Watch the Weekly Standard Weinstein the Bibi

There was a time not long ago when a freakish phenomenon took hold among youngsters in America. It was reported in the news that several teenagers died playing a game that no one knew how or where it originated.

The game consisted of the kid consuming drugs and hanging himself while masturbating, which apparently heightened the orgasmic ecstasy. The lucky ones were able to loosen the rope around the neck before suffocating. The unlucky ones did not make it in time and died. Given the sexcapade stories that came out of Hollywood lately, we can only surmise that the phenomenon must have originated there.

Nor is it a stretch to see the similarities between the culture that prompted Hollywood's Harvey Weinstein to ask women to watch him masturbate––thus witness the ferocity of his manhood––and the culture that prompted the Netanyahu crowd in Israel to call on the Weekly Standard asking them to tell the story of Jewish intellectual masturbation. Apparently, in Israel too, someone wants the world to witness the ferocity of Israel's faint attempts and miserable failures at stopping Hezbollah from arming itself to defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression.

You get the details of this story by reading the article that came under the title: “With Syria Strikes, Israel Attempts to Send a Message to Trump and Putin” and the subtitle: “Netanyahu has actual red lines and is working to enforce them.” It was written by Matthew R.J. Brodsky and published on December 5, 2017 in The Weekly Standard.

With the admission at the start of the article that the purpose of writing the piece is to fulfill Israel's wish that “a wider audience is listening,” Matthew Brodsky reveals that Israel “carried out dozens of airstrikes on weapons convoys destined for Hezbollah over the past five years.” Despite all this, he admits that “Hezbollah continues to receive weapons shipments with increased frequency and improved lethality.” This can only be construed as the diplomatic version of committing suicide by public hanging. And the solemn declaration that follows may be thought of as heightened orgasmic ecstasy brought on by the belief in the reality of one's own fantasy. Look how Brodsky handled his case:

“While the message to Assad and Iran was unmistakable, Israel hopes Russian President Vladimir Putin will take note that its red lines on Iran are firm and will be enforced. For President Trump, the message is a reminder that substituting the Islamic Republic of Iran for the Islamic State is unacceptable to [Bibi Netanyahu]”.

What seems to bother the Israelis and their American supporters is that: “whether intended or not, every time Trump and Putin meet, Netanyahu ends up holding the short end of the stick … The problem is that the current arrangement increases the likelihood of permanently entrenching Iranian forces near Israel's border. That process is already underway”.

Add this to the fact that “Israel already must contend with an Iran entrenched politically and militarily in Lebanon in the form of Hezbollah,” as well as Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps saying: “any new war will lead to the eradication of the Zionist regime,” and you'll agree with Matthew Brodsky that “it's no wonder Israel is alarmed.” And there is an even bigger worry. It is that “Iran plans to build naval and air bases in Syria in addition to weapons factories”.

In view of all this, what can the diplomatic and military Weinsteins of the Middle East do aside from calling on the Weekly Standard to tell the world about the virility of their repeated failures at preventing their neighbors from engaging in the immoral activity of preparing to defend themselves against Jewish predation?

Well, for one thing, the Jews asked the Americans to make sure Iranian forces will soon leave Syria, but the Russians explained that the terms of the recently implemented ceasefire did not include Iran-linked militias leaving Syria given that those militias maintain a legitimate presence in Syria.

Thus, the likely result, says Brodsky, will be another Middle East war that “will compel the U.S. to get involved on the ground in short order … in circumstances where Iran's power will have been greatly enhanced”.

Meanwhile, speaking for the diplomatic Weinsteins of Israel, Brodsky promises that “similar Israeli messages will be hurled into Syria,” undoubtedly to start the war that will force America to go rescue Israel.

The subtle message here is that sooner or later the neighbors will run out of patience and respond to Israel's aggression, making sure that Netanyahu's attempt at committing national suicide will succeed this time.

And this is why Matthew Brodsky wants America to standby and be ready to loosen the rope around Israel's neck … whether or not the Bibi will have attained the level of orgasmic ecstasy.

How the Wearer of the Crown loses it

Institutions, industries, sport federations and all kinds of groups have a member that towers above all the others for a time till it is replaced by someone else.

You see this scenario unfold in sports where, for example, a boxing champion dominates the game for a few years then loses the crown. You also see it in each industry where the stock of a company becomes a favorite among investors, thus rises to stratospheric levels before it corrects or crashes. And you see the same thing happen just about everywhere else.

But how does it happen that the wearer of the crown loses its high position? Well, diligent observations suggest there are two ways for this to happen. There is the digital way, and there is the analogue way. For the purpose of this discussion, we define 'digital' as the clear-cut and observed proof of an occurrence. And we define 'analogue' as the fuzzy and implied indication of an occurrence.

For example, in a game such as soccer, a goal is a goal. The team that scores the most goals wins the game. This is a digital manifestation of what has occurred. But when it comes to a boxing match where no one has scored a knock-out, the judges watching the game decide who won by points. This is the analogue manifestation of what has occurred.

Thus, it is apparent that in the analogue system, judgments are made that can vary from one observer to another. In fact, it can even happen that the same observer may have an opinion one moment, and change it a moment later. This implies that “goodwill” engendered by the player is a factor in how the judges decide. In turn, the judges' decision determines whether or not the wearer of the crown keeps it or loses it. And the implications of this process are so important; they should interest institutions like the Wall Street Journal.

The undeniable history has been that publications have come and gone over the decades because they did not engender enough goodwill to maintain a loyal following. Some publications tried to innovate in an attempt to catch up with the changing times, but lost anyway. They lost because they overlooked two important requirements: the integrity of their performance which they neglected, and the respect they should have shown for their followers which they did not.

A publication can affect these two requirements with a performance such as that rendered in the Wall Street Journal on December 4, 2017. This was the day when an article appeared under the title: “Anti-Israel Activists Subvert a Scholarly Group” and the subtitle: “The American Studies Association boycotted the Jewish State. It wasn't by popular demand.” It was written by Jesse M. Fried and Eugene Kontorovich.

To put the matter in perspective, an article whose content is of such low quality would not have interested the educated crowd if it were printed in an ordinary publication. But because the Wall Street Journal carried it, a number of readers got interested in it. This means that the Journal imparted to the article some of its own goodwill. The catch, however, is that playing with goodwill in this fashion is a zero sum game. That is, the writers of the article gained what the Wall Street Journal lost. When a publication repeats this kind of performance too often, it keeps eroding its position till it loses the crown, ceding it to someone else.

But really, what is wrong with the Fried and Kontorovich article, anyway?

To put it simply, what's wrong with the article is that it makes big hay out of an ordinary, everyday occurrence. Look at the opening sentence: “Emails appear to show that the American Studies Association's decision to boycott Israel was orchestrated by a small cadre of academics.” This is the event, as bland as it is.

But the readers got a taste of how the writers of the article were planning to proceed by what they said next. It is this: “...academics that infiltrated the ASA's leadership to demonize the Jewish state.” Clearly then, the intent of Fried and Kontorovich was to assign bad motives to people they say “infiltrated” to “demonize.” It is upon this foundation that the two writers built a case full of false descriptions and devoid of substance.

Meanwhile, whatever aura of respectability their accusations have gained, it was subtracted from the storehouse of goodwill that the Journal accumulated over the decades.

The lesson to be derived is that if the Wall Street Journal will continue to publish articles of this caliber, it will lose the crown and be lowered to the level of a tabloid.

Congress turning America into Animal Farm

George Orwell had the pigs write a law to govern their kingdom of animals. It said this: “All animals are equal except that some are more equal than others”.

Decades later, someone convinced the Congress of the American Republic it was not made of human beings but of animals that need to be regulated. So members of the Congress wrote laws that say in essence: All human animals are equal except that the Jews among them are more equal than others”.

It then happened that Anne Bayefsky discovered the law was not enforced. So she started squealing like a pig, braying like an ass and barking like a dog to communicate her familiar message: Bloody murder! You can almost hear her vocal noises by reading the article she wrote under the title: “The Trump Administration Is Letting the PLO Wage Lawfare Against Israel” and the subtitle: “In November, the group was told to vacate its D.C. Office. Then the State Department backtracked.” The article was published on Dec. 1, 2017 in The Weekly Standard.

Before I discuss the Bayefsky article, let me say something that might sound funny to you, but was not to the seven-year-old that I was when, for the first time, I found myself forced to sort out the relationship between pure reason and irrational dogma. I was attending a Catechism class when the Christian Brother asserted the dogma that God has infinite powers, and can do anything he wants. Before I had the opportunity to learn there was only one God that no one was challenging, my mind contemplated a situation in which two Gods, each possessing infinite powers started to will opposite things. For example, what if one God wanted to create me and the other was opposed to my creation. Would I be here?

I remember this moment every time I hear that an American law has come into conflict with another American law or into conflict with an international law or that of another country. It is challenging enough to be in charge of resolving a conflict such as this when the laws are created in good faith for good reasons. It is infinitely more complicated when the Jews plan ahead of time to have the Congress make laws that conflict with other laws or with international laws or those of other countries. If laws are made to be as absolute as the will of a God, how do you decide which law takes precedence over the others?

This is the question that Anne Bayefsky says was resolved by the genius of the Jews. They resolved it, she says, by designing a law that has the American Congress say to the Palestinians: Do you see this gun we're holding to your heads? It will go off and kill you if you seek to exercise your right to have your day in court. In effect, therefore, the Jewish American law says to the Palestinians they are so inferior, they can be sued but they cannot sue others, especially not the superior Israelis. This is like saying that the power of the Jewish American God so exceeds that of the international God protecting the Palestinians, the American gave the Jews the right to do what they want and be immune from prosecution.

And the Jews of Israel have been committing all the crimes they want, and literally getting away with murder for half a century. Unable to take it anymore, the Palestinians decided to take their case to the International Criminal Court. In response, Anne Bayefsky ran to the journalistic allies of the Congress of infamy and screamed her distress. She reminded them that the Congress legislated holding the gun to the head of the Palestinians, and authorized the Executive to pull the trigger the moment that the Palestinians decide to have their day in court, but the Executive decided not to pull the trigger.

Given the track record of all the moments of distress she produced over the years, Bayefsky reckoned that screaming one more time about an Executive that's not coming to the rescue of Israel, will not have much effect. And so, she decided to take a different approach. She said this to the media: “Palestinian lawfare at the ICC is a shameless in-your-face challenge to U.S. lawmakers … They gave American law the middle finger.” In other words, she is telling them: Get outraged not for me or for Israel but for the U.S. lawmakers to whom the Palestinians gave the middle finger.

But many in the media have learned that when the Jews seek America's help to harm the people living outside America, the Jews consider it a dry run. When finished, they turn around and do the same thing to Americans. This is why most of the media have turned a deaf ear to Anne Bayefsky's expressions of distress. She can squeal, bray and bark all she wants, and nobody will listen.

Good History but missing several crucial Links

Monica Duffy Toft has an interesting article that came under the title: “On Rationalizing U.S. Foreign Policy” and the subtitle: “No More 'Whack-a-Mole,'” published on December 2, 2017 in The National Interest.

Her point is that the United States of America responds militarily too quickly where it should not. It does so, she says, at a time when the wise thing to do would be to try other means at resolving many of the foreign issues that crop up from time to time. To be honest, no one in his right mind could or should argue against that.

Monica Toft also makes the correct observation that America started adopting the wrong method dealing with world issues after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Well, there can be no counter argument here either. But where her discussion falls short is in giving a complete picture of the current situation. In fact, Toft has failed on that score because she chose to adhere to the requirements of political correctness.

The problem with her development of the article began at the point where she correctly said: “Since 9/11 we have been constantly reminded to walk fearfully,” but failed to elaborate on one important point: Who was it that kept beating the drums of demagoguery to scare the American people? Also, she only gave a partial elaboration on a second point: What has the full gamut of consequences been?

Having neglected to answer the first question for fear of ruffling feathers of the overly sensitive Jews, the writer covered the consequences of America's responses in a manner that leaves no doubt she meant to say the New-York/Tel-Aviv Syndicate worked overtime––using its control of the media and other levers of American power––to scare the people about the Arabs and the Muslims. But she never quite said it this openly.

Still, she went on to explain that the result was that America relied excessively “on military force and interventions abroad to spread U.S. values [but] failed either to inspire or intimidate.” Again, the author neglected to say that U.S. values were re-engineered to serve not the countries where they were lectured but to make those countries open themselves to the idea of serving the interests of Israel. And this is why America's values failed to take root in the targeted countries.

Toft also made a number of points that say much of what is accurate, yet baffle the reader by what they leave out. Look at this: “We have no clear national objective in foreign policy … others have positive national objectives … Our national goal should be leading the world toward a future where all people are subject to and privileged by due process of law”.

Here too, the writer failed to say that while America has no objectives of its own in foreign policy, it has definite objectives dictated by the Jewish Syndicate, and articulated in America by the Judeo-Israeli lobby. And she failed to say that American officials made a mockery of the claim they adhere to the rule of law when time after time, America worked with obsessive fanaticism to protect Israel's habit of skirting the law.

Not only that, but America's lawmakers went out of their way to blackmail the Palestinians who did nothing worse than try to have their case against Israel adjudicated in a court of law. The bizarre behavior of lawmakers making a law threatening someone who seeks to have recourse to the rule of law, has left the world with an image of America akin to that of a Congress of Harvey Weinsteins preaching respect for the personal integrity of young actresses. Animals! The world does not see a Congress of human beings; it sees a Congress of animals … sick and pitiful animals!

Monica Toft seems aware that the antics of the Jewish Syndicate are responsible for the political stalemate in which America finds itself at this time, but neglected to point the finger at the culprit. Instead, she quoted George F. Kennan who said: “America must not be internally divided, and must never cease in the education of its young people in order to enable policymakers to be rewarded for wise policy, whether foreign or domestic”.

And right after that, she lamented and warned as follows: “Endless military interventions and the people's lack of literacy in military and foreign affairs present dangers to the national security and prosperity of America”.

Do you know why Americans are illiterate in military and foreign affairs? They are because instead of learning these subjects, they are taught all about the Holocaust and the fictitious accomplishments of Israel.

Still trying to con the Americans

Flattery will put you on every idyllic road that takes you to hell. This must be the lesson Ehud Barak and a few others have learned over the past few decades. Barak was prime minister of Israel, and has also served as defense minister and chief of general staff for Israel's Defense Forces. His apparent regret should carry weight.

The man expresses that regret in an article he wrote under the title: “We Must Save Israel From Its Government,” published on December 2, 2017 in the New York Times. He cites all kinds of reasons as to what has gone wrong with Israel, and concludes that the current government is solely responsible for all those ills. But the fact is that the current situation is nothing more than the inevitable outcome of what has been going on for decades both in Israel and with the Jews in America and other places around the world.

The Jews flattered every potential donor that could be suckered into contributing something to promote Israel's agenda. They received plenty for their trouble, especially from the Americans who gave financial aid as well as military, legal and diplomatic aid, and everything else you can think of. But like the saying which goes: “give the man a fish and he'll have enough to eat one day, but teach him to fish and he'll have enough to eat every day,” the donors gave enough to maintain Israel afloat for a number of decades till they could give no more. Meanwhile, they neglected to let Israel develop its own means of survival. Now, that it appears all sources of aid will soon dry up, Israel is wondering how it will stay afloat going forward.

What happened is that having no incentive or compulsion to develop a regular economy, Israel relied on the aid it was receiving from abroad to create a make-believe economy based on distributing the foreign aid it was receiving while training its young to study the bible and suppress or kill Palestinians. To be fair, it must be said that the Jews did not kill all the Palestinians because they needed some to work the system of distribution and to build new settlements in the occupied territories. These would be settlements that Jewish American gambling moguls financed to populate with American losers they paid to go suppress or kill Palestinians.

Now that the “Western” world––which had a surplus to donate to the Jews––produces barely enough to satisfy its own people, having to compete against a very productive East, it can no longer send aid to Israel. When in response, Netanyahu went to the Eastern nations trying to con them into replacing the West at maintaining Israel afloat in return for contrived platitudes and hot air, the leaders of the Eastern nations spat in his face, gave him the boot and told him never again to show up at their door.

Yes, Netanyahu is one albatross around Israel's neck, like says Ehud Barak, but he is not the only albatross. The problem with Israel is that it lived from the start with the Jewish obsession of acquiring all of Palestine. Thus, when Barak says: “Solidarity and integrity of the people take priority over the unity of the land –– namely, the wish to possess the entirety of our historic homeland,” he is misleading the readers into believing that the idea of going after all of Palestine started with the Netanyahu government. This is false; the obsession started in 1948 when Israel was allowed to take a finger, and the Jews immediately fantasized about taking the whole arm.

Because Ehud Barak injected that falsehood into his presentation, he was able to avoid describing a workable plan to save Israel from itself – not just save it from its government, like he says. He then closed the door about having an intelligent discussion when he blurted the following about Israel: “it built an 'iron wall' of military and economic power that has made us the strongest player in the region.” This sentence was immediately followed by its contradiction: “This accomplishment, together with bipartisan American support, enables Israel to shape its own future.” Apparently no one told this guy that when he says he is the strongest kid in the neighborhood, he cannot request continued American support no matter how much he could twist the formulation of the request.

But that is the kind of ambiguity the Jews discovered was above the intellectual processing capability of American lawmakers. The Jews took advantage of this situation by injecting the same kind of ambiguity in every conversation they had with the Americans. They confused them with gobbledygook that would make a Third World twelve-year-old crack up in laughter. He would run to his mom and dad, telling them about the tall American who says if your home is invaded by armed goons and you pick up a knife to chase him away, you're a terrorist and the goon is a victim. Well, the kid may have laughed, but the parents wept as they remembered that the American was once tall enough to command their respect. Now they wonder what happened that turned him into such a pathetic clown.

A conservative Face dripping with Hypocrisy

One day you hear them scream their heads off: Quick, quick Mr. President, go ahead and bomb Iran because the mullahs control four Arab countries, one of them being Yemen. The next day you hear them scream: Morality, morality, what kind of country have we become accusing Iran of interfering in the internal affairs of Yemen when clearly the mullahs are the saints they say they are?

That's what American conservatism has been reduced to since the day when Jewish Liberals that turned coat, infiltrated it and took it over under the newly acquired name of Neoconservative or Neocon. But why did Jewish Liberals turn coat and display the conservative stripes in the first place? They did because Judaism is by nature a hierarchical and authoritarian Stone-Age kind of system. It will temporarily espouse liberal ideals to achieve a sought after goal but then return to its conservative roots once the goal has been achieved.

This is the scenario that played itself out in America, except that when all was said and done, the Jewish scheme did not work as well as expected. What is apparent at this time is that the Jews find themselves bathing in a swamp of moral disarray, unable to maintain a cohesive discourse that would convince a skeptical audience it is true the Earth is not flat or that the sun sets in the West because it rises in the East.

Look around the Globe and you'll find that no matter how liberal a society is, it will always have a conservative side that will kick-in and ask questions about an alien entity that wishes to mix with it. Because the Jews have always moved from one society to another––trying to mix with this one today and that one tomorrow––they found the human habit of inquiry to be annoying. To respond, they developed arguments that preach the virtues of liberalism, and used them to soften every new society they began to infiltrate. Once deep in the society, and in control of the strategic institutions upon which it rested, the Jews turned back their coats to display their Stone-Age conservative origin.

That's where the Jews find themselves in America at this time. It's not a new place for them, having been at this point in other societies. But the difference this time is that they collided against an attitude they did not see elsewhere. It is that the American population is made of immigrants who left everything behind to adopt a new way of life. The Jews discovered that the “new” does not scare the Americans. In fact, far from being a monolithic group that viscerally rejects the other, the Americans did not reject the Jewish newcomers the way that other societies rejected them. Instead, the Americans displayed an attitude that came down to this: If you have something better than what I have, let me see it, and I'll adopt it … otherwise get out of here because I'm busy doing something important.

Once integrated in that society and in command of its strategic institutions, the Jews worked to narrow the entry gate on other groups coming into the country. They did it out of fear that another group may come equipped with the means to replicate what they did, push them out of the way, and replace them at the helm of America's institutions. Thus, the Jews turned conservative and tried to use conservative principles to advance this part of their agenda. They developed several techniques to do so, the most important being to isolate America from the rest of the world – not economically – but at the level of human to human contact.

This is what you'll sense when reading the article that came under the title: “Aligning with Saudi Arabia's designs,” written by Robert W. Merry who is editor of the American Conservative. The article was published on November 30, 2017 in the Washington Times.

Speaking of America's support for Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni war, Robert Merry makes the following points:

“The Saudis say Iran is meddling in that war. This is an exaggeration, as Iranian involvement in Yemen is limited … for America this is a moral question … The atrocity is the Saudi blockade, imposed on incoming goods via land, sea and air … America needs to debate this matter”.

This sounds great. It is something that must be said about the Yemeni war and all wars. But coming out the mouth of a Neocon, it sounds hollow as would be the voice of Doctor Josef Mengele pleading with the world to have a marathon in which money will be collected to build a luxury resort where all Holocaust survivors shall live free of charge in comfort and dignity.

After all, it was the Neocons that justified the blockade of Iraq in which children starved to death. It is the Neocons that continue to justify the blockade of Gaza where conditions are as bad as in Yemen. It was the Neocons that belittled the seriousness of harvesting the organs of Palestinian kids shot dead by Israeli soldiers. It is the Neocons that continue to celebrate the occasions when Arabs kill Arabs. And it is the conservatives of America that call for the blockade of North Korea so that the children would die of starvation and the adults would get invaded by worms in their guts.

No, Robert Merry did not write that article because he was gripped by a crisis of conscience, or because a sense of morality suddenly enveloped him. He wrote that article because the word has gone out for dwellers of the echo chamber to raise their voice and do what they can to stop the human to human contact developing between America and an Arab country that has not yet recognized Israel.

And so, you have this odd combination in which every Jewish fantasy heralding closer ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel is inflated to look like a blimp of hope and joy floating in the sky – at the same time that characters of Robert Merry’s ilk are tapped to work on driving a wedge between Saudi Arabia and America. This is how much control the Jews have over America.

A criminal Hand constantly sabotaging America

When you buy food in a can or a jar, you don't stop and think it may be contaminated with a deadly substance that can kill you. This is because you trust that inspection at the manufacturing level is thorough, and the chances that your fears will come true are near zero.

When you buy a house that was inspected by a professional and declared free of defects, you trust that this is true, thus pay what you negotiated for it and take possession. As well, you trust that you have a safe vehicle when buying a used car that was inspected by a mechanic and certified as being free of defects.

What these examples indicate is that society runs on a certain amount of trust. Of course, mistakes can happen because an inspector may not do his/her job well, in which case the buyer gets stuck with a defective product. This can have nefarious consequences that will show up later, ranging from simple inconvenience to the loss of life. The case – usually a civil one that does not involve criminal procedure – is adjudicated in a court of law where the amount of restitution if any is decided.

But there are instances where criminal conduct is suspected, requiring a different procedure. This can happen when someone tampers with a product, intending to cause harm. The act may take the form of injecting poison into the food or tampering with the brakes of a car, for example. More than any other, this type of crimes is considered exceptionally cowardly because it erodes the trust that maintains society's cohesion. Thus, the penalty imposed on the perpetrator is severe whether the resulting act caused a small injury or a serious one.

The above represents the real life situations citizens go through in this world, day in and day out. But is there a parallel kind of world where the rules ought to be same but are not? Yes, there is. You can see how an odd kind of life unfolds in it when you delve in the article that came under the title: “Move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,” written by Wilson Shirley and published on November 28, 2017 in National Review Online.

As suggested by the title, this case mixes local American politics with international diplomacy. It touches not only the countries of the Middle East but also a good part of the Christian and Muslim worlds beyond the region. What the writer is doing is tell America to ignore the poison in the food, and eat it anyway. He is telling it to ignore the brakes that were tampered with, and drive the car anyway.

Before going any further, here is a historical note about the serial criminal that keeps poisoning America's food and keeps tampering with the brakes of the vehicle America drives in that crazy world: There was a time when the word had gone out to Jewish women in America telling them to get pregnant and rush to have their babies in occupied Jerusalem. The idea was to force the American government to register the births as having occurred in Jerusalem, Israel. The government said “no” to this trick. The Jews took the case up the legal ladder to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) where they lost when the High Court confirmed the legality of the government's “no”.

What the serial criminal is trying to do now is force America to eat from the food that was made in 1995 according to the criminal's own recipe. It was prepared by the sausage makers that populate the American Congress of the brain dead. Needless to say that the sausage contains the most virulent kind of poison the Jewish criminal has ever devised. Here is how the poison was injected into the sausage: “Congress passed the Jerusalem Act mandating moving America's embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to a 'unified' Jerusalem”.

Do you see that word “unified”? That's the virulent poison in the sausage. To implement the Act is to make America violate international law as well as its own. It will do so because it will have implicitly recognized Israel's criminal annexation of occupied Palestinian land known as East Jerusalem. By moving the embassy to Jerusalem and calling it unified, America will have accepted making Israel's crime America's own crime.

The principle of tricking the American government into violating international law and its own so as to give the Jews what belongs to someone else has been rejected by SCOTUS. The Jews lost once, so they came back with another trick, trying to achieve the same illegal goal.

The time has come to publicly tell the Jews enough is enough. Their constant attempts to erode the trust Americans have in the integrity of their system is taking a toll on the nation. It shall no longer be tolerated.