Scrounging for Leftovers after the Banquet

A complex story is unfolding on the world stage at this time but little of it can be told as of now because the story is still in the early stages of development. What we can do, however, is create a fictional story and develop it along the lines of what we know is true about the real story, and what we project will happen.

We imagine that the world is represented by a hotel. It has been around as an institution for a long while, and was run by a multitude of managers and sub-managers. It has seen chefs and sous-chefs, and masters of ceremony of all kind, come and go. These individuals served for a while – some for a long time, and some a short time – and then left on their own accord or were let go for one reason or another.

One chef from among the multitude of all the chiefs that came and went, stands out because he lasted longer than anyone. Moreover, when he was asked to step aside, he did not simply disappear. Even though he is officially no longer in charge of anything at the hotel, he lingers on inside the premises where he passes unsolicited judgments on everyone and everything … behaving as if he owned the place.

In the real life that is unfolding on the world stage, that chef is actually a political pundit named Eric Trager. He just passed judgment on what's happening on the world stage, putting his thoughts in the form of an article that came under the title: “Trump's speech in Riyadh puts ball squarely in court of Muslim-led governments to fight terrorism,” published on May 21, 2017 in the New York Daily News.

When you read the article, you cannot help but develop an image of the unemployed chef of the fictional story, going into the dining room of the hotel just after a banquet in search of something. In reality, he is hungry and looking for leftovers to eat; and he is hungry to find something to criticize ... and perhaps get his old job back. Indeed, Eric Trager used to be the voice that everyone took into consideration when looking for guidance on the Middle East, but is no longer what he used to be in this domain or any other.

And so, making light of the fact that circumstances on the ground in the Middle East have changed a great deal since the day that former President Barack Obama visited Cairo eight years ago; and since the time that former President George W. Bush was in office sixteen years ago – Eric Trager draws comparisons between the approaches that were taken by the three Presidents.

Eager to build a case that jibes with the vogue that's currently propagated by the mob of Jewish pundits, he asks the question: “Can this step-up-and-defend-yourselves strategy work?” and answers it like this: “There is ample reason for skepticism.” This paves the way for him to conclude the article in the image of a chef that just gorged himself on leftovers, and then took one last bite just to spit it out. He did so while crying out with scorn that this dog food is inferior to his own cooking.

And so, in the space between Trager's question and his conclusion, a scornful writer attributes the changes that came to the Middle East – not to the evolving local circumstances over sixteen years – but to the changes in the strategies that were adopted by the various American Presidents.

He begins to describe that line of thought with this observation: “[Trump's] address reflected a more substantive break” from the approach taken by his predecessors. He goes on to explain that Trump focused on the governments and on terrorism rather than the people and the “conditions that catalyze volatility and violence” in the Middle East. His intention is clear, he wants the world to know that Trump is making a mistake by dropping the Jewish line of using “freedom” and “democracy” as weapons to dominate the world . Here are his words:

“Nor did Trump link terrorism to the absence of democracy or freedom within the Muslim world … Trump's speech didn't include the words 'freedom' or 'democracy' anywhere … 'We are not here to lecture – we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship,'” he quotes Trump as saying.

It is worth mentioning that a casualty of the Jewish approach has been the re-defection of most Second World nations. They once believed in America's democracy and defected to it, but then discovered it was mangled by the Jews to serve Israel. They quickly discarded it, and dared not look in the face of Third World nations lest they hear them say: We told you so.

Is this another Mountain begetting a Mouse?

Do you know the story of the mountain that went into labor and begot a mouse? If you don't, let me tell you about one that may be in the making.

But before we delve into the storyline, we look at the moral of the story. Imagine someone telling you how you should do things, then saying how well you did them, then saying he is not here to tell you how to do the things you did well. What do you think is going on here?

The best way to answer this question is to look at an actual case. It is that of the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, who went to Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and delivered a speech to the predominantly Muslim nations of the world that had gathered there. Trump said the following to them:

“Many already are contributing: Jordanian pilots are crucial partners. Saudi Arabia and a coalition have taken strong action. The Lebanese Army is hunting operatives. Emirati troops are supporting Afghan partners. American troops are supporting Kurds, Sunnis and Shias. Qatar is a crucial strategic partner. Kuwait and Bahrain continue to enhance security. Afghan soldiers are making tremendous sacrifices … The nations here will be signing an agreement to prevent the financing of terrorism. It is another historic step … The Gulf Cooperation Council also blocked funders from using their countries as a financial base for terror”.

The trouble is that just before that, Trump had said the following:

“The nations of the Middle East cannot wait for America to crush this enemy for them. They will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, their countries and their children. It is a choice between two futures; one that America cannot make for you. A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive them out of your places of worship, your communities, your holy land and this Earth … For our part, America is committed to adjusting our strategies to meet evolving threats and new facts. We will discard the strategies that have not worked, and apply new approaches informed by experience and judgment. We are adopting a principled realism rooted in common values and shared interests”.

Looking for the roots of that ambiguity, we find some of them in passages like these:

“The future can be achieved through defeating terrorism and the ideology that drives it. Few nations have been spared its violent reach. America has suffered repeated attacks – from the atrocities of September 11 to the devastation of the Boston bombing, to the horrible killings in San Bernardino and Orlando. The nations of Europe have also endured unspeakable horror. So too have the nations of Africa and even South America, India, Russia, China and Australia”.

This says that the roots of the problem are numerous, and all are not growing in the Middle East. In fact, most are endemic to the places where the acts of terror take place, committed by local individuals or groups. These are youngsters who develop local grievances, and lash out at the societies that cause their grief.

Only the September 11 tragedy can be attributed to Arab nationals operating away from their base of operation. It was masterminded by Bin Laden, a former ally of America who was put in charge of assembling an army of fanatic Islamists willing to die fighting a “godless” Soviet Union that had invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden fulfilled his mission with the help of the Taliban in return for an American promise to assist in rebuilding Afghanistan, and to keep its military out of Muslim lands. When America broke both promises, Bin Laden sought to teach it a lesson, and so he did with the 9/11 operation.

What happened after that, and after the end of the Cold War that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, is that the Jewish Hate And Incitement Machine (JHAIM) saw an opportunity to create a new villain for the “West” to hate. It fired up all its operatives, and put them in charge of spreading hatred for Arabs and Muslims anywhere they happen to be. It also incited the politicians of the so-called democracies – those in government and those waiting in the wings – to act as if they had declared war on Islam. This was the wake-up call that awoke the local youngsters who were growing up under the weight of official and societal discrimination. If anything, it motivated them to fight back in Europe, Africa, South America, India, Russia, China and Australia”.

What now?

Well, there seems to be a good idea in the speech that was given by President Donald Trump at the gathering of Muslim nations. Here is what he said:

“We will make history with the opening of a new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology … we will discuss many interests we share together. Above all we must be united in pursuing the one goal that transcends every other consideration. That goal is to meet history's great test – to conquer extremism and vanquish the forces of terrorism”.

This is good, but until that center is opened, staffed and made operational, President Trump can make good use of his upcoming trip to Israel. When there, he can look in the faces of those in charge and tell them:

“State terrorism is state terrorism whether it is decided by autocratic dictate or by 'democratic' vote. The occupation of another country is the most extreme form of terrorism. When practiced, like you're doing for the purpose of uprooting the indigenous Palestinians, and giving their land to settlers that come from around the world – you show yourselves to be a worldwide crime syndicate. A better future for the world will only be possible if your extreme ideology is driven out of the synagogues, the communities, the holy land and this Earth”.

Unless President Donald Trump says something to that effect while in Israel, his trip to the region will have proven to be a recreation of the mountain that went into labor and begot a mouse.

Demonic Rearrangement of the same old Tune

Speaking on behalf of the Israeli leaders as they often do, Dennis Ross and David Makovsky are at it again telling the world they want to see the Palestinians – who had everything taken away from them – place the fate of their children and grandchildren in the hands of the Jews … and all that in return for nothing.

The Jews also want America to pressure the Arab and Muslim countries to accept this demonic scheme, thus legitimize it in the screwy sense that the Jews define the word “legitimization.” All this and still more can be seen in the article that Ross and Makovsky co-authored under the title: “A Mideast peace gameplan for trump,” published on May 19, 2017 in the New York Daily News.

If you are familiar with the saying about the same old wine being sold in a new bottle, you'll understand what the two authors are trying to do for Israel. It is that after securing for themselves everything that is Palestinian except the Palestinian consent to keep it, the Israelis have at long last learned that the Palestinians will never consent to the robbery of their country. So they gave up on this quest and sought instead the consent of America and the Arab countries to keep what belongs to the Palestinians. This is logic made with Jewish DNA and nothing else.

To confuse, deceive and implement the horror, Ross and Makovsky came up with the idea of splitting the issues separating the antagonists into two categories. One is a package called core issues, which the writers say must be shelved for now. It contains the delineation of the borders, the security arrangements, the matter of refugees and Jerusalem. The Jews also came up with a last-minute trick – as they often do – to serve as booby trap for when they'll need to use it. They called it “mutual recognition of the character of the other's side state”.

Aside from the booby trap, the package of core issues is where the Palestinians stand to get back some of what is theirs. And this is precisely why the two writers say it must be shelved for now to concentrate on the package of non-core issues. The latter contains the Palestinian implicit acceptance of what the Jews have grabbed and what else they may wish to grab from future Palestinian generations. This is what Ross and Makovsky say must be agreed to at this time … not by the Palestinians, mind you, but by the Americans and the Arab countries.

The Jews want American and Arab acceptance of the idea that what's “inside the security barrier” – euphemism that means stolen Palestinian territory – is land that the Jews can keep without negotiating for it; a kind of up-front bonus for Israel. In return, the Jews will promise not to steal anymore Palestinian land, but only as long as the negotiations will continue to the satisfaction of the Jews. And there is another catch; they want the Palestinians to get “serious about fighting incitement to terror” by starving the families of Palestinian youngsters who commit an act deemed violent by the Israelis regardless as to why a youngster may act as youngsters do. Breaching any of these conditions will give Israel the right to resume the rampage of looting Palestinian lands.

To convince the Americans and the Arab countries that this is the only way the peace process can move forward, Ross and Makovsky are advancing the following arguments:

First, recognize that the conflict cannot be solved at this time, but that a dent must be made in the “culture of disbelief” that's now gripping the antagonists. Implementing the package of non-core issues will make that dent.

Second, recognize that the Sunni Arab leaders “desperately want the US to remain engaged in the region,” thus can be pressured to give the Jews what belongs to the Palestinians out of fear of the Iranians.

Third, without advocating the repeal of the infamous “Jerusalem Embassy Act,” which legitimizes the criminal annexation of Palestinian East Jerusalem by Israel, Ross and Makovsky call on President Trump to do some kind of abracadabra magic and “align perception with reality” which should lead to the recognition that “West Jerusalem is and will always be part of Israel”.

Fourth, recognize that Donald Trump must challenge both sides (not the Israelis and the Palestinians, but the Israelis and the Arab countries,) pressing the Israelis to stop stealing any more Palestinian land while the negotiations are ongoing; and pressing the Arab countries to admit that West Jerusalem is part of Israel, without the repeal of the legislation that makes East Jerusalem an inseparable extension of West Jerusalem.

If Ross and Makovsky have it their way, Israel will get all of Palestine today, tomorrow and forever by the consent of America and the Arab countries without the Palestinians having a say in the matter. So very Jewish!

Proof that Israel is a ghoulish charity Case

If you ever wanted proof that Israel is a charity case, there is one now; and you have Jonathan S. Tobin to thank for the service he just rendered. He wrote: “The Latest Trump Controversy Shows Why Israel Is Not a Charity Case,” and had it published on May 18, 2017 in National Review Online.

His first sentence is this: “[Israel] is a strategic asset we rely on for indispensable intelligence." He goes from there to say “that without Israel's help, America is often flying blind in the Middle East.” To that end, he described the failures that America suffered in the region without mentioning one success. If he wants us to believe this is not flying blind, we might object, but...

But you know what, my friend; Jonathan Tobin is correct. The reason I say this is that the history of the region can only be described as that of Israel and her mouthpieces forcing America to promote Israel's interests at the expense of America and its people. Guess what else comes out of Tobin's presentation; America paid Israel for the deadly disservice, and kept increasing the payments year after year.

No, America's leaders were not flying blind in the Middle East; they were clear-eyed about what Israel wanted, and they delivered it with extra bonus each and every time. This is why Israel kept getting inflated with the passage of time whereas America kept getting deflated.

Tobin expands on his point of view by correctly pointing out that Israel's Pearl-Harbor-style sneak attack on Egypt in 1967 was conducted with French Mystere and Mirage warplanes. In fact, that was the only battle Israel ever won. But it was the battle that started the 6-year war which ended in 1973 with the Egyptians crossing the Suez Canal and booting the Israelis out of the Sinai.

What happened during the interim six years – known as the War of Attrition – was that the Jews were able to con the US Congress into believing that Israel was winning, and that it deserved to be rewarded with a finger of American largess; a reward that kept growing till it swallowed the whole arm. Israel continues to nibble at what else is there despite its defeat and the necessity for America to rush to its rescue.

So you ask: What kind of weapons was Israel using in 1973 when it was defeated? And what king of success did it have using American weapons? The answer is that Israel was using American weapons in 1973 when it was defeated. It started receiving them because General de Gaulle – then President of France – was angered by the Israelis when they used French warplanes to bomb the civilian airport of unarmed and helpless tiny Lebanon.

Ever since that time, all that Israel was able to accomplish using American weapons, was to bomb unarmed and helpless tiny Gaza or bomb unarmed and helpless tiny Lebanon or send a warplane to bomb a position in Syria at a time when that country had its hands full with an ongoing civil war.

In addition to telling a mutilated history, Tobin said this: “The Americans were able to draw upon Israel's intelligence network throughout the region, as well as take advantage of Israel's expertise in designing weapon systems.” So you want to know how America might have benefited form Israeli intelligence, and you look for an answer in the article. You find this: “Israel still faced enemies, including an Iranian regime that was strengthened by the toppling of Saddam Hussein.” What a surprise! Was this the outcome of America benefiting from Israeli intelligence? Or was it the direct result of Israeli fabricated intelligence?

As to America taking advantage of Israel's expertise in designing weapon systems, there are several fascinating stories to tell in this regard. The two most comical examples involve the Chinese and the South Koreans.

The Israelis went to the Chinese and said they are experts in designing airplanes, and they can help them set-up an indigenous Chinese aerospace industry. Great, said the Chinese, when can we come look at the facilities where you gained all that expertise? Astonished, the Israelis exclaimed: facilities! What facilities? We don't have facilities; this is why we came to you. We have the experts who will advise you, and you'll do the work. And the Chinese looked at the Israelis in the eyes and told them something like: get the f**k out of here, and don't you ever show your ugly faces around here again.

The Israelis tried to pull a similar sort of stunt in South Korea with regard to steel-making, and were met with the same kind of reaction because as everyone that worked in industry knows, you can read up on how to make something, but until you make it over and over again … failing and succeeding partially many times till you have it perfected, you cannot call yourself an expert. It seems that the Jews will need another million years of evolution before they can grasp this concept.

Sadly, there was a time when the Israelis were able to fool someone as to their expertise in something. That's when they convinced the editors of the Wall Street Journal they had the secret to using water efficiently. The editors published the story of the great Israeli invention that was going to educate America on how to become a water-rich nation. The lesson was this: make the users pay for the water they use, and this will compel them to be efficient. Whoa! How brilliant! What a bunch of geniuses those Jews. Why did God not create all of us as smart as them? Yes, my friend, believe it or not, this is America under Jewish tutelage.

The reality is that the Jews know as much about designing weapon systems as a squirrel knows about brain surgery. Anyone that believes they know more should have their head examined by a squirrel. Otherwise, better believe that Israel shall remain an eternal basket case in the same way that the Jews have remained a basket case since the beginning of time.

Moaning to Monetize a fake Moment

You engineer a fake incident with the view of exploiting it but the events take a life of their own and develop differently from what you had in mind. You quickly rearrange the chips to exploit the new moment.

Instead of the quid pro quo you were aiming for, you now have a situation in which you can play the victim and gain as much as you originally wanted or maybe even more. What a lucky Jew you are!

This kind of scenario can only play itself in America, and the actors can only be the usual suspects. They would be Israel playing the role of the bloodsucker, America playing the role of the pushover, and the four stooges being played by The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Weekly Standard.

Scene One opens on May 17, 2017 with each of the last three publications relaying one aspect of the story. Writing an op-ed in the New York Times, Yossi Alpher lays out the background like this: “[2 days ago] The Washington Post reported that President Trump had disclosed highly classified intelligence to senior Russian officials.” He says this much in an article he wrote under the title: “What Israel Makes of Trump's Intel Gaffe,” published in the New York Times, of course.

As to Jenna Lifhits, she reassures the diehard rank-and-file that has not yet defected to the ranks of the BDS movement, that “Trump Disclosure Unlikely to Harm Intel Cooperation with U.S.,” an article that was published in the Weekly Standard. And last but not least, you have none other than the editors of the Wall Street Journal who instruct President Donald Trump and warn him that “Loose Lips Sink Presidencies.” It is an editorial that also came under the subtitle: “The Russian intel story shows the price of Trump's lost credibility,” published in the Wall Street Journal, of course.

Since Yossi Alpher served in Israel's Mossad, and since he directed a center for strategic studies, what he reveals about this matter tells more about Israel; about what it wants and how it goes about getting it – than what the Wall Street Journal or the Weekly Standard or the New York Times can ever reveal. After all, these publications as well as the Washington Post were the stooges that Israel used like umbilical cords to suck America's blood and treasure.

But considering that Yossi Alpher intended all along to derive maximum benefit for Israel from what happened, how did he spin the argument? Well, the first thing he did was to cast a wide net of ambiguity over the event. Look how he did that: “Islamic State plots to blow up airliners with bombs planted in laptops … The specific accuracy of these press reports is a secondary issue. The primary issue is the affront to protocol...”

In other words, he first asserted that this was an important event because lives could be affected by what happens next. He then added: But you know what; nothing of what was said may turn out to be accurate.

Having produced a confusion he can exploit, he now seeks to create a fake moment he can dance around. To this end, he tells what else came with the affront to protocol. It is this: “...as well as concern for the safety of the intelligence source, which was compounded by the impression that the leak came from a witless leader oblivious to the gravitas of his office.” Wow! There is enough here to turn even a paraplegic into a Fred Astaire.

Not only did Alpher engender sympathy for the intelligence source that may or may not exist in a dangerous zone, he also denigrated the President of the United States whose light weight intellect is no match to the weight of his obligations, says Alpher.

But having admitted to “Israel's considerable dependency on American support,” why did he take a chance insulting the President of the United States so viciously? He did it because there is nothing more powerful than to moan: “I have been victimized by one of your own, America; one that's so demonstrably stupid, you should have kept on a leash”.

In fact, this is what allowed Yossi Alpher to end his article with these words: “No question, Mr. Trump has caused totally unnecessary damage. But does that mean he now owes Israel a favor that Mr. Netanyahu can call in?” You bet Netanyahu will do just that. But the useful question to ask is this: Will Trump listen to him or will he tell him: not one red cent till you get out of Palestine.

Fictitious Dots on a Map that never was

The truth is like a dot on a street map. Each dot marks a crucial point on a street that represents an event of some significance. When you connect the dots, you create a road-map that's supposed to lead to a desired outcome conceived in the mind ahead of time.

The beauty (if you can call it that) about adhering to the Judeo-Yiddish culture is that you're allowed to design the truth that suits your changing circumstances as time passes. Each time that the circumstances are altered, you discard the worn out truth and design a new one. The trouble is that connecting the dots under these conditions leads to the creation of a new road-map each time that the circumstances change. Because this approach replaces the singular truth with a malleable fabrication, you can be certain that you'll be hit with outcomes you never thought you’d see.

Half a century ago, an alien culture of the Judeo-Yiddish kind infested the American culture, reducing it quickly and to such an extent, no one realized what was happening till it was too late. In fact, the alien culture became the source of confusion and paralysis that gripped America, and has maintained it in that state ever since. What was a superpower that had everything going for it became almost unrecognizable in no time at all.

In fact, there was a time when America did not have to scare nations to be respected; and did not have to cozy up to people to be loved. By comparison, America's most formidable task force could not now scare a pauper nation; and the wizardry of its scientific and industrial achievements could not impress even a primitive people.

You can see an example of the confusion that has led to America's paralysis in the article that came under the title: “There's No Such Thing as the 'Arab Street,'” and the subtitle: “Suddenly, Middle Eastern intellectuals are coming to me for 'ground truth.'” It was written by Jonathan Schanzer of the comical outfit that calls itself 'Foundation for Defense of Democracies,' and published on May 16, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

It is difficult at times to discern the demarcation line that separates one era from another because the change usually comes gradually and almost imperceptibly. Not in this article as you can see in the terse declaration that's in the title, “There's no such thing...” This tells of an era replacing a time when the ability to speak in the name of the Arab street used to be the credential the “Middle Eastern intellectuals” had to have before telling the audience how the dots connected to create the road-map that leads to the nirvana of the Arab World.

America bought a jar full of something believing that it contained the potion that’ll lead to the promise the Arabs should realize but didn't know how to do it. What America got in reality was a jar full of Jewish venom proven to be the deadliest substance since time immemorial. Not knowing any of this, America went on a fantastic journey to the Arab nirvana of its own imagination, and produced an Iraq of pure horror, a Libya of sheer sorrow, a Syria of endless lamentations, and a South Sudan of heartbreaking pity.

What you see now are the likes of Jonathan Schanzer wiping out the old approach and replacing it with the new. In a typically Judeo-Yiddish fashion, you see him erase the ideas that used to make up the arguments of olden days. These were the concepts that led America to believe it knew enough about the Arab Street to ride the tanks and the gunships, and go tell the Arabs what was wrong with them. Connecting the fictitious dots on a Jewish map that never was, America packed the Arab World with pure horror, sheer sorrow, endless lamentations and heartbreaking pity.

Now that Schanzer and the clowns like him have had a change of heart, they admit they used to pursue a silly joke that caused the biblical size calamities we see today in the region. No matter, he says, because he developed a new theory about the Arab World. But worry not he hastens to add, because he is certain it will work better than the one he and his buddies just discarded. To flesh it out, he explains that the Arabs are not a monolithic mass, but individuals like everyone else. Who would have known that?

He goes on to say that local intellectuals and Arab ones too go to him and ask what to do, but he tells them he doesn't know anymore. As to the people that populate Trump's State Department, he wishes them good luck because they face two harsh realities: ‘the Arabs hate America, and the Middle East is a quagmire,’ he says.

In other words, he is reviving the formula that tells America: Give us the money and the weapons, and we'll complete the job you started in the Middle East but did not finish. That’s his demonic message.

The Difference between the two is self-Respect

It is hard to believe that the Jews are now asking America to treat Israel the way that Russia does. But is the request for real, or is it another Jewish sleight of hand that lets you look at one thing yet see another thing? It's all there, my friend, look at it and judge for yourself.

It is an article that came under the title: “Russia Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's Capital. Why can't the U.S.?” and the subtitle: “Trump must soon decide whether to move the embassy. Doing so would help promote peace.” It was written by the infamous Eugene Kontorovich and published on May 15, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal.

The story Kontorovich has taken up this time is that of the no-self-respect congress of 29 standing ovations, doing it to America one more time; the Jews are at it again. They are the ones that tried to do an end run on America by sending their pregnant women to Jerusalem to have their babies there (in a demonic plan that was eventually rejected by the Supreme Court) and force America to recognize as legitimate the criminal annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel.

What happened is that the body of shame that's made of a house of ill-repute and a chamber of second screwed up thoughts, had decided in 1995 to make a law they called the “Jerusalem Embassy Act.” What is meant by Jerusalem in this document of eternal infamy is the part that's been Palestinian territory since the beginning of time, and the part that Israel built in modern time. To get the Chief Executive – who is in charge of foreign policy – to sign it into law, the shameless body was compelled to add a waiver allowing the President to postpone the implementation of the Act. And it has been postponed by several Presidents ever since.

And so, Eugene Kontorovich is now arguing that President Donald Trump must not invoke the waiver when the time will come on June 1, 2017, thus let the Act be implemented, and let the American embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; implicitly recognizing as legitimate the criminal annexation by Israel of Palestinian Jerusalem, and make America an accomplice in one more Jewish crime against humanity.

To convince the President this is the right thing to do, Kontorovich the illusionist is using the Russian example as something the American President must emulate … and using a host of other fake arguments as well. Moreover, had he waited one extra day before writing the article, he would have had the opportunity to point to something that two Arab countries – Egypt and Jordan – did, and misrepresent that too.

The truth is that neither Russia nor Egypt or Jordan have recognized Israel's annexation of Jerusalem. What Russia did was recognize only modern “West Jerusalem” as being Israeli territory. What Egypt and Jordan did was recognize ancient “East Jerusalem” as being Palestinian territory. Instead of these acts doing what the Jews had hoped for, they did the opposite in that they recognized East and West Jerusalem as being – not one and the same city – but two different cities in two different countries.

But why could the three countries do what America can never do under the present circumstances? The three countries were able to act rationally and in their self-interest because they are self-respecting cultures governed by legislative assemblies that were never turned into private Jewish urinals as happened to the United States Congress. They listen to the people that elected them, not give them the middle finger or work to promote the interests of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel as happens in America at the expense of Americans, always Americans and no one but Americans.

But now that the American presidency has the upper hand – perhaps for a narrow window of time – President Trump can tell the Congress to rescind the abusive piece of toilet paper called Jerusalem Embassy Act because it is an insult to America and to its citizens. When this happens, the move will serve as precedent to encourage the Congress to go through all the filthy garbage it has passed previously – that which tells the world the United States Congress remains the private restroom of Jews and Israel.

The time has come for America to start a political renaissance that will make it a regular country again, thus rejoin the civilized world where nations act freely because they are free. When this happens, the American people will find it infinitely more pleasant than to live the illusion of being free just because the Jews tell them they are exceptionally free.