They still don't get it, will they ever?

The editors of the Wall Street Journal still don't get it. Apparently they don't get it when they are talked to like adults; so maybe we should try talking to them like children. Here is their problem, expressed in their own words: “On taxes, [the claim is] that the rich don't pay their fair share, yet the most affluent one-fifth of taxpayers supplied 68.7% of the federal revenue for 2011.”

That's what they wrote in an editorial that came under the title: “More Redistribution, Less Income” and the subtitle: “Obama has spread the wealth, but the poor and middle class haven't benefited.” It was published in the Journal on November 24, 2014. They later buttressed their point with this: “The Middle class were households with market income between $49, 800 and $83,300 on average. In 2011, they paid about $7,400 in taxes and received $16,500 in transfers, for an average after-tax income of $59,000. That implies an effective tax rate of minus -13.7%.”

This means that the highest earners who contributed as much as positive +18.9% of their income to the federal revenue, saw their tax dollars transferred to the poor and the middle class. In the eyes of the Journal editors, the rich gave and the poor took. Therefore, there should be no problem. It should be case closed if not mission accomplished.

No. Not really. To put things in simple terms such that a child can understand, let's say that a family making on average $68,366 in market income and transfers would rather earn a million dollars a year and pay $189,000 in taxes, which would leave it with $811,000 to spend. This will be more desirable than having to live on a measly $59,000 no matter the sources of the revenue.

That example demonstrates the absurdity of discussing the share of taxes in terms of percentages because the approach hides the reality that the rich pay a higher percentage only because they have the wherewithal. On the other hand, someone earning $59,000 could not possibly pay $189,000 even though he would love to because it would imply he earned a million dollars. And the flip side of this is that someone paying $189,000 would not want to receive $16,500 in transfers because it would imply he will have to live on a measly $59,000.

This being the premise upon which the editors of the Journal have based their argument, they'll have to trash the whole idea and start from scratch. The trouble however, is that instead of doing just that, they tried to build on their shaky premise by adding two other layers of absurdity on top of it. First, to argue that the poor have not benefited from what they call the redistribution of wealth, they say that after-tax income fell by 1.9% without pointing to a single evidence that the redistribution is the cause, and that the fall of income is the effect.

Second, they report on a footnote that was made by the CBO to the effect that a change in market income causes people to change their behavior. Gee! what an insight that most people miss. Quick, tell it to those who hope to win the lottery. Tell them that if they win, they’ll be tempted to change their behavior. Too bad “the CBO did not attempt to model these behavioral effects,” they say but still, they point out that such effects “can't be good for upward mobility.” Again, they don't say how or why they reached this conclusion.

They end the article by enunciating a conclusion in a roundabout way, having failed once again to point to the nexus that is supposed to tie the cause and the effect. This is what they wrote: “The main lesson … is a verdict on Obamanomics. Presidents who put reducing inequality above increasing prosperity end up with less growth and more inequality.” How does it happen? Why does it happen? When does it happen? No response.

Having convinced themselves they contributed valuable insight to the debate, they feel confident enough to give advice to someone they believe will run for the presidency of the United States two years from now. They tell her to avoid Obamanomics, especially if it is going to be on steroids … in the European style.

And they say why this would be a bad idea by making a guess that is both rare and brilliant in its implications. Brace yourself for, here it comes: “Our guess is that most Americans would prefer to earn more income.”

Wow! Someone will have to award these people a prize in economics – perhaps in behavioral economics.

Morbid Jewish Dictates to Congress of Traitors

If there is a culture that is truly a culture of death, it can only be the Jewish culture. That's because it is the only parasitic construct that was put together in such a way as to live off other cultures; staying with them till they wilt, shrivel and die by the sucking force of its insatiable appetite.

Gathering together in the Land of Palestine, the Jews (who occupied by force of arms what used to be the peaceful Garden of Eden) set out to implement a comprehensive program to destabilize the region. This is an absolute necessity for them because a parasite feeds better on a surrounding that is weakened by an infestation of some kind … any kind. However, unable to do the work alone, they conned former colonial powers into joining them, promising that they who know the region well, will help the fallen powers recapture what they lost, thus regain their old glory.

To this end, they invited two former colonial powers to join them in the ill-fated adventure against Egypt which nevertheless signaled to the nations of the region and the world that the new parasite on the block means business – deadly business. Knowing that the best way to weaken a nation is to destroy the progress it makes in science and technology, the Jewish parasites began to sabotage all such installations by sending to them letterbombs; by paying saboteurs to do the work, by surprise-bombing civilian nuclear installations when no one expected such a cowardly act, and by cyber-hacking advanced installations with the help of the Americans.

And they got the Americans to (1) interfere with the financing of big infrastructure projects in countries that needed them; (2) bombing by cruise-missiles factories that made baby formula in countries that were struggling to get on their feet; and (3) convincing superpower America that the world will be facing an existential threat unless America invaded countries and toppled regimes that did not have weapons of mass destruction but the Jews insisted they had them.

All the while, the Jews worked diligently on infiltrating the strategic institutions of superpower America, especially its Congress. They slowly and deftly turned those institutions into instruments of control by which they managed to dominate all aspects of political, economic and military power in the nation. When done, they put all those powers at the disposal of the Jewish and Israeli leaders who use them like a private property in the work to implement their deadly agendas in the region and throughout the world.

For the plan to run smoothly and run without fail, the Jews had to secure the control of Congress as tightly as a despotic dictator would control his assembly of rubber-stamp puppets. To achieve this, they gathered information on individual legislators and their families – information they use when necessary to bribe or blackmail the legislators into toeing the Jewish/Israeli line slavishly, blindly and without questioning any part of it.

With all this under their belt, the Jews are now at a point where they can use the media – most of which is also under their control – to make their demands known. If they don't make them by whisper to members of the Congress, they make them in print and on the air in full view of a population that can no longer move a brain-dead Congress of traitors that is animated like zombies by a remote control that is firmly in the hands of the Jewish leaders in New York, and the foreign leaders in occupied Tel Aviv.

You can see the effect of all this in two articles published on November 21, 2014 in National Review Online. One was written by Jim Bridenstine under the title: “We Can't Trust the IAEA on Iran” and the subtitle: “Their capabilities are disturbingly limited – Congress has to keep this in mind.” The other article was written by Fred Fleitz under the title: “Are we Already Conceding the Bomb to Iran?” and the subtitle: “American policy must be to stop or slow, and not just contain, an Iranian nuclear weapon.”

Jim Bridenstine who is a member of the Congress begins with this: “It's imperative that the United States prevent Iran from getting … capability.” He repeats the discredited Jewish talking points, and then asks the question: “What should Congress do?” To answer, he relays the Tel Aviv dictates: “congressional committees should direct the director of national intelligence to promptly...” But why is this necessary? Because ignoring those dictates would “enable this president's preference and could prove fatal for Israel.” You see, it's all about Israel, only Israel and no one but Israel. Let America go bankrupt and send its children to die for the glory of Israel.

As to Fred Fleitz, he begins by relaying this fact: “anger is growing on Capitol Hill over the deal that the president is determined to implement [with Iran].” He goes on: “many members of Congress from both sides of the aisle believe that any agreement with Iran will do little or nothing to stop Iran from pursuing [modern science].”

Like Jim Bridenstine, Fred Fleitz asks a question – this one a very Jewish question about intent: “Why would the Obama administration agree to such a deal?” and he answers: “In their desperation, they hope to bolster the legacy of Obama.” And if that's not enough, they add this offensive defaming accusation: “Obama has in effect decided to concede the bomb to Tehran.”

And like Bridenstine, Fleitz tells what is imperative: “It is therefore imperative that Congress on a bipartisan basis demand that the president...” He is here talking about the congress of zombies who remain brain-dead when it comes to doing the business of America, but come to life and work “on a bipartisan basis” like busy bees to implement that which leads to the glory of Israel, only Israel and no one but Israel. It's all about Israel, you see!

And there are two more commands from occupied Tel Aviv to the District of Columbia. There is this: “An extension should also be rejected by Congress.” And there is this: “Congress must insist on a fundamental change in the U.S. approach, and make it clear that American policy must be to stop Iranian [scientific and technological progress].”

Only in America, eh!

An Ideology Mankind wants to see end

Imagine having a daughter, wife or sister that is raped by a low life, filthy animal they call human being. The police catch the thing, and before they have the time to deal with him to the full extent of the law, he finds a lawyer who launches a suit against you, stating that your loved one wasn't the first woman to be raped, yet she fails to do what the others have done, which is to adapt to her new circumstances and move on.

The thing that looks like a human does not stop here but goes on to say the following: Your loved one having made up her mind to refuse dropping the charges against him, you must be held responsible for practicing this cynical and self-interested policy ... without explaining what that is or how it works. Still, in consequence of all that, he wants to be compensated for the undue anguish he is made to suffer by this turn of the events.

Well, my friend, if you believe that the thing deserves to be gassed and incinerated, you're not alone. Judging by the manner with which the world has been responding to this sort of mentality, the indications are that billions of people would agree with you. In fact, this mentality is the kind that the Jewish propaganda machine has been spreading around the world for a time now, and humanity has responded by saying enough is enough. It has recommended that those responsible should suffer consequences which must be familiar to them by now.

And you can see how the Jewish propaganda machine has been spreading its message when you review the article that was written by Andrew Roberts under the title: “From an Era of Refugee Millions, Only Palestinians remain” and the subtitle: “The 1940s and '50s saw huge forced moves of population groups – people who put down roots and started over.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on November 22, 2014.

What Roberts does in the article is list the instances that created refugees during the 1940s and 1950s, stressing that the ensuing problems were resolved by resettling the refugees – at times far away from where they used to live. These people moved on with their lives, he says, and became very successful in their adopted homelands. The idea he is trying to highlight is that those who might have been responsible for the problem in the first place were relieved of all responsibilities … which is what he suggests should happen in the case of the Palestinian refugee problem; the one that was caused when Israel was created.

But a talk like this has always led people to ask the question: Why is it that such a solution has not worked with the Palestinians? Aware of this reality, Roberts has answered the question by giving two reasons. The first is that the Arab states have practiced a policy of cynicism and self-interested policy, he says. The second is that the Palestinians hate Israel and the Jews more than they love Palestine.

The thing he has not done is explain how the Arab states were cynical and self-interested. The reason is that the explanation was given once before, and the Jewish propaganda machine was clobbered for it. Here is how that went: The machine put out the notion that the Arab states could have absorbed the Palestinian refugees but did not because they wanted to embarrass the Israelis. The reality turned out to be that many Palestinians did settle in all sorts of countries around the world, including the Arab countries, and became very successful.

Some Palestinians stayed close to their stolen homeland, however, and have agitated to keep their cause alive. They dreamed of the “right to return” and wanted the world, including the Arab states, to help them realize that dream. They received financial and political help from a Palestinian Diaspora that learned a great deal from the worldwide Jewish activities aimed at fulfilling a Jewish dream they labeled “right to return” to what they said was their ancestral homeland. Yes, it is an irony, and a big one at that.

In fact, confrontations took place at times between members of the Palestinian Diaspora and the Arab countries when the Palestinians went too far agitating for their cause. Such confrontations were muted in the big Arab countries where the Palestinians were outmatched. But the clash became cause célèbre when it took place in the smaller countries of Lebanon and Jordan.

No longer able to use the fabrication of an Arab “cynicism and self-interest,” by which to hold the Arab states responsible for the failure of the Jews to live up to their own responsibilities, Andrew Roberts (the unrepentant moral rapist that he is) fell on the old trick of blaming the Jewish misfortunes on a human species that suffers from a genetic defect called antisemitism. Thus, he came up with the idea that the Palestinians have not accepted the rape of their homeland because they hate the Jews and Israel.

And this is the sort of talk that has prompted mankind to seek an end to the tragedy plaguing the planet for three and a half millenniums already. People everywhere are demanding to see an end to the plague, and they have indicated that they want to see the end come once and for all. They are prepared to see it come no matter how ugly the process may look.

Andrew Roberts closes his article with this thought: “The lessons of history are rarely enunciated more clearly.” Indeed they are because the lessons have been in the making for a long time, and the people who fail to learn from them are the ones that end up paying the price.

The thing, however, is that people the world over are tired of seeing the Jews go through the same cycle time after time, and they want to see the cycle end one final time … this time for good and forever.

'Despair' is less obscene than 'self-Defense'

What can be more pornographic than to call “glib” the occupation of a people by bloodthirsty religious fanatics who came from abroad? Nothing is more pornographic, of course, which is why only the Jerusalem Post would make such an assertion. Not only that, but the Jerusalem rag went as far as to belittle the level of despair to which an individual can sink before committing suicide. It’s done for the heck of it as far as they are concerned.

The editors of the Post said all that and more in the piece they wrote under the title: “Unjustifiable Horror” and the subtitle: “The obscenity of what transpired in [the] synagogue cannot be explained away by glib terms like 'despair' or 'occupation.'” It was published on November 20, 2014. Bear in mind that most of the people who write for and edit the Jerusalem Post are American Jews; the kind that run around braying to their non-Jewish colleagues and to the American political class they must not “compaaaare” Israel with anyone because Israel is pure, and no one else comes close to that.

However, knowing the Jewish ideology, the first thing that you do when you hear them bray is start comparing the reality you see on the ground with what they try to hide. You invariably find that whereas the Palestinians may occasionally kill 2 or 4 Israelis in a hand-to-hand, eye-to-eye combat during which time they themselves get killed, the Israelis routinely kill Palestinians by the thousands – not by looking at them in the face but looking at them through instruments of war, sitting inside the cockpit of a warplane, a helicopter gunship, a naval vessel, a tank or an armored carrier … all made in America and given to them free of charge.

Yes indeed, you cannot compare the act of a desperate Palestinian who would rather die than live under a murderous Jewish tyranny … comparing that with the act of “love” that professional Jewish killers say they bestow on their victims. The first do what they do because they are antisemitic haters of Jews, say the Jews. The second do what they do because it's their way to kiss their Palestinian victims with bullets, hug them with tanks and shower them with the loving fragments of a hand grenade or a cluster bomb, say the Jews. This is why they catch their victims in their bedrooms at night when mothers tuck their babies, singing to them a lullaby. Yes, say it again, saintly Jewboy: What a way to go! There is nothing more humane than this Jewish practice.

And this is where you clearly see the difference between the two cultures. It is why the Palestinians who represent an existential threat to the Israelis compel the latter to continually claim that “Israel has the right to defend itself.” On the other hand, the Jews are so good to the Palestinians; they continually remind the surrounding Arab leaders of their obligation to do two things. First, they tell the Arabs they must thank Israel for stealing Palestine. Second, they tell them they must condemn the obscenity of desperate individual Palestinians who breakdown and take the enemy with them as they end their own lives.

Having gone through the old Jewish habit of making their demands, they now continue with the old Jewish habit of voicing their meandering talking points. And so, they say this: “Palestinian organizations hardly need a pretext for killing Jews” which they neuter with this: “Ever since Israel's founding, the pretext for killing Jews is Jewish sovereignty on land deemed to belong to Muslims.” But the editors sense that this too needs to be neutered, so they come up with this: “Even assassins from Christian Palestinian [groups] now shout Allahu Akbar so that no mistake can be made about the source of their inspiration.”

As can be seen, the editors went from no pretext to killing Jews … to killing them motivated by the pretext that Jews steal Muslim lands. This is meandering alright, but they felt uneasy about the reference to Muslims, so they admitted that Christians too are motivated by the right of Palestine to defend itself. And this is why the Christians retaliate against Jewish crimes while shouting Allahu Akbar, they went on to say.

Ah, but wait a minute! There is the reality that the occupation causes “millions of Muslims and Christians between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, to fall into despair.” The fact that they don't all commit suicide means that the one or two who breakdown and kill themselves, are heinous individuals who conjure up the centuries of violent antisemitism that took place throughout the planet.

For this reason, the time has come once again to call the peace process dead; why the occupation can continue without the promise to ever end. It is why Palestinian homes must be demolished and new Jewish settlements built on stolen land. And why this regime shall continue unabated till there is no more a Palestine to loot.

Income Fairness dictated by Math, not Envy

Coincidence made it so that an article written by John H. Cochrane saw its central thesis demolished by another article; this one written by Charles R. Schwab. Both articles were published on the same day, November 20, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal independently of each other.

John Cochrane wrote: “What the 'Inequality' Warriors Really Want,” a piece that also came under the subtitle: “Confiscating wealth is ultimately about political power. Koch brothers, no. Public-employee unions, yes.” Charles Schwab wrote: “Raise Interest Rates, Make Grandma Smile,” a piece that also came under the subtitle: “With the Fed's near-zero policy, households headed by someone 75 or older have lost $2,700 annually in interest income.”

The central thesis of John Cochrane rests on the idea that you either increase the wealth in which case most people will get wealthy while some will get wealthier, or you redistribute the wealth and see everyone get poorer. The way to increase the wealth is to adopt a system where market forces determine the economy's performance with minimum interference from the government. The way to render everyone poorer is to allow the government to “confiscate” from the rich and give to the poor.

And so, Cochrane takes the arguments that were put forward by what he calls the “inequality warriors” in support of the idea that inequality is bad for the economy, and ridicules them one by one. What he does not do is put forward an argument to show how or why inequality helps to increase wealth. All he says in this regard is that there can be bad inequality (such as that produced by crony capitalism, for example,) but there is also good inequality where entrepreneurs start something new and get rich in the process. In fact, he asserts that most inequalities are of the good sort.

This approach to understanding how an economy works is so superficial, it can easily lead to the conclusion that the quest for fairness in the distribution of wealth is based on envy. This point made, someone like Cochrane can then push the philosophy further, and posit that the envy goes further than the desire to lead an upscale lifestyle; it goes to the desire to secure more political clout.

What he avoids discussing is what defines a market and by extension what defines an economy. Here is that definition: A market – therefore an economy – is said to exist when someone makes a product that someone else exchanges for his labor or for a product he owns. With this picture in mind, we can see that the level of wealth a system is said to have attained, is determined by the ability of such system to produce as much as possible, therefore consume as much as possible. This says that if you are an economy which produces more than its consumers have the ability to consume, you are not a wealthy economy. Also, if you consume more than the producers can produce, you are not a wealthy economy either.

This leads to a philosophical certainty that is as precise as mathematics. It is this: If the level of production is equal to 100, therefore the level of consumption must also be 100 to reach 100% efficiency. If you tilt the economy one way or the other, you have less efficiency than that, therefore have a poorer economy that will affect everyone negatively. We must, therefore, conclude that equality is not only a philosophical concept; it is a mathematical precision.

How this works in real life is clearly demonstrated in the Charles Schwab article. He tells what happened to 44 million senior citizens who are nothing more to the economy than consuming units living off the savings they have accumulated when they were working. It happened that the central bank – which is independent of the government – made a market decision and adopted a near-zero interest rate policy. This resulted in the seniors losing thousands of dollars in interest income every year.

When the Charles Schwab Corp. did the math, they discovered that 58 billion dollars in annual interest income were lost to seniors. Factoring the multiplier effect into that, the result has shown a loss of 115 billion dollars to the economy, something like 0.7 % cost to the growth of the GDP. And this could have generated an additional three quarter of a million jobs.

John Cochrane can have all the fun he wants ridiculing what he calls the inequality warriors, but math is math, and he cannot laugh at that.

Stick in the Mud wants to be green Shoot

Not long ago, the joke circulating in North America went something like this: What's the difference between a Paki and a stick in the mud? The correct answer was: there is no difference. That was a racist joke meant to put down people of the East Asian ethnic groups. It may have started among right wing red necks living in the South, or maybe among the left wing white liberals living in the North.

The scourge of racism has been on this planet for a long time, and one of its most virulent expressions manifested itself during the Nazi era when the regime classified the races into groups that ranged from the highest Aryan race to which it belonged, down to the lowest race to which the Jews belonged. In fact, the Nazis had so much contempt for the Jews they slaughtered them and processed their carcasses like animals. For example, they made lamp shades of their skins, glue of their bones and fertilizer with their internal organs.

One can only imagine what would have happened if the Nazis had not been interrupted by the war they started, and in which they were defeated. The trouble is that the ills that took form during their era did not disappear when the regime was defeated. Much of what the Nazis came to be known for has remained, and has even flourished among other groups. One of these being the Jews who should know better but do not seem to. They labored hard and labored incessantly to show that, far from being the inferior race the Nazis made them to be, they are the superior race that God chose to be the leaders of the world if not its owners.

The approach they adopted to help God help them is an old trick they have been practicing since the beginning of time. It has been to infiltrate the leading nation of the epoch in which they lived, take over the nation by staging a slow motion coup, then go after anyone who might stand in their way. Unfortunately for them, they lost every encounter they initiated, and were dealt with harshly by the people whose leaders they recruited to do the dirty work they could not do themselves.

The Jews have their sights set on America at this time because it is the leading nation of the epoch in which we live. They demonstrate how the trick of infiltrating and taking over the country in slow motion is done every four years during the presidential election campaigns. They did it the last time when they paid a million dollars to one, Mitt Romney who went to Israel and proclaimed that in his opinion the Jewish race is superior to the Palestinian race. And now that the mid-term elections are over, the campaign for the next presidential election has started.

One of the hopefuls to run for President of the United States in the 2016 cycle is Bobby Jindal who is currently governor of the State of Louisiana which happens to be a Southern State. And he happens to be of East Asian descent, the very thing they used to call a stick in the mud. And what do you think the joke will be when he runs? It might go something like this: What does a brown stick in the mud aspire to become? He will want to become a green shoot, of course. And how does he do that? By using fertilizer of the kind that the Nazis made with the internal organs of Jews.

Well, Bobby Jindal has not gone to Israel yet to proclaim that the Palestinians are inferior to the Jews. He may yet do that as we approach the day when the campaign will be in full swing. For now, however, he has demonstrated how much more forceful than Mitt Romney he can be. He said that the Palestinians must be exterminated. Not even the Nazis went as far as to say the Jews deserved to be exterminated … which is what they did discretely but denied doing it out of shame.

You can see the context in which the shameless Jindal said it. You'll find out by reading the short article that was published on November 18, 2014 in the Weekly standard. It was written by Daniel Harper under the title: “Jindal Responds to Terror Attack in Israel: They must be Exterminated”.

This is what happens when ambition grows faster than intellect or instinctive maturity. This guy needs a lot of preparation before he'll be ready for prime time.

Stop amplifying the Madness of Charlatans

What's happening to the world? Has everyone gone mad? Or is it that the madness we see erupt everywhere is due to one and the same source?

Two articles, both published on November 19, 2014 help us answer these questions. One was written by Yossi Klein Halevi under the title: “The War on the Israeli Home Front” and the subtitle: “Tuesday's massacre and other recent Palestinian attacks in Jerusalem have been intimate, the terrorism of neighbors.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal. The other article is a column written by Tom Friedman under the title: “Did Dubai Do it?” and was published in the New York Times.

The Halevi article ends like this: “That terrible image has reinforced the prevailing sense that the war against Israel is only the latest phase of an old war against the Jews.” In fact, Halevi goes through an entire article without once hinting that Israel or the Jews need to do something – anything at all – to contribute to the solution. No, he doesn't do that because in his view (which is that of all Jews, according to him,) the entire bloody human race has been after the Jews, not because of what they do, but because they are the good things that no human has ever appreciated since the beginning of time.

But what have the Jews been doing throughout time that brought the wrath of humanity on them, resulting in the repetition of the image that Halevi is describing? Tom Friedman tells what it is but does not tell why it is. His objective being that the experiment must go on till success is achieved, he describes what is being done now that is not succeeding. In reality, he is talking about something that is known to the human race as the Jewish dream to social engineer the planet, and thus make it safe for Jews to live in it.

Here, in a condensed form is what he thinks:

“We tried decapitation; it failed. We tried abdication; it failed. We tried democratization; it failed. We tried occupation, abdications and now re-intervention … only a fool would be optimistic. Maybe the beginning of wisdom is admitting we don't know what we're doing out here and, we don't have the will to invest to reshape any of these places – and even if we did, it is not clear it would work.”

So you believe that the guy who stood in Israel in front of an American camera to advise the W. President of America at the rime – that his father lost re-election because he did not march all the way to Baghdad, and warning that if the son did not go looking for the WMDs that do not exist in Iraq, he will suffer the same fate as his father – would now shut up and go hide somewhere. No, he doesn't do that. Instead, being the Jew that he is, he does this: “So if the Middle East is a region we can't fix, I'm for containment and amplification.”

To explain how this will work, he begins by classifying the nations of the region into different categories, and prescribes a remedy for each category. These are remedies that range from collaborating with regional forces to “giv[ing] them as much money as they ask for.” And to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about this time, he tells of discussions he had with a couple of people who enlightened him as to what motivates the more than 300 million Arabs whose lives he now believes he can engineer using American power, American prestige and “all the money they ask for.” He undoubtedly believes that this will make the world safe for Jews to live in it.

And while Tom Friedman proposes these remedies, Yossi Halevi asserts that: “In an era of moral madness, in which much of the world judges Israel more harshly than it judges Hamas, this must be said: Nothing Israel does or doesn't do is responsible for provoking young Palestinians.” He is talking about young Palestinians who were born under Jewish occupation … and so did their parents … and so did their grandparents.

This man, Halevi, wants the world to believe that someone is responsible for the way that these youngsters are growing up. It is not Israel, or the occupation, or the wealthy Jews of the world who finance the ongoing crime against humanity, or America that is duped into serving like a banker and a mercenary army for those wealthy Jews, or the American congress of prostitutes who sell their souls and their honor to anyone for as little as a pat on the back or a public handshake.

No, according to this man Halevi, Palestinian kids grow up dissatisfied with their lot because the human race hates the Jews for who they are, not for what they do or fail to do.