Mixing renewable Apples and finite Oranges

Is there an editor in America who can write a piece that makes sense? Look how something that ought to remain purely scientific is politicized and played with like football between the Left and the Right. You get a taste of this silly game when you read: “'Peak Oil' Debunked, Again,” an editorial of the Wall Street Journal that also came under the subtitle: “The world relearns that supply responds to necessity and price.” It was published in the Journal on December 5, 2014.

Like the subtitle of the piece suggests: “supply responds to necessity and price” but that's only if (a) the supply is renewable, which means it can be replenished at will, or that (b) the supply is finite but abundant for now. That is, the world will never run out of apples because they can always be planted and replanted. But a country like Indonesia did run out of petroleum because there was a finite quantity of it in that country, and most of it was extracted. The same will eventually happen to the other oil producing countries … each in its own time.

Unable to differentiate between what is finite and what is renewable, the editors of the Journal cite the example of predictions that warned the “world is running out of soybeans, helium, chocolate and tungsten.” Well, it seems that the people who made those predictions did not know any better than the editors who are now quoting them. The reality is that soybeans and chocolate are renewable resources, and as long as someone is willing to pay for them, someone else will plant them and supply them. But when it comes to helium and tungsten, there are only so much of them on this planet. Their natural occurrence will eventually be exhausted, and they will have to be recycled where possible, or brought to Earth from asteroids or other planets.

The question is this: When will exhaustion happen for each finite commodity? The answer depends on having accurate and powerful instruments able to detect exactly how much of each commodity there is on this planet, and how difficult (therefore how costly) it will be to extract them. This is where people like the editors of the Journal get confused. They seem to believe that everything is renewable, and all that is needed is the ingenuity to extract them the way that shale oil and shale gas were brought on stream at the moment that “peak oil” was thought to have been reached.

Well yes, peak oil has indeed been reached if we speak in terms of “conventional” cheap-to-get-at oil. And this is why we started to develop the more expensive, hard-to-get-at oil. But that too will reach a peak someday, and there may be another source of oil to exploit that we haven't discovered yet, or there may not be. In the latter case, we shall have to count on developing another source of reliable energy because it is the one commodity that cannot be recycled. It is also the one upon which our whole civilization stands.

And while the Left and the Right are battling it in America as evident by the give and take that is unfolding between the editors of the Journal and Paul Krugman, jingoism has inserted itself in the debate. Where Krugman has remarked that the emerging economies of the world are pushing the price of commodities up, and asserting that America is a bystander in this story, the Journal editors have replied that far from being a bystander, America has been the innovator. To wit: “U.S. production will surpass Saudi Arabia's 9.7 million barrels a day, and Russia's 10.3 million barrels.”

But that's not all because the editors have a theory as to why “the end-of-oil myth persists.” They say that some people wish to see the end of fossil fuels to serve a larger political agenda. They also say that other people wish to see money poured into alternative energy sources. But while all of this is unfolding among the chattering classes, the tug of war between the American oil drillers (OD) and Saudi Arabia (SA) rages on like this:

OD: You people are trying to have it both ways. You want a high price for your oil but when this gives us the incentive to pump our own and compete against you, you lower the price to keep us out.

SA: You're right. We are playing the game you have played for a long time. You kept your expensive oil in the ground and used our cheap oil to get wealthy. Had we done nothing, our oil would have been exhausted and we would have been forced to buy your oil at a higher price. But we took back our oil, and we're getting for it the high price we'll be paying you when we exhaust ours. In the meantime, we don't want you to ride on our coattails and profit from the high price we're engineering by fixing the levels of production.

When 'blessed hands' seek heavenly rewards

Carol Giacomo who is an editorial writer at the New York Times is complaining that there has been “Another Mass Death Sentence in the 'New' Egypt” and that “the rest of the world, including the United States, has not condemned these incidents, and could be considered complicit.” So that's how the birdbrains at the New York Times operate: If you don't condemn something you don't understand; you're complicit.

The first quote in the above paragraph is the title of the article written by Carol Giacomo; the second quote is how she ended the article. It was published under her name in the New York Times on December 4, 2014. Her problem is that Egypt did not set-up a Guantanamo-like prison to keep people without trial for an indefinite period of time because the judicial system doesn't know what to do with them.

Instead, what the Egyptian authorities have done, and are doing with people who do not protest their innocence but brag about what their 'blessed' hands can do, is to take them into a court of first instance and tell them that strictly speaking, the law would have given them the ultimate punishment. So now that they know what they deserve, they will be given time to concentrate on what they have done rather than imagine the rewards they will be given when they go to the Heaven of their imagination. There will be appeals, and rather than shout fanatic slogans at the judge, they better think of the reasons that their lawyers could use to have their sentences reduced or overturned.

Giacomo starts her article by saying that “in Egypt, there may be less respect for justice, the rule of law and human rights...” for sentencing people who were duly charged with killing what she calls “a handful of police officers” during a riot. And she laments that one of the defense lawyers told a reporter “there was no effort to prove that any individual personally killed any of the officers.”

Of course, that's the effort the defense lawyers will be making once their clients calm down and start thinking about what will happen to them in this world rather than fantasize about the rewards they will receive in Heaven. In the meantime, the New York Times editorial writer Carol Giacomo would have preferred that these people be thrown in a Guantanamo-like prison for decades without charge and without trial because this would be perfect American style “respect for justice, the rule of law and human rights.” A decidedly superior system … don't you think so?

What she finds even more “reprehensible” is that a higher court in Egypt overturned the sentence that was handed down by a lower court against former President Mubarak. This was the man who was tried not in the Egyptian press but in the international press – mostly English speaking and mostly Jewish influenced – for embezzling seventy (that's 70) billion (with a b) dollars, and hiding them abroad. As it turned out when all the sensationalism had died down was that a villa in Cairo was given as a gift to his wife and not reported publicly. It was given back to the government after all the brouhaha, and the case was closed. That is all that Mubarak and his wife did in violation of the rules.

As to the 70 billion dollars, this is the amount of money that the Libyans (not the Egyptians) are investing abroad for the benefit not of any ruler but for the benefit of the Libyan people. Now imagine depriving publications such as the New York Times from having a few days of fun reporting in big headlines about the life of luxury that a modern octogenarian pharaoh would be giving himself with 70 billion dollars. Gosh, there is enough here to buy himself a pyramid and transit to an afterlife of luxury – and maintain it for an eternity. Not even Ramses the Second could dare to dream as much.

It is, therefore, understandable that Giacomo and her colleagues on the editorial board of the New York Times should feel disappointed at this turn of the events. It is also understandable that they would shed crocodile tears for the sentencing of three Al Jazeera English-language network reporters to prison terms despite what she says is “an absence of evidence that they conspired as charged” with those who would do harm to Egypt. At least, they were charged and tried with the possibility to appeal or obtain a presidential pardon.

America has many problems of her own. Even if you accept the argument that a birdbrain cannot do much to help alleviate them, remember that the laws of probability would allow a million monkeys sitting at computer keyboards to write Hamlet … eventually. Likewise, it can happen that a million New York Times level editorial writers may come up with a solution to the 13 year-old Guantanamo problem.

The binary World and the self-Delusion

The saying: “If you're not with us, you're against us” defines what is meant by binary world. That's because those who think this way have divided the world into two camps: the friends they embrace, and the enemies they fight. As to the self-delusion, it refers to the inability of seeing the world as it is. Those who suffer this condition look at the world through colored glass they keep changing. Thus, they constantly redefine the world by the color they wear at any moment, even if the world has not changed one iota.

These are two important components of the Jewish ideology – that which has acted like a disease, and has caused most of the misery that the Jews have suffered since the beginning of time. It must also be said that the disease is contagious in that it can be transmitted to the unwary people who get too close to the Jews. In fact, this has been the outcome of the Jewish presence in America for a little more than half a century. Thus, the lessons which are derived about the plight of the Jews can be applied to America – some of them now, and some of them to the America of the future as it is being shaped at this time.

And that plight of the Jews comes to the fore in a clear way when reading the interview that Lee Smith has conducted with Joshua Muravchik, both of whom are contributors to the Weekly Standard. The interview was posted on the website of the magazine under the title: “Here's how the World Turned Against Israel,” on December 2, 2014.

The first of six questions that Smith asks of Muravchik contains the following element of self-deception: “aren't Israel and the Gulf states closer than ever because of Iran?” On cue, the interviewee takes it from there and amplifies the self-deception by running with it like a thoroughbred Arabian horse racing against itself in the grand open spaces of an Arabian landscape. “It’s not only the Gulf States and it's not only because of Iran,” says Muravchik, “Much of the Sunni world...” That's when he attributes to the Arabs not the noble sentiment of seeking to cultivate friends but the ignoble sentiment of responding to fear. So he puts it this way: “the Sunni world feels doubly threatened...”

This mentality alone would signal to anyone with a normal IQ that the Arabs can never be friends with someone who is disturbed emotionally to this extent. What really happened to make some Jews believe that the Sunnis have become their friends is that they themselves became terrified of the Shiites. In response, they wore the glasses of morbid hate to look at them. This left them with the rose colored glasses with which to look at the Sunnis. In so doing, they thought that the Sunnis had seen the light and joined the Jews at being threatened by Iran. But the truth is that the Arabs did absolutely nothing to change. Not one iota; not one grain of sand.

A question on the occupation of Palestine follows in response to which Muravchik gives the now standard response of Alan Dershowitz: Israel has the right to do to the Palestinians what has been done to others such as the Kurds and the Tibetans. A second question on the same subject gives the interviewee the opportunity to steer the conversation in a different direction. This is how he put it: “Israel's policies contribute. [Its] transition from democratic socialism to a capitalist economy has cost it friends.” And that opened the door for elaboration when answering the next question. This is how  Muravchik phrased it: “No less important has been an intellectual transformation of the central paradigm of Leftism.”

And that brings the conversation to the American scene when Lee Smith asks: “Can this happen in the United States too?” To this, Muravchik gives the latest variation on the habitual Jewish response. It is that the good guys who used to be the friends of the Jews and of Israel seem to be turning away. But since the world must remain polarized by its very nature, it is naturally happening that those who used to be not so friendly to the Jews or to Israel are becoming a little more friendly if not dramatically so.

And this leads to the last question. If the choice for Israel is to be in the Leftist camp or the Rightist one, which would serve it better? And the response is nether of the two because when it comes to the American scene: “Israel would be safer if it could count on support across the political spectrum.”

And this tells why the Jews will never live in peace. It is that they want to have it both ways. They want for America what they always wanted for everyone else: A polarized world they can exploit by playing one side against the other. But they also want both sides to remain on good terms with them for ever. The trouble is; it doesn’t stay that way for ever.

It may apparently or possibly be certain

The above is a contorted title that's headlining an article which is discussing a contorted editorial piece. And that piece was written by the editors of the notorious New York Times under the title: “In Egypt, a Verdict Turns Back the Clock,” published on December 2, 2014 in the Times.

When editors begin a discussion like this: “The Egyptian court … may have closed the final chapter...” and go on to say this: “Mr. Mubarak apparently will go free,” they show how wobbly they are about the information they possess. Thus, you expect them to write an editorial that does not pretend to be anything but tentative. But that's not what the editors of the Times do because – right after guessing that Mubarak may or may not go free – they assert this: “and there will be no justice or accountability...” Notice that there is no perhaps or maybe in this assertion; it is certainty that only the Times can have about Egypt.

Even though the editors know enough about the procedures involved in the Egyptian system of justice to realize that “the public prosecutor could appeal the case to the Court of Cassation” they continue to push forth their favorite theme which is that Egypt is not doing the right thing. Their usual remedy being that the Obama administration must sabotage Egypt's effort to deliver to its people a normal life that is free of Jewish inspired harassment, the editors express their dismay at the administration in this manner: “In a bizarre response, a State Department spokeswoman offered diplomatic pablum when asked to comment on the verdict and referred queries to the Egyptian government.”

Can you believe this? She refers queries about Egypt to the Egyptians? How much more bizarre can it get? Has America gone mad? Has the State Department gone mad? Has that woman gone mad? Make of it what you will, my friend, but there should be no surprise here because the aim of the editors and the clique to which they belong – being to poison the relations between Egypt and America – they always have a plant at questioning that tries to create a gotcha moment involving Egypt and the American administration.

And then it happened that shortly after the New York Times editorial appeared on the website, it was announced that, having cited flaws in the Mubarak verdict, the public prosecutor in Egypt was appealing the case to a higher court. So the question we must ask is this: What could have motivated the editors of the Times to throw journalistic caution to the wind, and rush to publish an editorial as risky as that?

Well, there is no doubt they have some kind of volcano in the belly that never stops spewing anti-Egypt molten lava. Every time they see an opportunity – however slight it may be – to say that Egypt is doing the wrong thing, they latch on to it and make the most of it. This time, they latched on to this: “President el-Sisi … seemed to rule that out.” That, being the possibility of appeal.

But they know that the President made it clear on several occasions he cannot interfere with the judicial process. So then, what else was there to make them ignore that reality? Here is what they say happened: “Mr. Sisi said Egypt must 'look to the future' and 'cannot ever go back.'” And that was enough for them to take the risk, and publish an editorial that was rendered moot before a handful of people had the time to read it.

But why? Why would the majestic Gray Lady of yesteryear allow herself to sink to such depth? Considering the problems that America is facing at home and abroad – and no apparent solution in sight to alleviate any of them – why pretend to have simple solutions for Egypt that can be applied as quickly as snapping the fingers?

That's because they believe that America is perfect and does not make mistakes. If it has problems – be they domestic or international – they must be foreign problems affecting America. And this suggests that America's problems can only be solved by fixing the rest of the world.

But wait a minute. This is a Jewish concept that did not come to America till the Jews took over the country. How come America has adopted it so willingly? Well, maybe that's what's wrong with America. If that's the case, let it be said that the New York Times suffers from the disease of being dominated by a Jewish board of editors.

The Way that Paranoia can become epidemic

If there never was a reason to shut down the Holocaust Memorial in Washington D.C., there is one now. It is the unmistakable deterioration of John Bolton's mental state. Being an active member of that temple of death, there is nothing he can think about or do which are not motivated by the horrible images which are imprinted on his subconscious mind – images that motivate everything he says and everything he does.

Try now to imagine a generation or two of Jewish and non-Jewish American kids growing up while carrying that same disease inside their heads and on their hearts. As they grow, so will the disease to a dimension we cannot begin to fathom at this time. But if you want an indication as to what kind of America you are building, look at the American fanatics who settle in occupied Palestine, and then imagine a million of that specimen staying in America and treating it like a reservation where horror rules like the supreme law of the land.

The latest manifestation of Bolton's descent into the darkness of a world he believes is out there when in reality it only exists in his imagination – comes in the form of an article that he authored. In it, he describes such a world under a title that reads: “Iran's pursuit of the Islamic bomb invites copycats” and a subtitle that reads: “Stall and delay make an effective strategy for Tehran.” It was published on November 30, 2014 in the Washington Times.

Bolton does two things which are the unmistakable signature of Jewish mental deterioration. He says he knows what goes on inside the heads and hearts of other peoples despite the overwhelming evidence that contradicts his assertions. And he predicts what will happen in the future even when the odds against that are astronomical. Here is the signature of his mental deterioration: “Other aspiring nuclear-weapons states have carefully followed the negotiations, drawing conclusions and making plans accordingly. Very shortly, the wider ripples of the talks will manifest themselves in two ways.”

The reality is that he is not privy to any information of the sort that he talks about because the people he mentions would rather kiss a pig than be in his company, breathing the same air and hearing his voice. Also, nothing was published in that regard because if there was, we would all have known about it. The truth being that nothing of the sort was heard by anyone, the conclusion we must draw is that the world described by John Bolton was fabricated inside his diseased mind.

He goes on to pick three countries in the region – Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey – which he says “will almost certainly accelerate their nuclear activities...” Not any activities, mind you, but those that “follow a clear path to producing weapons.” This is how his mind tells him copycats operate. But that's another indication that his mind cannot process the reality which motivates such copycats. He does not realize that these cats, if they exist, are motivated more by those who tease them than by those who affirm – correctly or falsely – they are not playing this game or any other game.

Well, the long history of this Middle Eastern saga is that Israel has been teasing its neighbors about fictitious nuclear weapons it never had, whereas Iran has always denied it has them or wishes to have them. If the copycats were going to copy, they would have copied Israel long ago but they didn't. They didn't because they do not live inside a holocaust memorial the way that John Bolton does, and they never developed the kind of paranoia that is attacking the stability of the mind.

And when someone is in that mental state, he is too far gone to know the difference between a civilian nuclear program that is designed to produce electricity while also turning sea water into fresh water – and a military nuclear program that is designed to produce nuclear weapons which only a suicidal maniac would want to have nowadays.

Thus, for Bolton to say that “Egypt and Turkey have made initial efforts” on the path to producing nuclear weapons because of what he sees as “Cairo's 2013 nuclear deal with Moscow,” is to tell the world he needs help, he needs it massively, and he needs it now. That deal is a civilian deal, having nothing to do with weapons.

Bolton came out the same mold that produced the people who planned the invasion of Iraq. They managed to break the back of America and stiffen that of Iran. Let Bolton have it his way this time, and he'll break America's neck while raising Iran's head ten feet higher than where it is today.

What are you doing here to begin with?

Here is an article, written by Matti Friedman that will serve as a good example for how a world of mass-delusion eventually boils down to a simple question. The article has the title: “What the Media Gets Wrong About Israel” and the subtitle: “The news tells us less about Israel than about the people writing the news, a former AP reporter says.” It was published on November 30, 2014 in The Atlantic.

This is a 4700-word article that gives details of many small things and a few big ones, but never addresses the central question which bites at the instinct of the readers and the listeners, even if they don't ask the question out loud. The following is what the article evades – perhaps not deliberately – but inadvertently and out of ignorance: “What are the Jews doing in the occupied Palestinian territories to begin with?”

There was a time when colonialism as practiced by the big powers was accepted because the occupation of another country was justified on the basis that the latter was backward and needed to be modernized if not civilized. Thus, colonialism as an institution was thought to be a virtue and not a sin. But with time, some local groups learned how to organize themselves and fight the occupation. When they inflicted enough pain on the colonial powers, the latter began to rethink their justification, unable to answer the question: What are you doing here to begin with? And this is when they discovered that occupation was a sin and not a virtue, after all.

Then, at a time when colonialism was beginning to disappear from the face of the Earth, the phenomenon of Jewish illegal immigration into Palestine started to take shape. Having not the imagination to explain in acceptable terms why it was necessary for the Jews to have a place they call home, they borrowed the justification that the dying colonial powers used to give. They falsely claimed that Palestine (otherwise known as the Land of Milk and Honey and a component of the Fertile Crescent) was desert from end to end. However, they assured the world that the Jews (most of whom were tailors, jewelers, carpetbaggers and bootleggers) were going to snatch it from the incompetent Palestinian farmers that have tried in vain to farm it for millenniums, and make the desert bloom by the magical green thumbs of the tailor, jeweler, carpetbagger and bootlegger.

The Europeans who knew better but had the Holocaust on their conscience said that the Jews should go for it. The Americans who had no idea what was going on, listened to the handful of local Jewish voices that were pleading for America to follow the European example. Eventually, the administration of the day decided to assist the Jews complete their plans in Palestine not knowing what they were, not seeing details of them, and not realizing that the plans were open ended the way that all Jewish plans are.

And while Friedman now complains that the “Israel story” occupies the attention of the world media more than it should, it was the Jews of the world – especially the North American ones – who started doing what they do today, which is to offer junket trips to Israel for the journalists and the politicians who are in a position to help Israel achieve the glory it seeks. The Jews wanted then, as they do now, that the world media speak of no one but Israel, only Israel, and no one but Israel, thus tell the Israel story as it is narrated by the Jews themselves.

And no one in the “West” had up to recent times questioned the right of the Jews to be in what is called Israel proper, or what is known as the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank. This was the case, despite the fact that numerous Security Council resolutions were passed requiring Israel to end the occupation, numerous other ones were vetoed by the United States, and numerous resolutions of the General Assembly were passed condemning Israel for disregarding the rule of law.

And then it happened that the reality of the Palestinian situation began to rise to the level of consciousness in Europe and in America. It was a time when people – Jews and gentiles, in Israel and in America – finally joined everyone else on the planet in asking the government of Israel: What are you doing occupying Palestine to begin with? From that moment on, considerations like those raised in the Friedman article, lost their meaning. As long as the question: “What are you doing here to begin with?” had not been answered, it did not matter whether Hamas or the Jews were better at manipulating the media. The world became fixated on the occupation.

One thing and only one thing matters to the world now: Get out of Palestine. The Jews will either understand this and start the process of joining the civilized world, or they will refuse to understand, and end up the way they always do … the way that costs them dearly but gets them the compensation they crave.

Most destructive Weapon is not the Bomb

Under the title: “Iran's not-so-hidden hidden agenda,” Michael Rubin wrote an article that was published on November 27, 2014 in the Dallas News. He ends the article with these words: “now is not the time to allow Iran to … march toward the most destructive weapons known to mankind.” He means the nuclear bomb which is admittedly a destructive weapon but is nowhere near being as destructive as the Jewish ideology.

This is the ideology that spawned a culture pretending to be a religion, and a philosophy of life pretending to be humanistic. It is in reality a culture of destruction, and a philosophy of death. It has already cost mankind millions if not billions of lives since the beginning of time. The way it operates is indicated by none other than the current Michael Rubin article; by most of the articles he wrote in the past, and by the thousands upon thousands of articles that were written over time by others like him … all advocating and glorifying war, war, war.

If war is defined as a clash between two armies that were prepared for it, the Jews never fought such a war. They always incited someone else to fight it for them. But if war means to be given the most advanced weapons of the epoch, and use them to slaughter disarmed men, women and children … sneaking on them in the middle of the night and showering them with bombs from hundreds of feet up in the sky – then it must be said that the Jews are veterans of such cowardly wars, and champions of the bloodbaths that result.

To get someone to fight for them the wars they cannot fight, and to get someone to give them the weapons they cannot make, the Jews have mastered an approach that is unique to them. It consists of slandering a would-be enemy, of making false predictions about him and of speculating as to his motives while stressing that he is more than the enemy of the Jews; he is the enemy of mankind, including those whom the Jews are inciting to get mobilized and get prepared to fight against.

Thus, you see Michael Rubin begin the article by asserting without offering a shred of evidence that for Iranian officials, the failure to reach a final agreement “is going according to plan.” And this is because the Iranians harbor bad motives, he says, in that they want to relieve the pressure imposed on their economy. What a crime! The Iranians want to relieve the pressure on their economy; can you believe it? This is as bad as pointing out that Obama wants to feed the children of America before fighting useless wars of the kind that America always loses. What a scandal! Impeach, impeach.

Since it is not enough to speak of the Iranians in the abstract, Michael Rubin assigns the role of villain to Hassan Rouhani, the current President of Iran. He says that: “his efforts are window-dressing, meant to distract attention from Tehran's true aims,” however evil those aims may be. Still, having made the assertion, the author attributes the evil to the entire Iranian leadership. To buttress this argument, he does two typically Jewish things. First, he pretends to know what “the Iranian leadership says in Persian to their public.” And second, he says that the intonation “Death to America” (which is sometimes heard when Iranians gather to denounce an American belligerent action against them) “is not mere rhetoric.” He does not explain that “death to something” in Persian is the equivalent of “down with something,” which is often intoned in English.

Poor Michael Rubin. Realizing that there is not enough here to incite America to go after Iran, he makes a big gamble. He says that Rouhani publicly “outlined a doctrine of surprise in which Iran would lull the United States into complacency, before delivering a knockout blow.” And that's not all because the man later bragged that “he merely used diplomacy to trick the West all the while furthering Iran's nuclear program.” In short, Rubin says that Rouhani telegraphed what he was going to do, he went ahead and did it, and little Rubin caught it but the entire West missed it. This is self-delusion that is so bizarre; it does not work even in fiction.

Finally, Rubin comes down to the real purpose of his article. He is worried about the future of Israel, he says, because Iran threatens its existence. He then does something that tells the readers they must not believe a word he says. Look at the following and marvel at the mentality of this man: “Iran's quest to arm itself with long-range missiles leaves America's Arab allies jittery.”

Oh what an idiot! This guy never looked at the map of the Middle East. If he did, he would have seen that the Arabs are Iran's closest neighbors. If Iran wanted to attack them, it would not develop long-range missiles. In fact, the only ones jittery in the Middle East are the Israeli leaders because they know that if and when Iran will be equipped with a long retaliatory arm, they will have to think twice before falling into the Jewish habit of barking threatening insults at that country.

Ignorant of all that, and believing that he made his point as powerfully as it can be made; Rubin now wants to add icing on the cake. And so, he loftily declares: “Furthermore, we cannot ignore that Iran remains the world's premier state sponsor of terrorism.” He may or may not believe this, but he must be aware that the world knows Israel to be the only terrorist state on this planet, and that America remains its main sponsor.

And what would be a Michael Rubin article without a comical relief at the end? And so, the author puts a smile on the face of his readers by speaking of an Iran that has everyone knocking at its door seeking to do business with it – as if it were the miserable little thing they call Israel. That's the thing which is often seen on its knees begging America to battle an international community that's boycotting it and refusing to accord it any legitimacy. Look how Rubin turned that reality on its head: “If Iran can derive international legitimacy by talking, why make compromises?” The fact is that Iran does not lack legitimacy; Israel does.

And the author does not stop here. He goes on to say: “the time is ripe for toughening the sanctions until Iran complies with the international community.” The trouble is, he doesn't say if he means the international community of this planet or that of another planet or maybe the planet of his imagination.

On a more serious note, think about it: thousands upon thousands of this sort of articles published over the decades without someone pushing back, is what turned superpower America into super-joke America. And these guys are still hungry for more. But guess what; there are still a number of pitiful American legislators willing to listen to them and further debase America for the glory of Israel.