They want more of the Same but ain't getting it

Call it the perpetual wheel of Jewish misery. It is a rigid system by which the Jews govern their lives as if caught in a vortex that allows no modification even when the circumstances change.

This is how the system works: The Jews enter into a new community. Once they get to know what's what and who's who in it, they behave in a manner they know will vex the locals. But that's okay with them because by now, they would have befriended enough people at the upper levels, they feel confident they'll be protected. But the local masses see this turn of events as favoring the Jews. They start to revolt, and the Jews double down on their vexing behavior instead of keeping a low profile.

This begins the escalation cycle where the Jews raise the stakes, and the locals split into a group that protests loudly, and a group that keeps anger and frustration bottled up. You begin to see the occasional public eruptions as if to send the Jews a message, but the latter ask for more privileges, which they falsely claim will foster a better understanding between them and the locals. Instead of this happening, however, things get worse, and the Jews demand that the existing laws be amended. They also ask for new Jewish-specific laws favoring them to be enacted, and punishment for the locals who refuse to embrace them.

Depending on several factors — foremost among them, the economic situation of the country and the local politics — the escalation will take one of two directions. Either the cycle will end here and now with a massive explosion that will resemble an anti-Jewish pogrom, or the events will revert back to square one and begin a new cycle. This time, however, the cycle will not run like the old one, given that the relationship between the two communities will unfold in a climate of fear and mutual suspicion. What can be predicted at this point, is that the new cycle will end badly.

A well-crafted article will give the reader the chance to make a first assessment as to where the situation stands in America at this time. It came under the title: “How Ilhan Omar is setting back legitimate debate of Israeli policies,” written by Daniel Kurtzer and published on March 5, 2019 in the New York Daily News.

The first thing that ought to jolt you, reading the title of the article, is the pretense that there was a debate about Israeli policies in North America. Worse is the claim that it was a “legitimate debate.” The truth is, there was no debate in any sense of the word. Thus, the assessment made of the situation, will be about the vacuous creation of someone's imagination. It will reflect the Jewish collective state of mind. What follows is how Kurtzer has imagined what Omar is saying and what she is doing:

“In recent years, we have seen a public debate that has been legitimate. Omar is undermining the ability to conduct that debate. She ought to stop. A few weeks into her tenure, she tweeted that American support for Israel is all about money. She went from the frying pan into the fire, saying that she wanted to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. Democrats and Republicans responded with criticism for Omar's echoing anti-Semitic tropes. She denies she is anti-Semitic. She is naive, and as an elected official, she has a duty to acquire an understanding of the inferences drawn from the things she says”.

What Kurtzer calls public debates are those that took place in the Jewish so-called think tanks which are populated by fanatic Jews going about the business of spinning reality in accordance with the saying: There are two sides to every “healthy” debate. There is the Jewish side that's told by Jews, and there is the Arab side that's told by Jews. To non-Jews, this isn't a debate; it is Jewish pornography masquerading as debate.

In addition to the Jewish porno-think-tanks, you had Wolf Blitzer's CNN where a panel of half a dozen Jews with no Arab participation, used to discuss Arab matters. You also had the Fox News Channel that got into the business of inviting Arab and Muslim dissidents to come to the studio and trash Arabs and Muslims in return for a hefty paycheck. That's not to forget the printed media where slandering the Arabs and the Muslims became a blood sport practiced by everyone that wanted to be “in the game”.

And so, Ilhan Omar came along and said, we should talk about the role that money plays in politics, not only in terms of how it affects the dynamics between the Left and the Right, but also how it affects the role that the Judeo-Israeli lobby is playing among America's politicians. No, no, no, cried Daniel Kurtzer, this will undermine the fictitious debate that's ongoing, and Omar ought to stop. He went on to tell why she ought to stop.

Kurtzer does not claim there was a public demand for Omar to stop; he knows the public loves her and wants to see more of what she says and does. But he intimated that a number of “bipartisan” politicians — those most certainly on the take — want her to stop. So now, you want to know what's left for Ilhan Omar to do?

Actually, Daniel Kurtzer tells what that would be. He says that as an elected official, Omar has the duty to acquire an understanding of what it is that annoys the Jews. But how will she acquire such understanding? That's when the explanation becomes a little tricky.

Normal, civilized human beings resolve a matter such as that by having a public debate in which all the topics related to the subject-matter are discussed by the participants. Human beings do that with the use of reason and the power of speech. It is an approach which contrasts with that of animals that have neither reason nor speech they can use. That's why the animals resort to intimidation and coercion to force the opponent to submit. The Jews employ a similar method, thus avoid debating an opponent in public. They simply will not change the CNN or Fox formats to have a human-like civilized debate. 

Instead, what the Jews want to do with Ilhan Omar is teach her all about Jewish sensitivities. They will want to take her behind closed doors, and do to her the Jewish equivalent of a brainwash. They hope to turn her into another Marco Rubio or a Nikki Haley, the two veritable lap chihuahuas that have memorized the Jewish barking points, and know where and when to bark them.

The self-Crucifixion of two big Mouths

Like the saying goes: Two heads are better than one. Well, better qualify this as valid some of the time but not always.

In fact, we have an example of two who brought their heads together and laid — not an argument for the ages — but an egg. They are Seth Barron and Judith Miller who wrote: Democrats need to oust anti-Semite Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee,” published on March 4, 2019 in the New York Post.

Whatever the real motive of the two authors may have been for demanding the ouster of Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, they started with an idea as to how they will present their case to the readers. And they proceeded in a deliberate fashion at constructing a presentation that has allowed them to make the following closing argument:

“As GOP leaders removed Rep. Steve King from all committees for having promoted white nationalism and supremacy, Democrats should insist on Omar's expulsion from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Her animus towards Jews should disqualify her from a leadership role in congressional oversight of US foreign affairs. Britain's Labour party has been torn asunder by leader Jeremy Corbyn's anti-Semitism. Permitting Omar to remain a spokeswoman on foreign affairs risks elevating her personal status and affirming her statements as a legitimate viewpoint in the party”.

There are four major points in that argument, each of which necessitates a separate commentary:

First, Steve King was punished because he basically said: ‘We were the predators that enjoyed hunting our preys. This privilege was taken from us, and we must regain it.’ In contrast, Ilhan Omar is saying: ‘A false picture of what's happening in the Middle East is presented to the American people and government every day. When I started to show a different picture, predators from all sides began to hunt me as if I were a helpless prey. Well, maybe I am a helpless prey. But I'll push back whatever the cost … not just for me, but for the American people that deserve better than being ruled by merciless predators.’ And so, to equate King with Omar, is to equate the predator of one set with the prey of another set. It is illogical.

Second, by what logic have the two authors, Seth Barron and Judith Miller — now choosing to play the role of predators — established a connection between foreign policy and the animus that Omar has developed toward predators like themselves for coming after her? The truth is that she never failed to thank the Jews of her constituency and the rest of the country who continue to support her. And there are many of them as demonstrated by the thousands of tweets that pushed back against people like Bret Stephens who suggested she may need a course on anti-Semitism. Ordinary Americans in all walks of life love what Ilhan Omar is doing for them and for the country.

Third, trying to figure what's what in the North American situation, is hard enough. So then, what twisted minds would drag Britain's travails into the mix, pretending that this will help clarify the situation here?

Fourth, in civilized countries, people are punished for what they do that's wrong, not for what predatory authors speculate might enhance someone's stature. This kind of speculation happens only in Fascismo-Nazi regimes like the one that Ilhan Omar is working to prevent from establishing roots in North America. Seth Barron and Judith Miller should find something better to do with their time and energy, than work to establish that kind of Judeo-messianic tyranny in North America.

So we ask: How did the two authors construct the presentation that allowed them to reach those weird conclusions? Well, the two began by leveling accusations against Omar to the effect that she falsely insinuated she was required to support Israel as a condition of serving in Congress. They added: “as if anyone had demanded that.” Wow! When reading this part, the thing that will explode inside your head is the big question: WHAT?

Here they are, our two Jews are demanding — as did a number of other Jews — that Ilhan Omar be kicked out of a Congressional committee, if not out of the Congress altogether, having accused her of “hating” Israel instead of supporting the little twerp. And they want the readers to believe that this does not indicate a requirement to support Israel? Do these people take their readers for stupid? Or have they been genetically programmed to live a life of stupidity and not know it?

And then there is this very revealing passage:

“Ilhan Omar says that her Jewish constituents shares stories about safety and sanctuary for the people of Israel, even though there is no actual relative or family member in danger ... She insinuates that Jewish concern for Israel is rooted in tribalism, and supremacist agenda. This is not a reasoned critique of Israeli policy in the occupied territories; it is an attack on American Jewish identity”.

What's this about? It's about Omar telling what her experience has been with regard to the discussions she had with her Jewish constituents. She reported that even those that have no relatives in danger in Israel have expressed concern about the safety of the people of Israel in general. Well, the truth is that nothing is new in any of this. For half a century, we have been deluged with Jewish propaganda of this kind. It is how devious Israel has managed to siphon hundreds of billions of dollars from gullible America.

But Barron and Miller saw something more in that statement. They say Omar has insinuated that Jews in America live a tribal existence, and they harbor a supremacist agenda. But all that Omar did was report on something for the sole purpose of rectifying the false picture we are constantly given about the events in the Middle East. So, we must ask: What is causing Barron and Miller to see Jewish tribalism and a supremacist agenda in Omar's innocent mention of discussions she had with someone?

Let me tell you something, my friend. You don't have to be a psychiatrist to put two and two together and come up with the answer. All you need to do is recall the time when Sheldon Adelson paid Mitt Romney a million dollars to say that Jews are superior to Palestinians. Also recall that on a few occasions, Jewish publications in America have opined that the Palestinians love being occupied by the Jews. If this is not tribalism and supremacy rolled into one, what could it be?

Whatever it is, it simmers in the subconscious mind of our two authors. And this prompts us to ask one final question: Who might be the American Jews that live a tribal existence, and harbor a supremacist agenda? We may never know them all. But we can be certain of three of them: Sheldon Adelson, Seth Baron and Judith Miller. At least two of those just crucified themselves.

Eliot Engel must read some Federalist Papers before opening his Mouth again

What's the difference between Alexander, James and John on the one hand, and Eliot on the other?

Well, the first three are Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. They had a debate among themselves in the 18th century, during which time they produced 85 essays at the rate of one every two or three days. The essays were bound together and given the title “Federalist Papers.” They became the basis upon which the American Constitution was written. As to Eliot, he is Eliot Engel, a latter-day member of the House of Representatives, and he happens to be a Jew.

That's not the only difference between the two. The first group, believes that human beings are endowed with the power of reason and the gift of speech. When differences of opinion arise among them, the three counsel by their example, that human beings should get into a debate and try to convince each other of one's own point of view. In fact, this is how the three authors contributed to the production of the Federalist Papers.

As to Eliot Engel, he seems to believe that the way to convince someone of one's point of view, is to go about it the way that animals do. That is, he would urge you to try convincing others of how you feel by growling and gesturing, thus generating coercion and producing fear in your opponent. Eliot Engel wants you to do things the way that animals do, employing neither reason nor well-articulated speeches.

In addition to hundreds of other articles, you can see this trend in the article that was written by the staff of the New York Post, and in the column that was written by Elder of Ziyon, published on the Jewish website, Algemeiner. The piece in the Post came under the title: “Eliot Engel rips Ilhan Omar for 'vile anti-Semitic slur,'” published on March 2, 2019.  As to the Ziyon column, it came under the title: “Like Trump, Ilhan Omar Uses Her Platform to Spread Hate,” published on March 4, 2019.

The Jews who immigrated into America in large numbers before the Arabs or the Muslims, met with little or no push-back for their weird behavior, from the Europeans that had been in America long before the advent of the Jews. The Europeans “turned the other cheek” because the Jews could easily intimidate them; they whose treatment of Jews in Europe through the centuries, had been brutal. In fact, the Jews found it easy to use the coercive accusation of antisemitism as a weapon to silence anyone that opposed them.

Having sharpened their training in the use of that weapon, and having worked their way into the strategic positions in government and the media throughout North America, the Jews were able to mow us, Arab writers, as we trickled into the continent one at a time. Saying something as innocuous as, “don't believe the negative propaganda about us, we're actually civilized,” was like walking into a field surrounded by a thousand sharpshooters, each equipped with a high-speed machine gun, pumping millions of bullets into you for daring to exercise the right to free speech. We didn't have a chance, and many of us moved on to making a living in professions that did not stir the Jewish paranoia.

As our numbers grew in North America with the passage of time, the survivors among us were able to dull the edge of the Jewish weapon just enough to allow for a new crop of Arab and Muslim newcomers (born here or immigrants) to work their way into the system and challenge the supreme positions that the Jews had secured for themselves.

Despite the fact that we are the authentic Semites whereas the Jews are pretenders, they uncrated the accusation of antisemitism, and used it against us to legitimize, even institutionalize the use of the animal method of coercion and intimidation to settle scores, rather than use the human method of open debate as suggested by Hamilton, Madison and Jay.

That is, instead of playing the game of democracy by countering every point with a counterargument, every argument with a differing opinion and every premise with a push-back, the Jews did the equivalent of responding to the opposition — Arab or otherwise — by going behind them to a higher authority, and plunging a knife in the back of those who sought to engage the Jews in a serious debate.

The Jews did this by kneecapping the opposition's ability to reach out to an audience, by mugging into silence anyone that dared to point out the lies they were spreading, and by shooting dead every attempt to unveil and parse the non-Jewish side of the relevant issues.

The Jews did it to avoid getting into a debate with the Arabs and/or the Muslims who might expose them as the emperor that has no clothes.

Now that things are changing in unexpected ways, it would be wise for Eliot Engel to read some of the Federalist Papers before opening his mouth again. That's because the gesture will go a long way toward covering his imperial naked ass.

The diminutive Worth of Steven Emerson

Do you know what they say about someone like Steven Emerson? They say that if he were twice the man he is today, he would still be worth less than half the woman that is Ilhan Omar.

This is because Steven Emerson is a cowardly little thing that's lacking the guts to get into a serious debate with a woman, he knows is a moral giant compared to the mini set of morals that govern his daily conduct. He knows this to be true because that's what he is through and through.

And if you want to know all about it, you can read the article he wrote under the title: “Ilhan Omar Spews More Antisemitism,” published on March 1, 2019 in the Jewish publication, Algemeiner.

There was a time when any Jew could accuse someone of “antisemitism” — whatever that meant at any given time — and the Americans would take the accusation as gospel truth without asking for an explanation, and without probing into the matter. The consequences for the accused — most of whom being innocent individuals — were so brutal that the critical part of any debate pertaining to the activities of Israel in the Middle East and those of Jews in America, was effectively killed. What the debaters were allowed to do was praise Israel and the Jews, and say nothing more … as per the example you'll see in a minute.

Things have changed a little since those dark days, and this was enough to panic the Jews. They responded to what they see as a challenge by going all out, and making the effort to revive the paradigm that prevailed during what they consider to have been the golden era of their dominance. These were the days when the Jews ruled over America's marketplace of ideas with an iron fist. They are the days that the Jews greatly miss and wish to bring back.

The accusation of antisemitism was the weapon that helped the Jews conquer America half a century ago, and that's what they wield less effectively at this time. Their current aim is to prevent America from breaking completely free from their grip. This, in fact, is what you'll detect in the Steven Emerson article. It is also what you'll encounter in every presentation done by a Jew that pretends to be hurt by those exercising the right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment in the American Bill of Rights.

The truth of the matter is that Israel grants automatic Israeli citizenship to every Jew and to everyone in the world that converts to Judaism. And there is no record of anyone rejecting this privilege. Thus, every Jew in America has dual citizenship which means they all have dual loyalty. This makes it so that when a Jew takes up the cause of Israel, he or she does it out of loyalty to Israel. The Jews can blow their lungs all they want yelling this is not the case, but the more they yell, the more they convict themselves.

In fact, the Jews that display their pro-Israel stance most constantly and most fanatically, are the ones who protest most loudly for being viewed as being motivated by dual loyalty. Their aim today is the same as it was decades ago: to kill the debate before it starts. These people do not want to tell their side of the story; they want to hide it. They do not want to set the record straight; there is nothing straight about their schemes. What these people do in reality, is act on the morbid fear of getting into a debate where they know they'll be swatted like a fly that entered a room where flies are not supposed to go.

When someone is this small and this scared, what they do in lieu of entering into a debate with someone they know is their intellectual superior — is run to someone high up, and beg them to silence, even punish, the one that seeks to engage them in an open debate. But silence and punishment is what Steven Emerson is trying to inflict on Ilhan Omar, as you'll see in the article that he wrote. What follows is a condensed version of his pitiful cry for help:

“For Ilhan Omar, it's the cover of Rolling Stone magazine and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She may thus assume that she can continue to [speak] without consequences. She raised a dual loyalty canard against critics of her antisemitism. In defending herself against claims she's an antisemite, she said that Israel's supporters are trying to push for allegiance to a foreign country. She prompted critics to call for her removal from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She got the cover of Rolling Stone instead. What price will she pay for pushing the dual loyalty thing? Maybe they'll promote her to chairwoman”.

So here you have it, an example of how the Jews trample on the American Constitution. It all started with the Jews accusing Ilhan Omar of being antisemitic for exercising her right to speak freely. She responded by accusing her accusers of being motivated by dual loyalty.

She wants to engage them in a comprehensive debate that would flesh out all the issues pertaining to the subject, but Emerson responded with a loud whine. He cried out that she made it on the cover of the Rolling Stone magazine, and that she was appointment to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

And so, he suggested that Ilhan Omar should be pushed out of that committee. What can be more Jewish and more wretched than that?

All Hat and no Cattle. All Tea and no Kettle

Israel being a parody of life, it is not surprising that you can find a saying applying to it that may sound like an existing saying and that would convey a similar meaning ... or perhaps not.

'All hat and no cattle' is a saying that applies to people who pretend to be on top of a situation but are not. Some people believe that this saying applies to Jews more than anyone, if not exclusively to them. But if you look around, you'll discover that in this era where success depends on making others believe that the size of the hat you wear, mirrors the size of the cattle you maintain back home — it is not surprising to discover that the saying applies to all kinds of people, and not exclusively to Jews.

There is, however, one saying that applies exclusively to Jews. It is one that would have to go like this: 'All tea and no kettle.' It would be an offshoot of the saying that goes: 'This is a case of the tea calling the kettle black.' It applies to people that cause something bad to happen to someone, and then chide that someone for what happened to them. You can see how this applies squarely to the Jews; being the group that continually robs the Palestinians of their heritage, then chide the Palestinians for losing their heritage.

The saying applies to the Jews in Israel, of course; also to their supporters outside of Israel. A case that demonstrates how these people operate, is furnished by Bret Stephens who wrote a column under the title: “Time for Netanyahu to Go,” and the subtitle: “Israel's prime minister increasingly resembles America's 37th president.” The column was published on March 2, 2019 in the New York Times.

Here is the passage in which Stephens accuses Netanyahu of being more interested in his own political interests than he is about the morality of what he does to promote those interests: “Netanyahu is a man for whom no moral consideration comes before political interest and whose chief political interest is himself. He is a cynic wrapped in an ideology inside a scheme … Nor is the blight simply moral”.

Unable to suppress the reality that he is, himself, as immoral as Netanyahu, and as unaware of his shortcomings as him, Bret Stephens goes on to say this: “Jews the world over face a swelling and increasingly deadly tide of anti-Semitism, while Zionism has become a dirty word … To have the prime minister lend credence to the [saying] that Zionism is racism by bringing racists into his coalition emboldens the assault on Israel. It weakens a central element in the defense of Israel and the Jews: moral self-confidence. Netanyahu's behavior jeopardizes that confidence”.

In other words, Bret Stephens is making the point that the image of Israel abroad, not morality, is what counts the most as far as he is concerned. That is, if it wasn't for the fact that humanity considers Zionism to be as repugnant as racism, he would not be objecting to Netanyahu bringing Zionist-style racists into his governing coalition. But the world is watching, laments Bret Stephens, and this reality requires at least the pretense of morality on the part of the prime minister of Israel.

Well then, we can only view that stance as being a case of the tea that is Bret Stephens — having spent his career up to now in the promotion of Zion's racist causes — accusing Benjamin Netanyahu of not considering the apparent immorality of his politics. That is, while Stephens is a bag of tea, he just discovered that Netanyahu is as much a bag of tea as he is. Well, it seems that searching among the Jews at this time, you’ll encounter only tea bags and no kettle to speak of. Will Bret Stephens go back to the embrace of Zion's racism when this episode will be over?

When all will be said and done — and in the interest of fairness — we must ask another question. It is this: 'What does Bret Stephens really want?' Well, going through his column, we encounter hints as to what he hopes will happen in Israel. Here are the relevant passages:

“In matters of policy and execution, Netanyahu has been effective. On his watch, Israel's enemies have been humiliated. Thanks to Donald Trump, he brought the American Embassy to Jerusalem and pursued openings with the Arab world without making irreversible concessions to the Palestinians. From an Israeli standpoint they are considerable successes. But Netanyahu's legacy has been tarred by his appeals to bigotry. Lest it be forgotten, both Gants and Lapid [a rising opposition] are veterans of Netanyahu's governments”.

So here it is in black and white. While the idea of humiliating one's enemies may not necessarily point to racism, it is surely a consideration that looms large in the imagination of the hardcore racists. As well, robbing the Palestinians of their patrimony in Jerusalem and giving it to the Jews can only be the exercise of a racist stance.

Another thing that may not be fundamentally racist but very much the stance of a rascal, is that Bret Stephens praised Netanyahu for making concessions to win the goodwill of the Arabs, while harboring the intent to reverse those concessions after obtaining what he came for. Well then, my friend, has a Jew ever been anything but that? Will a Jew ever be anything but that?

Stephens says he would have concurred with all that, except that Netanyahu blew it while practicing open rather than subtle appeals to bigotry.

But all is not lost, says Stephens, because the newly formed opposition to Netanyahu has a good chance of turning out to be a clone of him. It will be a clone in terms of governance, says Stephens, without carrying the burden of Netanyahu’s disregard for the public relations value that is inherent to what he says and does.

A literary Body Language that must be discarded

Surely evolution could not have happened, and we would not be here, were it not for the force of gravity that attracted the elementary particles and allowed the electromagnetic, weak and nuclear forces to bind atoms and molecules together, which then formed the organic matter that further evolved and became a variety of specimen, including us.

Thus, we can think of the forces of nature as a form of communication operating among diverse inanimate matter. Their existence has resulted in the formation of products which are no less remarkable than the most advanced inventions our brains could come up with. And then it happened that half a billion years ago the first organisms were formed on Planet Earth, and they communicated among themselves via the exchange of chemical compounds, thus took evolution a few more notches forward.

Being as evolved as we are, we think of communication as being done almost exclusively through audible speeches and visual signs, which is correct. But the reality is that we have also retained some of the communication methods used by primitive insects. These are the sense of taste and smell, which help us detect and identify information that’s useful to our well-being and survival.

And that's not the whole story. First, think of the fact that to communicate among ourselves at a distance, we have engineered instruments that send sounds and images thousands of miles away using the same electromagnetic force that's used to group together inanimate matter. But what about the lower primates that have not developed speech, yet need to exchange information more complex than can be transmitted through chemical exchanges? What do they do?

What they do is use some form of body language. Most animals have a number of postures wired into their instinct, which they use to communicate to members of their own species, as well as other species, how happy or angry they are about a given situation. Some animals can even be trained to interpret the blink of their masters' eyes, or the smile on their faces or the twitch of their lips … and act on it.

So the question we need to ask is this: Are we humans using something like body language to communicate messages we would not otherwise transmit verbally or pictorially? The answer is yes, and no one does this more frequently than the Jews. In fact, they seem so incapable of living without this habit, they rely on body language even when they communicate via the written speech.

Two articles will help us understand how the Jews do this. One came under the title: “Reps. Omar and Tlaib: Anti-Semitism charges shut down criticism of Israel,” written by Laura Kelly and published on February 27, 2019 in the Jewish Insider. The other article came under the title: “Ilhan Omar Fears Her 'Jewish Colleagues' Are Using Anti-Semitism Charge to Shutdown Debate,” written by Jack Crowe and published on February 28, 2019 in National Review Online.

Kelly's article tells of a gathering that was held in a bookstore cafe. It was attended by the two Muslim women who were newly elected to the House of Representatives. Kelly tells of a very enthusiastic crowd of ordinary Americans that had come to hear the Muslim women explain how the Jews use the charge of anti-Semitism to shut down any debate on Israel. Here is a sample of how the night progressed, according to Laura Kelly:

“Hundreds came to hear the pair speak. Some stood waiting for over an hour outside in the February cold to enter the venue. 'We're here to represent the voice of the people who have been silenced for many generations,' Omar announced to raucous applause. Questions on anti-Semitism and Israel ignited the fiercest passions of those in the audience, 'It is about the Benjamins,' shouted one audience member to laughter and acclaim”.

Whereas Laura Kelly's approach to reporting on that event was done in accordance with the accepted rules of journalism, the Jack Crowe approach was anything but that. To begin with, instead of stressing the enthusiasm of the crowd of ordinary Americans to the full message of their fellow Muslim Americans, Crowe zeroed in on the insignificant moment when Ilhan Omar pushed back against accusations of anti-Semistism leveled against her by people like himself.

And Jack Crowe did not stop there. He went on to fully deploy a literary kind of body language, doing it in a cowardly attempt to distort what the two women had accomplished that night. Here is what he said:

“Omar trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes before being elected, as evidenced by a tweet in which she accused Israel of 'hypnotizing the world.' Having endorsed the notion that Israel 'hypnotized the world,' Omar attributed support for Israel to the Benjamins, or hundred-dollar bills donated by Jews”.

If you've been interested in how children learn about the world before they begin to speak, you would know that they absorb useful information through the body language of the adults around them. For example, if you softly say bad things while smiling, they'll take it that you’re saying something good. And if you angrily shout good things, they'll take it that you’re saying something bad.

If now, someone that pretends to have expertise in a field, utters nonsense while frowning to convey a sense of concern, even the adults around him will come to believe there must be something significant that escapes them in the nonsense he just uttered.

Well, the Jews fake this kind of posture all the time. In fact, almost everything they call trope, and use to accuse others of anti-Semitism, is a nonsense that means nothing. This is why the Jews never explain how or why, something they call trope, would point to anti-Semitism. Their latest use of this cheap trick is calling anti-Semitic trope the observation that Israel has hypnotized the world.

Inserted twice in the Jack Crowe article, this is a piece of nonsensical body language that is as good as any piece of trash you would discard and move on.

If barred at the front Door, try the back Door

How did America get the idea of being the policeman of the world? Well, several occurrences coincided in time for this to happen, the most important being the Second World War and what led to it in terms of the European quarrels that began in the nineteenth century concerning the distribution of the colonial spoils.

Having dragged America into the two European Wars of the twentieth century (misnamed World Wars,) it was inevitable for America to see itself as policeman by virtue of having contributed to ending the inter-European quarrels. But it was this American success that made Britain's Winston Churchill realize that his country will be ceding its dominance of the world to America.

Seeing that he and Britain will become irrelevant in world affairs, Churchill schemed to make himself become a part of the American decision-making process. To this end, he painted the Soviet Union as the bogeyman that the “free world” must guard against, lest it dominate the world. Thus, Churchill succeeded at inciting America to start the Cold War and retain him as adviser.

The outcome of that move was the rise of a hectic arms race between the two superpowers and their allies; a race that lasted nearly half a century. For a while after that, both the Cold War and the arms race seemed to abate following the fall of the Berlin Wall. But ominous signs are beginning to surface at this time, to the effect that the arms race might resume again. It even threatens to escalate more rapidly than ever before.

The principles of colonialism being at the root of what caused the two Great European Wars, the colonial powers of yesteryear forever renounced resorting to the activities of that era ever again. But the Jews, who suffered as much, if not more than anyone during the Second War, had a different idea. Hungry to kick the Palestinians out of their country and take it for themselves, the Jews worked to revive and normalize the idea of colonialism, not just for themselves in Palestine, but for every so-called democratic country that might have the wherewithal to attack and dominate another country.

This is how the Jews got the idea that America's rise to become policeman of the world must have been a sign that divine providence was involved. They promoted the idea under the pretense that the world is inherently unstable and that only America can bring stability to it. But in reality, the Jews were thinking that America must strive to bring about a Pax Americana under their tutelage. They proceeded in that vein using the Churchill model as blueprint to guide their steps ahead.

Several decades into this kind of machinations got the Jews and America nowhere as the latter kept losing lives and borrowed wealth with nothing to show for its futile efforts. This is why Clifford D. May, who was and remains a strong advocate of the principles behind Pax Americana, has finally conceded that a shift in tactics is in order to keep alive the dream of world domination. He is now saying forget about being policeman of the world; let's make America sheriff of the world. Which is like saying forget about getting into the Nirvana of Pax Americana using the front door; let's try to get in through the back door.

Clifford May wrote an article to that effect under the title: “America as sheriff, not a policeman,” published on February 26, 2019 in The Washington Times. In it, the author describes the differences between being a policeman and a sheriff: “I'm not going to make a case for America as global policeman. But what if the United States were to see itself not as a policeman but a sheriff instead? Unlike the cop on the beat, the lawman in the Wild West will appoint deputies, and raise a posse to stop the worst outlaws from riding roughshod throughout the territory”.

And Clifford May gave his reason as to why this is necessary. He said this: “The United Nations isn't up to the task and never will be. But if no one stands up to international thugs and gangsters, they take over. Isolationists were disastrously wrong in the 1930s when they contended that the United States should do nothing to stop the Nazis”.

What seems to escape Clifford May and those like him, is that the events of the 1930s are being repeated today by no one but Israel. It is annexing lands that belong to other peoples, and colonizing them as did the Nazi imperialists of a bygone era. When Iraq's Saddam Hussein tried to do likewise in Kuwait, America raised an Arab posse at the request of the Arabs themselves. Together, the partners kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in a flawless operation that won America praise from many quarters around the globe. It is worth noting that Israel tried to be a part of the posse but was told to buzz off.

As if to score its sweet little revenge, Israel teamed up with the Jews of America, and engineered an American return to Iraq under the pretext that there was a need to “finish the job” in Iraq. This meant the invasion of the country by ground troops, something that is done after the complete destruction of the country's infrastructure by an intense air bombardment that sends the country into the proverbial Stone Age.

This is what happened to Iraq, and the reverberations continue to shake the Levant as well as Europe to this day, sixteen years later.

Hungry for more of the same, the Jews want to permanently institutionalize this kind of performance, which is why they called on Clifford May to make a case for appointing America sheriff for now with the view of promoting it to policeman of the world at some point in the future.

They never give up, and they never escape the punishment.