The Truth is revealed in a mysterious Way

When someone says he wants you to listen to him because he used to be a military man and he'll give you a strategic analysis of what's going on like no one can – you trust him and listen.

But if, in so doing, you discover that the man is only barking a boring tune that's echoed all over the places from the echo chamber, you'll feel cheated, and your trust in the man will turn into anger, even disgust.

This is what happens when you get exposed to the works of Ralph Peters who is a columnist at the New York Post and a strategic analyst at Fox News. His latest column is a case in point. It came under the title: “The final act of the Syrian bloodbath,” published on January 11, 2018 in the New York Post.

While concentrating on Syria, Peters is putting the discussion in the context of what non-Arabs have labeled the Arab Spring. Thus, Peters chose to paint all that happened between Tunisia in the West and Iraq in the East; between Syria in the North and Yemen in the South – with one and the same brush. He did so in the first paragraph of his article, which says: “The hopes of the Arab Spring collapsed into a winter of blood and devastation. From the Middle East through North Africa, societies crumbled. The dead are beyond counting”.

You read something like this, my friend, and you don't see a man sitting at his desk composing an article; you see an idiot standing naked in the public square and cutting off his testicles with a dull knife. Ralph Peters just emasculated himself in full view of the world. That's because of the countries which may be said to have experienced the so-called Arab Spring the only ones that suffered calamities were Libya and Syria.

The truth is that the first has suffered at the hands of NATO's brand of terrorism, as organized by the Jews of France. The second has suffered at the hands of international terrorism, as organized by the remnants of al-Qaeda; itself a legacy of America's challenge to the Soviet Union, its Cold War nemesis.

As to Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain whose combined populations amount to 110 million, the number that died in several years of revolution, does not come up to a fraction of a fraction the numbers that were murdered during that same period – in peace time – in the City of Chicago alone, whose population is 40 times smaller. As to Yemen, the war in that country has been going on and off since the 1960s, thus discounted as an Arab Springer.

The remaining Arab countries, from a total of 22, with a combined population that exceeds 350 million; they were a lot more tranquil than America's Latin neighbors in Central and South America. Thus, for Ralph Peters to claim that the number of dead caused by the Arab Spring is beyond counting, is an exaggeration that's beyond belief.

Now bleeding profusely and looking like the victim of a botched transgender operation, Ralph Peters went on to repeat as verbatim as he could make it, the talking points of the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine regarding ten entities. They are: the Assad regime, the Syrian opposition, Iran, Hezbollah, the Palestinians, the Russians, the Kurds, Turkey, Israel and the United States.

He listed 9 of them under 3 rubrics: the good, the bad and the ugly, describing each in terms of the relationship it maintains with Israel – even if he does not so admit. The good, according to Peters, are the United States, the Kurds and the Syrian opposition. The bad are the Palestinians, the Russians and Turkey. The ugly are the Assad regime, Iran and Hezbollah.

But on the whole, how does the military man, Ralph Peters, rate what happened in that part of the world during the last seven years? The answer, as lamentably laughable as it may sound, is best described according to the old saying: The operation was a success but the patient died. Peters is saying in effect that the war was a Judeo-American triumph because America and the Kurds did a marvelous job. But the war was lost because all of Israel's enemies got what they wanted, and came out stronger. Here is a montage of that:

“The Assad regime is still seated at the United nations. The Syrian opposition continues to resist Assad despite brutal defeats. Iran has built a new Persian empire. Hezbollah has a large cadre of combat veterans, and an expanded arsenal. Russia's intervention began impressively. The great Russian strength turned the tide in Assad's favor. Israel faces a stronger Hezbollah and Iran on its border. The United States crushed the caliphate, but we don't know what to do next. We ended up doing our enemies' work for them. For all of our battlefield successes, we have no map to the future of the region”.

With the meticulous craftsmanship that the author put into his work, did you catch the huge Freudian slip that tells what Ralph Peters really thinks of the situation? Well, go over the quote that follows, and analyze it to find out: “We ended up doing our enemies' work for them.” The fact is that America was doing nothing for anyone except for Israel. In view of that, the quote reveals that Ralph Peters thinks of Israel as the enemy of America ... and he is correct for once.

Thank you, Sigmund Freud for inventing the slip of the tongue.

Cultural Paraplegic says he lifts America up

If you're a student going to school or a blue collar industrial worker or a white collar office worker, you must have met the kind of guy or gal that runs around and gives unsolicited advice to everyone.

Annoyed enough to shed tears, you feel like telling this character to get the hell out of your space, but you endure lest you upset the harmony that's prevailing among the other people occupying the same space – and yet keep quiet.

But that doesn't mean you don't talk about it among yourselves. In fact, the subject almost always comes up for discussion when a group of you gets together without the annoying character being there. You tell each other what happened lately when the “pest” came to tell you how to do the things you've been doing for many years, and doing them well enough to know that the free advice you're getting isn't worth a dog's poop.

Well, you know something, my friend? This kind of annoyance happens not only in schools and workplaces; they also happen on the diplomatic stage where Jews are allowed to act as the all-knowing wizards without someone telling them to buzz off. America is where the Jewish annoyance reaches stratospheric heights, which is why you find advisers galore nest in that place where they repeat the same advice on the same subjects at the same time as if they were all hatched from the same echo chamber.

Two of those characters coauthored an article that came under the title: “The U.N. Agency That Keeps Palestinians From Prospering” and the subtitle: “The administration's freeze on funds for Unwra is a first step in breaking the Mideast stalemate.” It was written by Alex Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky, and published on January 11, 2018 in the Wall Street Journal.

Having succeeded in making themselves hated by the human race, and having transformed superpower America into super joker America in half a century, the two Jewish authors – like their predecessors – are still trying to give advice to America on how to treat the Palestinians. Their logic is easy to decipher when you know what powers it. They refuse to accept that the ethno-religious concoction they cobbled together over the centuries has been a dismal failure. Unable to function like a normal country, they act like the paraplegic that pretends to lift all other countries. And that’s how they describe their activity in America.

What is painful about their stance is that the Jewish treatment of the Palestinians accounts for ninety percent of humanity's hatred for them and for Israel. So it makes sense to ask if these characters are setting America up to be hated as much as they are. Given the accumulated evidence, the answer can only be: most probably yes. Study the following montage of excerpts, and you'll find that every sentence is a lie invented to suit the moment or it is a distortion of reality or it is pure nonsense:

“The U.S. supported Unwra during the Cold War to contain communism, maintain the flow of oil from Arab states and prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, especially Iran. So how can the administration move forward? The first step is clear; the Palestinians are entitled to citizenship in the countries where they live. Shift funds from Unwra to the Palestinian Authority to make Palestinians self-sufficient. Implementing such plans will require political will. A program to bring American officials on board is thus required. The administration has the opportunity to disrupt fantastically expensive patterns. If the Palestinian Authority wishes to be regarded as a state, then it must act like a state”.

This is a reiteration of the Judeo-Israeli plan they once called the “Situation.” It consists of doing away with the Palestinian identity in several steps. The first is for all the Palestinians outside of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza to take up the citizenship of the country in which they reside. The next step is to remove UNRWA from the scene by channeling the money that goes to the Palestinians in a different way. The pretense will be that the money is going to the Palestinian Authority (PA) but in reality, the money will be “administered” by Israel.

With this, Israel will have the money to spend on its Jewish settlers while starving the Palestinians and forcing them to seek a better life elsewhere. It is a form of slow-motion genocide, and the prank that will make it work is none other than the old Catch 22 trick.

You can see how that will work in the sayings of Joffe and Romirowsky. They say that to be free of the occupation the PA must act like a state; but the PA cannot act like a state until it is free of the occupation. Until the Palestinians can resolve this paradox, the Jews will continue to implement the genocide known as the Situation in full view of the world, under the protection of a Congress of zombies.

And while this fantasy is unfolding in the heads and hearts of eternal losers, the rest of humanity will continue to enforce the BDS movement, an activity that’s the most important project ever undertaken by humanity for the cause of human freedom.

White House learning the Limit of Arab Patience

The Arabs are known for their good nature and patience. If you hurt them, they let you know they are unhappy with what you did, and they'll give you all the time you need to backtrack without losing face. But if it becomes clear that you won't change your attitude toward them, their patience comes to an end.

This is what happened with regard to America's fanatic support for the Jewish genocidal treatment of the Palestinian population. When at first, President Trump seemed to be even-handed in his treatment of the Palestinian question, the Arabs welcomed his initiative. But then it happened in America what always happens in America: the Jews took over the helm of the ship of state and sailed it into the muddied waters of Jewish futility.

That scenario unfolded as Donald Trump was gradually handing the task of making foreign policy to his Jewish speechwriters who are in reality the muscle behind the Jewish lobby in America. They pushed all the right buttons, sending a loud message to the Arabs. It said that the Jews own America, and they'll use the thing as a tool to do everything Israel wants, including lending a hand to loot what's left of Palestine.

In response, the Arabs took Palestine off the table around which they sit to talk business with America, but kept all other issues on it. They'll maintain that posture till the Jewish speechwriters send a new message that will convince them the American ship of state has left the sea of mud, and sailed into the cesspool of pure Jewish depravity. And that's when the Arabs will leave the table altogether.

In fact, this is what seems to be happening at this time as a result of the Jewish lobby deciding to have the Executive adopt the odious law concocted illegally by a Congress of monkeys 22 years ago with regard to Jerusalem. The speechwriters in America had no idea what was beginning to happen, and like dogs that get hungrier the more you feed them, they got cockier, thus put more words in the mouth of the President as well as that of his mouthpiece at the UN. They promised to punish the Palestinians financially.

That's when the folks in Israel who know what was beginning to happen, became alarmed. They called their agents in America and told them to tell the White House to back off because the Arabs have reached the limit of their patience. Two of those agents were Dennis Ross and Daniel Pipes. They wrote articles to accomplish two goals. One was to tell Washington to call a moratorium on stupidity. The other was to explain to the hardcore rank-and-file why the Jewish lobby does not want to see more depravity at this time.

Dennis Ross wrote: “How to get Middle East peace talks on track,” an article that was published on January 10, 2018 in the New York Daily News. Daniel Pipes wrote: “How 99 percent of 'Palestinian refugees' are fake” and the subtitle: “Bringing Washington's relations with the U.N. Relief and Works Agency into line with the U.S. law and policy.” It was published on January 9, 2018 in the Washington Times.

What follows is a montage of what Dennis Ross said about the need for Washington to call a moratorium on stupidity:

“The problem stemmed from the President recognizing only the Israeli narrative. The Palestinians judged the deck stacked against them and walked away. Worse, a tweet about cutting off the Palestinian Authority financially, and a freeze on U.S. support for UNRWA followed. A downward spiral in American-Palestinian relations will serve neither side. Abbas is likely to take steps that further alienate both the U.S. and Israel. The administration needs to actively reach out to the Palestinians and the Arab leaders. It would be wise for Trump to meet an Arab leader and publicly explain that he understands the Palestinians have claims to Jerusalem”.

What follows is a montage of what Daniel Pipes said about the need for Washington to call a moratorium on stupidity:

“The Government of Israel wants continued U.S. payments to UNRWA, fearing that their termination might cause a new intifada or renewed warfare with Hamas. News report from Israel indicates that behind the scenes Netanyahu seeks to block or slow down the American cut. Were U.S. funding for UNRWA ended, plenty of governments and individuals could easily replace the $370 million, and have incentive to do so. Qatar, Beijing, Moscow and Carlos Slim will do. Worse yet, were any of them to fill the funding gap, the Trump administration would look ineffectual and isolated”.

It is often said that the process does not matter much if in the end you score a victory. This may be true in the mundane life of average citizens who take their personal history with them to their graves.

But when it comes to nations that interact with each other, and everything they say and do is recorded, history judges the process more harshly than the final score. This is true because history is more interested in the mentality of the time as expressed by the process than the end result.

When the Wise practice the golden Silence

Clifford D. May is fuming because the world was not set on fire. He saw an opportunity for at least the Western alliance to fire up its afterburner and go after the mullahs when Iranian protesters took to the streets complaining about rising food prices. But May was sorely disappointed when this did not happen.

And so he did what comes naturally to a Jew on such occasions; he maligned the Western alliance. He did so in a column that came under the title: “The European Union declines to support Iranians demanding relief from oppression and hunger,” published on January 9, 2018 in The Washington Times.

Nothing rushes wisdom into the heads and hearts of those who are destined to be wise like the sight of a noble giant falling on his face, brought down by a lowborn cipher. That's what happened to the members of the Western alliance who finally realized that America was no longer the giant it used to be, infected as it was by the Judeo-Yiddish ruinous virus.

Without trying to explain the real reasons why America's supposed allies deserted the superpower at a time like this, Clifford May quoted the sayings of those who volunteered to give their explanation as to why they will not stand with America on this occasion. And as usual, the answers were tinged with diplomatic correctness because they are too embarrassing to utter directly. Here is what was said:

The European Union and the British Foreign Secretary thought it was enough to ask both sides in the Iran conflict to refrain from violence. The priority of the EU Foreign Affairs Representative was to go to Cuba where she had urgent business to do there. As to the leader of the opposition in Britain, she didn't know who was wearing the white hats in Iran, so she said nothing and did nothing.

It was left to the French President and the Russian UN ambassador to give a hint as to what the real reasons were for America's allies to “throw America under the bus” at this time. The French President warned America and Israel as well as Saudi Arabia that they should stay out of Iran's internal affairs. As to the Russian ambassador, he suggested that the UN Security Council should discuss America's festering maltreatment of its own citizens rather than waste time trying to point out deficiencies in Iran's treatment of its citizens, if any.

But why exactly has the world, and not just America's allies, turned against America this abruptly? We find the answer to this question in the rest of the article. Clifford May quotes Richard Haas who pointed out the simultaneous occurrence of two events. He said that the statement of the Russian UN ambassador “reveals how isolated the U.S. has become along with the absence of obligations to protect freedom and human rights.” And then Clifford May seconded Richard Haas with these words: “Haas is right. The number of countries willing to defend fundamental liberties is small and shrinking”.

The key word here is “fundamental.” When you say fundamental, you mean something that applies to all of humanity. And so, if and when you apply the double standard of ignoring the human rights violations of one while screaming your head off at the violations of another, you do yourself in real good. This is what happened to the United States of America. It screams at everyone that seems to violate human rights except Israel.

In fact, instead of directing even the mildest of rebukes at the beastly behavior of Israel towards the Palestinian population, America has financed, armed and protected that behavior for decades … and continues to do so at an increasing rate. That's what has disgusted the world about America, so much so that its pretense of standing for human rights anywhere in the world goes down the throat of even its allies like acid.

So then, what does Clifford May suggest the Trump administration should do? Aside from continuing to do what America is already doing, he is suggesting that “whatever information U.S. intelligence has about stolen assets held by Iranian government entities, should be publicized. Ordinary Iranians have a right to know how much was taken from their pockets. Ordinary Europeans have a right to know who their leaders are afraid to offend and eager to appease”.

This being textbook Jewish maligning of Iran and the Western alliance, Clifford May wants America to take one more step toward becoming as hated worldwide as Israel, but without having a sugar daddy to feed it or bail it when it gets into trouble … the way that America feeds Israel and bails it when it gets into trouble.

They love their democratic Bullets

Protesters in Iran demonstrate against their undemocratic form of government knowing that such activities are forbidden by their autocratic rulers. The protesters take the chance and defy the rulers knowing what the consequences can be. The result of the decisions they took freely, was that a handful of them got shot by the security people who were standing in front of them. A number of protesters died for the cause they were willing to give their lives for, going down with their heads held high. And then, they were memorialized with this lamentation: How sad they were cut down with autocratic bullets!

At the same moment, half the way across the world in America, a driver minding his business in a democratic form of government, believing that he had equal protection no matter the color of his skin, is stopped because of a tail light on his car was not lighting properly. Not knowing what lurks in the heart of the cop that stopped him, the driver does what he is told, but the cop displays impatience. Instinctively, the driver feels he is in danger, gets out of the car and runs away. The cop shoots him a dozen times in the back to make sure he dies on the spot and does not tell what really happened. This victim and a thousand others like him who never freely chose what their fate should be are cut down every year in America by fidgety cops. And then, the dead are memorialized with this explanation: How sad the cop that killed him believed he was armed when he wasn't.

Now my friend, I ask you this: Which deaths are worthy and which are not?

If you believe this is a difficult question to answer, do not force yourself. But take heart because the editors of The Weekly Standard made sure to answer it, thus spare you the torment of having to choose between honest autocracy and dishonest democracy. They wrote: “A Deafening Silence,” an editorial that appeared on January 7, 2018 on their website.

So you go over the article to see what these editors have to say. But the more you read, the more questions you ask, and the more answers you find in he article. The dialogue between the two of you goes something like this:

– You say your American system of governance is better than that of Iran, what values inherent to your system would you say make it better to live under than Iran's system?

– Inherent? We don't judge things by inherent. We know our system is better than Iran's because our liberal opponents here in America like Iran's system better. You know who these guys are? They are the ones who believe Obama was a great president. They are those who said nothing when the brave demonstrators in Iran confronted the security apparatus of the mullahs, knowing that they could die defending freedom.

– But that's precisely the point I'm making. The people in Iran know what the law says – however bad it may be – and they take the chance knowing what the consequences can be. Do you still believe this is worse than the case of the guy who thought he was protected like everyone else only to be shot in the back by someone assigned to protect him? He was shot not because he chose to take a chance on anything, but because he believed the promise of a democratic system that's full of lies and deceit. Is this a better death than going down with one's head held high?

– Ah, don't give me that crap. You can't equate what is done deliberately by the security forces in Iran with what a few rogue cops do in America. Tell me something else about that inherent thing you were talking about earlier.

– Okay then. Tell me how many people die in Iran at the hands of someone confronting them face to face once every ten or twenty years as they freely demonstrate and make demands? And then tell me how many in America get shot in the back during that same period of time because these people choose to do nothing but mind their own business?

– Don't be silly, ask another question.

– Okay, I'll ask another question, but brace yourself because it comes with a long preamble. Here it is: Known to be a neocon with a Pax Americana agenda, you say this: 'we have the right and ability to lead other peoples toward worthier forms of governance.' You then accuse the liberals of losing any moral impulse. And you explain that they are 'internationalists if it means handing over US sovereignty to the United Nations or the International Criminal Court,' but they are not internationalists enough when it comes to fighting the bad guys out there. Is that correct?

– Yes I said all that.

– Well then, tell me this: How many military bases and personnel does America have overseas as opposed to how many lawyers or legislators it has out there?

– I see what you're getting at, and I'm not answering this question. Ask me another one.

– You say, we can and must lead other peoples toward worthier forms of governance. Tell me this: When and where after WW II did America lead another people toward a worthier form of governance? Was it Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya?

– I declare this inquisition terminated. Adios!

It is obvious from the above give-and-take that the neocon editors of the Weekly Standard would answer the question asked earlier like this: It is better to die under circumstances not of your choosing as long as you get shot in the back a dozen times with democratic bullets – than it is to confront a security officer, get shot with one autocratic bullet, and go down with your head held high.

And these characters believe they have the right to own the world.

Jonathan Tobin's Truth telling is a sad Joke

Jonathan S. Tobin took on the New York Times because he says the newspaper does not report accurately on Iran. He ended his article by calling this kind of reporting a sad joke. Well, I'm not going to argue with Tobin on this matter for two reasons. First, I do not inject myself in the fight between two jerks and second, I called the New York Times's reporting on Israel and the Arab world, especially Egypt, worse names than a sad joke.

But if you've lived on this planet during the last few weeks, and were exposed to American media of any kind, you could not have missed the blizzard of congratulations that were offered to those that encouraged the protesters in Iran, including the statements and tweets that were put out by the President of the United States, and those who spoke in the name of the White House.

Moreover, for every word of encouragement that was uttered by anyone, hundreds of other words were uttered by the media types, begging America's elites to encourage the Iranians to protest even more. They also called on the West to do more – not just in words – but do it via clandestine operations. And amid all of this, there was mention of previous cyber attacks and bombing operations that caused considerable damage in lives lost, and serious destruction of property in Iran.

This is where I argue with Jonathan Tobin who wrote “How Not to Report on Iran,” an article that was published on January 7, 2018 in National Review Online. Before unleashing his attack on the New York Times, Tobin set the stage to justify his attack by doing one of the jerkiest things the Jews have been doing for half a century: They enjoy the habit of bragging about doing the things that the world does not approve of while denying doing them in the same breath. Look how Tobin introduced his readers to the situation in Iran:

“The ayatollahs' attempt to blame the protests on the CIA gets a boost from the New York times. The regime made it clear there was a plot by the CIA and its Saudi and Israeli allies. The success of the 1979 revolution was rooted in grievances about Western responsibility for the tyrannical monarchy then in power in Iran. Since then, Iran's theocrats have resurrected the memory of the 1953 coup in which the CIA helped put the shah back in power. The security of their regime rests on feeding a belief that their country and Shiite Islam are under siege by malevolent outside forces. They know that so long as Iranians are focused on America, Israel and Saudi Arabia, they will continue to let their rulers get away with murder”.

This prompts the question: Why did Tobin start his article by denying something most of the people who read his articles would know is a lie? No doubt this is a mystery that needs to be resolved. In the meantime, however, we must not ignore the tremendous damage that this Jewish habit is causing, not to the Iranian targets of Tobin's misinformation, but to the intended recipients of it. These would be his readers and the American culture. Yes, the culture suffers, given that his readers are an active part of it.

Throwing accusations at people behind their backs in the knowledge that they will not respond, has been a Jewish pastime since time immemorial. But when they managed to monopolize the American media, they discovered they can practice their habit by openly insulting those overseas who did not bother to respond. In fact, the foreigners viewed such antics as nothing more than the Jews engaging in their other most favored pastime: screwing their American hosts in the head.

Thus, while the Jews were unable to change the world in fifty years, they changed America by imparting to it their worst cultural characteristics. And you don't have to be a genius to see how low America has sunk by absorbing ever increasing doses of the Judeo-Yiddish culture.

Watching a dysfunctional Congress and a journalism that has become as shallow an institution as the televangelists that tell their flocks the Jew is the new God they must worship – the foreigners overseas were so frightened they decided that the time had come to respond to American provocations tit for tat.

The Philippines and North Korea adopted the policy of trading insult for insult. As to the Russians, they played the more sophisticated game of mentioning America's shortcomings, telling it to fix its own problems (such as Black Lives Matter) whenever America's parrot at the UN mentions the Iran protests. And there will be more of that in the future because America has taken the path the Jews took on their eternal journey to nowhere.

Tailor-made Experts to suit every Moment

Laura Secor wrote an article under the title: “Iran's Protesters Want One Thing: Accountability,” published on January 7, 2018 in the New York Times. Given that she has had an interest in Iranian issues for a long time, and that she wrote about it extensively, she has the legitimate right to claim being an expert on Iran.

The interesting part about her article is not that she wrote it or what she says in it; the interesting part is the date of the article's publication. It was January 7, which is 5 days later than most of the articles written on the same subject. It is important to mention this fact because intellectual honesty is what lies at the basis of journalistic integrity. And one way to measure that integrity is to find out how the journalists are sourcing their work – be it the narration of factual stories or the expression of opinions.

You see my friend, for a common wisdom to be intellectually honest it must follow the natural path a concept must take to develop. In journalism, this means the work must start with the authentic experts laying down the background for the debate that will follow. When this is done, the various commentators that may have a peripheral interest in the subject, jump into the fray and show how this ties-in with the other subjects. In most part, these would be the subjects with which each commentator is usually associated.

But when the cart is placed before the horse – so to speak – whereby the authentic expert is seen to follow the non-experts, you are alerted to the fact that something isn't kosher in this process. So, you dig into the affair and discover that the non-experts are members of a mob serving an echo chamber that's continually being fed with the false information and the self-serving opinions of a behind-the-scenes manipulator.

And that's what happened with the January 7, 2018 publication of Laura Secor's article. To illustrate this sad reality, 3 other pieces of work were picked for comparison, all published on January 2, 2018. What follows is how the author of “Children of Paradise: The Struggle for the Soul of Iran” – a book published in February 2016 – began her latest article so as to harmonize with today's common wisdom. This would be the attempt to establish that the current discontent in Iran is directed at the regime more than it is a complaint about rising prices. With her latest article, Secor goes along to get along, and seeks to explain why her current work differs from the way she used to write about Iran. Here is how she accomplished all that:

“Iranians complain about the economy. They always have. I heard these complaints every time I visited Iran between 2004 and 2012. Economists told me: people complain because they complain. But the numbers aren't all that bad. I never found this assurance very satisfying. Iranians complain about their political system too. Iran is an uncomfortable country and the impulse to separate the economic from the political risks missing the point”.

With this, Laura Secor put her readers on the same wavelength as Dennis Ross who wrote: “Iranians Are Mad as Hell About Their Foreign Policy,” an article that appeared on January 2, 2018 in Foreign Policy. Here is Ross's main point:

“What should the United States do? In 2009, I was serving in Obama's administration. Because we feared playing into the hands of the Iranian regime, we adopted a low-key posture. In retrospect, that was a mistake. The lesson I draw from 2009 is that the United States should not be silent”.

And then there was the editorial of the New York Daily News which appeared on the same day under the title: “Stand with Iran's people” and the subtitle: “Trump is right to support protesters; the world should join him,” in which the editors made the following points:

“Iranians are standing up against a regime that suffocates their freedoms. All Americans should stand with women and men who seek to steer their nation toward a more democratic future. America must support them. When protests erupted in 2009 Obama Hemmed and hawed. He then brokered a deal relaxing sanctions in exchange for the regime's promise to curb its nuclear program. Autocratic governments do not reform, which means things will get worse for those who cry out. But if the people keep it up, and if the world [America] backs their aspirations, an Iran that makes less mischief may come into sharper focus”.

And finally, there was the editorial of National Review Online which appeared under the title: “Support the protests in Iran,” in which the editors made the following points:

“Protests have erupted across Iran. The citizens are challenging the theocracy that rules over them. The United States government should support the protests against the tyranny of this regime. To the extent that we can, we should work to tilt the scales against it. Accordingly, we should take robust diplomatic actions. We should undertake covert actions to undermine the regime. We should identify viable factions and provide assistance to them. We commend these protesters and hope the United States does everything it can to help them”.

When the fake experts take the lead, and the real experts are made to follow them, you know it is becoming clearer by the day that Jewish America is steadily morphing into an Orwellian kind of Wonderland where reality is turned upside-down, and left for the animals to oversee.

That would be the politico-journalistic establishment that's dragging the rest of the country into an abyss never visited before. It does so ironically with the use of the separation of powers established by the U.S. Constitution precisely to prevent such a thing from happening.

What happened instead was that the system, which used to work well for America, was pulverized, and the parts reassembled to serve the self-serving manipulator who works behind-the-scenes.