyone having the power to commit this sort of horror and the means to hide it, you see two Catholic women – Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online (NRO) and Nina Shea of the Center for religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute – divert attention from this North American disease by talking about small things happening elsewhere in the world.

                         

But there is more to their activities because not only do these women divert attention from what is going on right here – this continent of terror for defenseless children – they also work to turn the small things elsewhere into big things so that the American priests, ministers and their cohorts may go there and find more victims on whom to prey. You see how these horrible women do what they do in an interview published on August 1, 2013 in National Review Online. It is Kathryn Jean Lopez interviewing Nina Shea. The disgusting work comes under the title: “Killing Christians” and the subtitle: “Nina Shea explains how American Christians can stand up for their persecuted brethren overseas.”

The first thing they do is talk about Egypt because this is where they first wish to divert the people's attention. In fact, this is where their Jewish masters at NRO and the Hudson have a great interest – and they have it for two reasons. The first reason is something they have been denying for ages till they had no choice but to admit it. That is, the Jews have now acknowledged that they hope to see “Egypt fail” and they hope to see the “Syrians kill each other” because this will promote the glory of Israel; their only concern in the world.

The second reason is that you have four sexual cases involving public figures unfolding in the world at this time, all of them being Jewish. Three of these are unfolding in America, and one in France with global ramification. And these cases have come against the backdrop of a former President of Israel having been convicted of serial rape, the first such incident in world history.

When you add to this the revelation that tens of thousands of rape cases happen – against what is essentially captive men and women in the American military by their superiors – you can see why diverting attention to matters overseas serves the people who seek to hide this Jewish inspired North American scourge. And where the culprits are not in a position of superiority over their potential victims, they kidnap defenseless young women and keep them captives for as long as ten years in their basement to use as sex slaves.

And these are the horrendously diseased men and women of America who could not and would not attempt to solve their problems, telling the world they have answers to solve everyone else's problems. Look what one horrendously diseased woman called Kathryn Jean Lopez asked another horrendously diseased woman called Nina Shea: “What can be done for the Christians in Egypt?” And look how the diseased Nina responded to the diseased Kathryn: “The U.S. should use its substantial diplomatic and economic leverage to ensure...”

Well, let me tell these two sick women what the people of Egypt, Christians and Muslims alike, have said to the Americans who tried to meddle in their affairs. For one thing, they rallied by the millions asking their government to throw out of the country the American ambassador in Cairo and the consul in Alexandria. Even before that, the people of Egypt did something that goes against their grain because they could not find another way to make the Americans understand how disgusting they appear when making pretenses too outlandish for anyone to swallow. What the people of Egypt did was shout in Hillary Clinton's face obscenities about a sexual affair she most certainly would have wanted to forget about.

And this has been the way that the Egyptian people, Christians and Muslims alike, have been telling the Americans, especially the sickos among them such as Lopez and Shea: Mind your own fucking business and keep your noses as well as your genitals out of here.