Political Charles Manson lecturing on Morality

Imagine Satan finding Charles Manson to be too evil a character to keep in Hell much longer. He gives him back his earthly appearance and returns him to Earth.

Satan tells everyone who wants to know and everyone who doesn't, that he took this step to give himself a breather, unable to stand the guy anymore, and for the sake of the other sinners who find Manson too devilish to spend an eternity rotting with him in Hell. Whether anyone believed Satan is another thing.

In any case, back on Earth, Charles Manson pulls a trick he knows will work on the gullible Americans like a charm. What he does is pretend to be a saint on a mission to teach humanity how to live the moral life. And so, he gets himself a talent agent who books him on a lecture tour that takes Manson across the country where he preaches gibberish pretending that it is high morality.

He gives his lecture the title, “China is showing its true nature in Hong Kong” and the subtitle, “The US must not watch from the sidelines.” He signs it by his pen name: Marco Rubio, and cons the editors of The Washington Post into believing that the piece deserves being printed so that the whole world will have access to it and become better people. The editors of the Post fall for the pitch and print the thing on September 3, 2019.

Now that Marco Manson Rubio knows the world has access to the venomous fruits of his morality, he finds the time to go schmooze with his old comrades at the bottom of the demonic snake pit that calls itself The Hypnotic Jewish Lobby of the Benjamins. But the gathering quickly turns into a working session, and Rubio the Mansonite is asked to participate in the debate.

The comrades gather around the table where they go over what the Manson of the political world has been doing so as to determine how well he has performed lately. They were told that their aim should be to identify weaknesses in Marco's performance, if any, and determine what advice he may need to improve his future performances. Among those at the table is an apprentice that says he did his homework, and is ready to move into the application phase of his demonic work.

A few seconds into the session, and one of the comrades cries out: What a genius this Marco Manson! Everybody lifts their head to hear the rest of the exaltation. And the crier goes on to explain: Look how Charles the Rubio of the Mansons started the lecture he is giving to the bipartisan zombies of the political graveyard in America. He said this: “By choosing violence and intimidation to silence Hong Kong, the Chinese Communist Party is once again showing its true nature.” Check him out!

A second comrade signals that he is checking. Moments later, he mumbles this: I see it now. The Marco de Manson, who never fails to stand in the empty chamber of the US Senate to praise Israel's frequent military rampages against the disarmed people of Palestine, has done it in spades this time. Whereas the Jews of Israel get praised by the Manson for killing scores of Palestinians that do nothing worse than flash the V sign using the index and middle fingers, Rubio the hypo-hypocrite is chiding the Chinese for the violence they did not commit, but violence they endured when committed by the Hong Kong agitators.

Yet another comrade finds something worth mentioning in the Marco Manson lecture. He reads the passage aloud for the benefit of his colleagues. It goes like this: “The extradition bill is one of China's many broken promises to the Hong Kong people and the world. The Chinese Communist Party is preventing the city's government from acting with the autonomy that Beijing had promised to the people of the city in a legally binding treaty with Britain.” The comrade goes on to comment that when Rubio (who robs America of its wealth to gift Israel every time it breaks a legally binding agreement) complains about the Chinese breaking a promise, it is like Epstein complaining that the girl he is waiting for stood him up.

And this is the point at which the apprentice stands up and praises Marco the demonic Manson. He removes the disguises that made him look like a young apprentice, to reveal that he is actually the one and only Satan, ruler of the Kingdom of Hell. He explains that he decided to retire but wanted to choose his successor before going away. He had several eligible candidates for the position in the hellhole where they'll remain to eternity, but when he was about to choose one of them, he heard of the work that Marco Rubio was doing for the Jewish lobby in a place called America.

And so, Satan decided to stage this get together to see if the Marco of the Manson-ilk would pass the test. He says that Marco Rubio proved to be made entirely of biological cells that spell the word: hypocrisy. There is no one in Hell or on Earth that comes close to being a double-faced sponsor of mass-murder in Palestine, like a hypnotized Marco Rubio on the take from those who distribute the Benjamins.

For these reasons, Satan has decided to hand his hellish throne to Marco Rubio, the political Charles Manson and member of the useless Senate in America.

Guessing the Run of History before it happens

An interesting article appeared in the online magazine called Project Syndicate under the title: “Trump's Effect on US Foreign Policy,” written by Joseph S. Nye, Jr., and published on September 4, 2019.

Joseph Nye says he is not really interested in participating in the debate about foreign policy, but will use the fact that it is ongoing to try answering the longstanding question that goes like this: Are major historical outcomes the product of human choices or are they largely the result of overwhelming structural factors produced by economic and political forces beyond our control?

And that's a good topic in which to delve. Early in his article, Joseph Nye summarized, in half a paragraph, where the two major schools of thought stand regarding that subject. He put it this way:

“Some analysts liken the flow of history to a rushing river, whose course is shaped by the climate, rainfall, geology, and topography, not by whatever the river carries. But even if this were so, human agents are not simply ants clinging to a log swept along by the current. They are more like white-water rafters trying to steer and fend off rocks, occasionally overturning and sometimes succeeding in steering to a desired destination”.

This is a good effort, but I believe it needs improvement. Here is why: Whether we are ants clinging to a log swept by the current or we are rafters steering and fending off rocks, the analogy suggests that we are not altering the course of the river. Since we do alter history by our actions, it cannot be that the river represents history. If so, we must think of history as being our trajectory in the water, where we remain confined to the space between the two banks of the river, unable to affect its course, therefore unable to alter history. From this, it can be seen that the analogy isn't working as well as it should.

We must think of another analogy. And so, instead of the river, we think of time as the element that flows at a constant rate. Also, instead of thinking of ants and rafters, we recognize the reality that if Hitler were assassinated early on, the millions of people who were killed during the Second World War, would have lived. And the millions more that left the Old World for the New World and the other places to escape the ravages of the war, will not have left Europe.

Thus, the consequences of not having World War II on the demography of Europe, the Americas, Australia and the other places around the world, would have been different from what they are now, as would be the history of these places and the life that we all live today. In fact, very few of the people alive today would have come into existence to begin with. I would not have existed to write this article, and you would most probably not have existed to read it.

So then, how can we improve on the Joseph Nye analogy? To do that, we need to think of something that is constant by its nature, but one that can be modulated by an outside force. The electromagnetic wave fills that requirement. It has a tempo we call frequency that remains constant. Serving as a carrier frequency, the wave has an amplitude that can be modulated by another wave of another frequency. And the marriage of the two waves will create a tune we can think of as one version of history from among the infinite number of versions that can be had.

As long as the amplitude of the modulating frequency remains inferior to that of the carrier frequency, the tune that is created remains within the bounds of what's acceptable. But if someone with the disruptive intent of a Hitler comes along, he will generate a modulating wave that exceeds the amplitude of the carrier wave. This is when history will get distorted and become unpredictable.

When caught in turbulent times, is there an approach we can take to determine ahead of time what course of action we must take to avoid being on the wrong side of history when all will have been said, and will have been done? To answer that question, we first recall the saying that warns of the reality that the course of history is never obvious at the start, but always logical when viewed in hindsight at the end.

This suggests that the unfolding of history is patterned after the structure of the dramatic story. In fact, a well written drama is supposed to surprise the audience with every one of its twists and turns while the story is unfolding. But when the play ends, and you look back at what happened, you realize that the unfolding of the narrative was making perfect logical sense all along. It is good to know this because it can help us decide on a course of action that will put us on the right side of history.

Think of it this way: In drama, we may not determine ahead of time how the play will unfold from scene to scene. What we can do, however, is determine early on who the characters are and what they want. This done, we'll be able to tell what kind of trajectory the story might take, and what kind of ending it is liable to have.

And that's good enough for us. It's because in a similar fashion, we can observe and determine the character of those we encounter in real life, as well as what they want. Doing this, will help us predict to what sort of ending these characters intend to take us.

Based on this, we can make an informed decision as to how we should proceed.

The Sameness that pretends to be different

There are many words in English and the other languages to express a difference of opinion between two or more interlocutors.

One of those words is “chicanery” which, to my understanding, conveys a disagreement that’s laced with a sense of deception. This would be an attempt, not only to deceive the opponent, but also the reality of an engagement in self-deception.

Most of the time, chicanery happens when there has been a falling out between people that were very close to each other such as members of the same family, or between friends who were so close, they interacted almost like members of the same family.

A disinterested observer that wants to follow these chicaneries, will find the two sides engaged in this kind of arguments to be so alike, he'll get the impression, not of two individuals arguing against each other, but of one individual arguing against his own reflection in the mirror. The observer will notice that neither side realizes he is saying the same thing as the one on the other side of the divide.

Whereas chicanery takes place in most part between people who are close to each other, it can on rare occasions, take place between people who are far apart from each other. One group of people that is disposed to get into chicanery with others –– be they close friends, not so close friends or strangers –– are the Jews. They play the game of interchangeability to the hilt by accusing the others of the defects they see in themselves while describing the self by the virtues they see in others.

Knowing this about the Jews, will help the reader better understand how Clifford D. May who wrote an article under the title: “The Islamic Republic lashes out,” and the subtitle, “Iran's rulers threaten an American think tank – mine,” sees the Iran situation he is describing. And the reader will realize that the description he or she is reading, is but a mirror image of how the Iranians see Clifford May and what he represents. The article was published on September 3, 2019 in The Washington Times.

In the same way that in his writings, Clifford May has always conveyed the view that the Iranian regime is interchangeable with its proxies … in turn, the Iranians have always conveyed the view that America, Israel and the Jewish-American propaganda machine are interchangeable. Also, in the same way that Clifford May considers Tehran to be responsible for anything that is uttered or committed by Hezbollah or Hamas or Islamic Jihad ... the Iranians consider Zionism to be responsible for anything that is uttered or committed by the State Department, Clifford May's Foundation or the Pentagon.

And so, you'll find that for every narrative that Clifford May cares to articulate, the Iranians have a counter-narrative that is almost identical. In fact, when reading Clifford May's writings on Iran, you may as well imagine him wearing the turban of an Ayatollah and standing in front of the mirror talking to himself. Here is what he says in his latest article:

“The Iranian regime has been behind terrorist attacks and assassination plots in the Middle East, Europe, Latin America and the United States. At the same time, it's been building an empire. Hezbollah works hand-in-glove with international drug cartels. Shia militias are ensconced in Iraq and Syria, where half a million Arabs have been killed and millions more left homeless. The Iranians have grown accustomed to America and the international community doing not a damn thing”.

And here is the counterargument with which his mirror image might want to respond:

The Zionist regime has been behind military and economic terror attacks designed to starve and annihilate Muslims in the Middle East, the Far East and Africa. At the same time, the regime has been building an empire on the sacred land of Palestine. Its agents and arms merchants work hand-in-glove with anyone that would take a bribe. Zionist agents are ensconced everywhere in the Muslim world where millions of Palestinian Arabs and others have been killed and millions more left homeless. The Zionists have grown accustomed to America and the international community doing not a damn thing.

So, the question to ask is this: How do you end this seemingly perpetual cycle that has trapped the Jews in its throes for thousands of years? Well, there is only one way to do it, and that's for one side to make the first step at pulling back. The move will be reciprocated by the other side, and the process will be repeated till the tension between the two sides will have disappeared completely.

But who will decide which of the two must take that first step? The answer is that logic will make that decision. In fact, it is easy to figure that one out. It is that the side which has advanced the most, should be the first to pull back.

Looking at the situation on the ground, we see that America is in Iran's backyard whereas Iran is nowhere near America's backyard. This says that America has advanced the most, which dictates that it be the one to begin the process of pulling back. When this is done, Iran will have a reason to reciprocate.

It's not McCarthyism to sense a Cheney Treason

Do you remember the old saying: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck? Well then, by that same reasoning, it can be said that the Cheney family –– first the father and now the daughter –– are walking and quacking like a couple of blackmailed traitors, forced to serve Israel by ruining America and sending its young to die in foreign wars … all of this in fulfillment of the Judeo-Israeli agenda.

For health reasons and for a total loss of credibility, Dick Cheney, the father prefers to stay out of sight. He was the one that picked himself to be vice-president to George W. Bush (43). The moment he got into the office, he went right ahead and started to usurp the powers of the presidency. This completed, Dick Cheney turned around and handed those powers to the most dangerous kind of Jews alive today: those who call themselves Jewish children of Holocaust survivors. Imagine having such horrible creatures in charge of a superpower's military and its financial institutions.

These characters were the ones that planned and executed the invasion of Iraq, an adventure that cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars in wasted wealth and the respect of a world that used to worship America for its accomplishments during the Second World War but now thinks of it as the private restroom of Israel's Likud Party. And that's not to forget the aftermath of Iraq's invasion: a horror show that continues to reverberate throughout the Levant as well as many parts of the Middle East and Europe.

Now that America has become the laughingstock of the world, you would think that the Jews, who received so much already from that country while costing it incalculable losses, would leave it alone. But no, the Jews are not leaving America alone to look after its own people. They paralyzed its institutions and diverted every ounce of political energy it has, to respond to the whimsical demands of every little fart that calls himself a Jew in need of immediate attention.

The Jews have managed to accomplish all that by recruiting treasonous characters in public life such as the Cheneys. Having a closet full of undiluted filth on that family, the Jews continue to use the leverage they have to force Liz Cheney the daughter, to keep ruining America. She does it by advocating the dispatch of its young to die in costly foreign wars in fulfillment of the Judeo-Israeli agenda. Liz Cheney is doing this much, knowing full well that even if the soldiers were to survive the war, they'll come home so riddled with the unbearable burden of guilt and regret, they'll most likely commit suicide. It is what they do now at the rate of seven and a half thousands of them a year … year after year after year.

After half a century of near dictatorial Jewish rule in America, the “subjects” who were elected to serve the American masses but served their Jewish masters instead –– are finally beginning to wake up and reconsider their attitude of total obedience to every little fart that calls himself a Jew in need of immediate attention. Two of those subjects have at long last shown willingness to dissent.

They are Jared Olsen and Tyler Lindholm, both Republican members of the Wyoming state House. They wrote an article in which they publicly stated their profound disagreement with what Liz Cheney is trying to pull at this time. The title of their article is, “Liz Cheney should stop carping at Trump for rejecting endless war,” published on September 3, 2019 in The Washington Examiner.

After a short introduction telling what Liz Cheney has been doing to fulfill the Judeo-Israeli agenda, which she does by preventing everyone else––including President Trump––from looking after America's interests, the two authors described the situation as follows:

“Liz Cheney recently complained that adoption of the peace agreement Trump is pursuing would be conceding defeat to al Qaeda. We strongly disagree. We urge Cheney to stop publicly criticizing our commander-in-chief and pushing the US toward another endless war in the Middle East, where the men and women of America's armed forces have been deployed and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq for a generation. Rather than publicly criticize Trump's judgment, she should give him the benefit of the doubt, if he shows restraint based on the intelligence and options he has before him, and if he moves to bring our troops home. The last thing the American people, our troops, and veterans want is another endless war, and most Americans want the ones we're in now to end. After two decades, US taxpayers and military families are tired of financing and policing other people's wars, at the price of American blood and trillions of tax dollars. Liz Cheney should stop attacking the President when he acts to end America's endless wars”.

The days when every little fart that calls himself a Jew in need of immediate attention, getting his way in America, are on their way out. Unless the Jews can engineer a “deliberate” accident to happen at the hands of a supposedly deranged actor, America should be on its way to become a normal country again.

In any case, to make certain that some unforeseen event will not derail America, throwing it off the path to normalcy it has just taken, every American should suspect characters such as the Cheneys, the Rubios, the Cruzes, the Cottons and the Grahams.

For some weird reason, these characters want the world to believe they have fallen so madly in love with Israel, they would sell their own mothers into prostitution if it pleases the Jews.

Any normal person can see that to be suspicious of these horrible operators, and to denounce them forcefully and publicly, does not constitute a revival of McCarthyism. It is just the normal thing to do.

A Call to a militarist Posture by another Name

A popular saying goes like this: “know who your friends are and who your enemies are.” Good advice, but how can you separate your true friends from the enemies that act as your friends? This is a good question that requires a detailed in-depth response.

If you think of life as a journey that we all take through time, it is easy to imagine that everyone else is a fellow traveler on the same journey. We can also think that the journey is made of two parts. There is the distance we travel when we go somewhere, and there is the destination where we end up.

What usually happens as the journey moves on, is that a group of people will signal their antipathy toward us. We know they have become our enemies for one reason or another. If necessity compels us to transact with them, we should do so carefully. Another group of people will deal with us as neither friends nor foes. We should maintain a correct posture toward them till such time that a bond has developed between us, and we become friends. And then there is a third group of people.

This last group is made of an assortment of people who are (1) genuine friends we enjoy being with; (2) naturally nice people who might someday become our friends; (3) temporary friends who are here today sponging on us, and gone tomorrow when the well will run dry; (4) charlatans who pretend to be our friends while working on a nefarious plan they will execute upon reaching one of the destinations ahead.

The trickiest part of our journey through life, is to separate the genuine friends from the charlatans who pretend to be our friends while preparing to pull a fast one as they play a little game on us. Whether or not they intend to hurt us, this will happen when we reach our destination and they unfurl their game. To protect ourselves, we must find a way to sort out the good friends from the charlatans without signaling that we're testing someone's sincerity.

Because there is not a full-proof method by which we can identify who is who, we'll go over an actual case and analyze it in such a way as to generate useful insights we can use when analyzing other cases. To this end, we pick an article that came under the title: “The flaw in Trump's maximum pressure campaign toward Iran,” written by Dennis Ross and Dana Stroul, and published on August 29, 2019 in The Washington Post.

Think of the article as a journey that's dotted with small destinations along the way, and has the one important destination where you're going at the end. If Dennis Ross and Dana Stroul are genuine friends of yours, they will not pull a fast one upon reaching that last destination. But if they are charlatans bent on doing something that might get you into trouble, you need to develop a way to find out before you get there. The secret to your success at discovering their intent, lies in the smaller destinations along the way. You can use them to probe what goes on inside the head of the two authors.

So, let's go through the article they wrote, and see if any of the small destinations along the way, are flying the red flag of danger. In fact, we see a number of these flags lining up as follows:

“Trump says his maximum-pressure on Iran is working. If only that were true. A strategy based on starving Tehran of money will not compel changes in behavior. In Syria, Iran-backed groups are not suffering from salary cuts. Hezbollah has not called home its fighters from Syria. In Yemen, Iran-supported Houthi fighters are intensifying their attacks against Saudi Arabia. In Gaza, Iran is increasing funding to Hamas. The budget reductions in Iran did not translate into reduced threats in the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian cyber command was the nexus in attacks on America's government, communication and internet infrastructure. The pattern does not back the Trump line that maximum pressure is working. A successful strategy toward Iran must be based on political isolation, along with the credible threat of military force. Unfortunately, Trump has signaled unwillingness to use military force. His missteps have emboldened Iran's leaders. Iran will not be sanctioned into changing its behavior. A successful policy comes from the threat of meaningful consequences”.

We notice that Ross and Stroul began the discussion by denouncing President Trump for making the false claim that his strategy of maximum pressure on Iran is working. This done, the writers cited six examples about which they asserted that the strategy has failed. These were the minor destinations you might have used to determine what goes on inside their heads.

You would have interviewed Ross and Stroul face to face and asked them to explain how they would remedy the situation in Syria or Yemen or Hormuz or Gaza, for example. Proposing solutions would have indicated they were sincere in trying to solve the problem. Otherwise, their disinterest in finding a solution, would have indicated they were preparing to commit a nefarious act upon reaching the last destination.

But you're not interviewing them face to face. Instead, they wrote an article for which they had ample time to think about and explain what they had in mind. What they came up with, is what you see at the end of their article, which is the ultimate destination of the journey.

What you see there, is a push for the same old military confrontation with Iran; an adventure that is meant to serve the interests of the Jews and Israel … which can only happen by diminishing America.

From this, you determine that Dennis Ross, Dana Stroul and all those like them are not your friends. They are the deadliest enemies that you or anyone can have.

You'll do yourselves a big favor by cutting Israel loose and by distancing yourselves from the likes of Ross, Stroul and all those like them as much as possible.

The timeless Pendulum Lesson is lost on them

Ever since it was discovered that the pendulum is the mechanism by which time can be measured accurately, the idea of events recurring in cycles took hold. Aside from a few exceptions, most cultures have come to accept the notion that what's happening today has happened yesterday. They also came to accept the rule that it will happen again tomorrow because such is the cyclical rhythm of life.

One of the exceptions to that rule, are the Jews who planted themselves into the past so solidly, they lost cognizance of the concept which refers to the passage of time. To the Jews, the present is the permanent representation of the past, a condition they believe will remain static till the advent of the messiah who will establish a set of new circumstances and make it the unchanging reality in a future that will last to eternity.

An article that helps the study of this condition came under the title: “Ignoring anti-Semitic assaults signals that Jewish blood doesn't matter when it can't easily be politically exploited,” written by Philip Klein and published on August 30, 2019 in the Washington Examiner.

This is where the Jews appear totally oblivious of the reality that danger doesn't happen spontaneously without a good reason but happens as a result of a cause-and-effect that is cyclical in nature. It is cyclical due to the last effect becoming the cause that starts the next cycle.

In fact, the first sentence in the Philip Klein article establishes one of the realities of Jewish misery. It is that the Jews are so lacking in imagination, hundreds wait patiently for one of them to come up with an idea they can peddle as the collective one-voice emanating from the mob of Jewish punditry. When it happens that someone gets hit with a lucky idea, hundreds of them pounce on it, and repeat it ad infinitum, making themselves sound like a disturbed beehive buzzing with excitement.

Here is that first sentence: “Last month, Tablet's Armin Rosen wrote a disturbing piece on the rise of hate crimes against identifiable Jewish New Yorkers, writing, 'Jews are routinely being attacked in the streets of New York City. So why is no one acting like it's a big deal?'” Beside showing that Philip Klein is advancing further the argument started by Armin Rosen, the article demonstrates that the Jews continue to insist that anything happening to them must become a big deal, and that everyone must rally around the beleaguered Jews to protect them. Rosen and Klein want this to become a habit without the Jews taking any responsibility for what's happening to them, and without them doing anything to help others help them. Imagine!

Here again, Philip Klein found a way to blame the inaction of others on both “something else” and “someone else,” rather than blame it––if only partially––on the Jews themselves. So, here it is, in condensed form, what Klein has said in this regard:

“In New York City the situation for observant Jews is quickly devolving … Jews cannot safely walk to synagogue or through the streets wearing a yarmulke without being attacked verbally or physically. This is a disgrace. Why is everybody standing pat as Jews get targeted where they should feel safe? The simple answer is that highlighting the attacks does not provide any clear partisan advantage”.

But then, in the time-honored Jewish tradition of shooting themselves in the foot, Philip Klein shot himself in the foot. He thus nullified what he just said––even went beyond nullification. He did that in two installments, so here is what he said first:

“It would be difficult to tie the attacks in Brooklyn to President Trump or to white nationalism or to Rep. Ilhan Omar. This is a failure of mayor Bill DeBlasio who tweets about anti-Semitism while standing idly by as it rages in his city. It is also the failure of major Jewish organizations that have collected tens of millions in donations to fight anti-Semitism and yet have proven useless in pressuring politicians to take action”.

And here is what Philip Klein went on to say:

“As Rosen wrote, 'The fact that the victims are religious Jews, and the perpetrators are black and Hispanic, inverts the perpetrator-victim dynamics with which Jewish organizations are comfortable.' Anti-Semitism comes in many forms and is not confined to any ideological camp. It is not attached to politics at all. The effective way to fight anti-Semitism is to fight it in all its manifestations, free from political blinders”.

But if nothing tangible and no one alive can be held responsible for what's happening to the Jews, please explain against what or whom should the politicians act? Well, it is evident from the absurdity of the Philip Klein suggestion, that he is missing something. What could it be?

There is only one answer to that question. It is this: The Jews and only the Jews are responsible for what's happening to them. It follows that only they can fix their problem.

They may begin by ending the habit of running to someone and ask them to chastise others for sins they did not commit, while praising the Jews for virtues they never displayed.

When the Jews will have done that, they'll know what it's like to live like normal human beings––that which has eluded them for thousands of years.

You're selective if you reject my Selection

In the neighborhood you might call Southeast Africa, there are two places worth talking about on this day. There is Somalia and there is the Serengeti Desert. We'll come to Somalia in a moment.

As to the Serengeti, an amazing spectacle to behold is that of elephants walking leisurely around and foraging for what edible substance they can find. Walking or hopping behind them are birds waiting for the elephants to defecate so that they may pick what's edible in the poop.

As to the story of Somalia, it has gifted the Western World with two amazing women. One woman got into European politics, took the world by storm, and then moved to America. The other woman came to America as a young girl, got into politics and took the world by storm. The two women showed a keen interest in women's issues but remain poles apart in the way they view this and many other subject matters.

Because they are still young and far from completing the legacy they are destined to build and leave behind, we'll have to wait a while before we can assess what contribution they are making to the betterment of the world. What we can do now, however, is concentrate on the sniping that's coming from certain quarters in America, directed at Ilhan Omar, the Somali girl that grew up to become a formidable force in American politics.

The best way to understand what's happening to Omar, is to develop the image of her as an elephant that's pursued by birds waiting for her to leave behind something they can feed on. One such pursuer is Ida Lichter who is so demanding, she thought she could command Omar what to leave behind that will suit the Jewish beak. To that end, Lichter wrote: “Ilhan Omar's selective attention to women's rights around the world,” published on August 30, 2019 in the New York Daily News.

Ida Lichter has already made her selection. More about that later. But dissatisfied with the one that Ilhan Omar has made, Lichter is telling her to make another selection or be viewed as selective. Of course, Lichter is the Jewish woman that disregarded the plight of women in Judaism from the time when Jewish men had instituted the penalty of stoning women to death, to the banning of women from praying at the Wailing Wall. Instead of writing about these women, Lichter wrote, “Muslim Women Reformers,” and now spends time harassing the likes of Ilhan Omar for not embracing her selection of women or topics.

It’s not too difficult to understand what Ida Lichter is trying to do. It is that we're at the cycle where the Republic of Iran finds itself at the top of the Jewish list for being slandered and subjected to blind hatred. This is happening because every Jew of the Ida Lichter kind, has been directed to follow instructions coming out the Jewish hate machine, asking them to do their part at smearing the Muslim Republic.

Instead of getting to the keyboard of her computer and dishing out an article about the Israeli law which criminalizes non-Jewish foreign female workers and other visitors getting pregnant while in Israel, Ida Lichter wrote her latest article to send a specific message to Ilhan Omar. Here’s how the message reads:

“To her credit, Omar has introduced the Brunei Human Rights Act, which would prevent travel or business in the US for Brunei government officials who implement the country's strict Sharia penal code. But she has failed to similarly sanction leaders of Iran's theocracy”.

As expected, the dumb-dumb Jewish-Australian psycho-musician has failed to cite any natural or artificial law which says that before sanctioning Brunei, you must first sanction Iran. In addition to this shortcoming, the dumb-dumb has disregarded the activities of all the Epsteins and Weinsteins that get into position of power in America and “spare no hole without getting into it.” They do it by consent that’s given under duress or deal with it by forcible entry when consent is denied. Instead of directing her attention to these matters, Ida Lichter wrote the following:

“Somali women are often casualties of female circumcision … Many are also victims of rape by men in their neighborhood, government forces and paramilitaries. The new Somali Sexual Offenses Bill that criminalizes sexual violence against women and children is groundbreaking legislation that Omar could endorse”.

Ida Lichter says there are dozens of women reformers in the Muslim world doing a good job, and she is delighted to write about them. Good for her. But if the cause of women is moving ahead in the Muslim world, should Lichter not turn her attention to the darkness that oversexed Jewish men have brought to America and took to other places in the World? Or is this logic too complicated for the dame to grasp?

It is time for the Australian dumb-dumb to wake up and smell the Somali coffee.