On March 12, 2012, David Kramer who is president of an outfit that calls itself Freedom House published an article in the Washington Post in response to an article that was published two days earlier by Ms. Fayza Aboulnaga, Egypt's minister for planning and international cooperation. Her article was titled: “Why Egypt Moved on the NGOs” and his article was titled: “Egypt's full-frontal assault on civil society”. It is to be noted that Freedom House is one of the non governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in the incident discussed by the two parties.
My interest in writing this piece is not to adjudicate the case; it will take a number of judges and a full court setting complete with lawyers, prosecutors, clerks and witnesses to do this. Instead, my interest is to highlight the mentality that is here displayed by David Kramer and the likes of him, a mentality that has sent ordinary Egyptians into the street to demand that the military cooperation between Egypt and the United States be terminated forthwith, a demand that the newly elected parliament has taken seriously and is looking into.
He begins by saying that she did not repeat in her article the charges she made when testifying before a judicial body last fall. Well, no one does that; the record is there and if someone wants to look at it, they can do so. In fact, he looked at it himself and he reported a few things he did not like about it. This is normal; it is the reason why there is going to be a trial at which time the judges will decide what is what. One of the things she said that bothered him is this: “She also testified that 'Freedom House moreover was founded by the Jewish Lobbyists to hail accusations and criticisms against countries whose policies are not in line with US objectives.'” Well, well, well, all I can say about this is welcome to my world, Ms. Aboulnaga. It's about time that you get to know these things.
In fact, having lived here for nearly half a century without going outside of Canada or the United States, I have determined years ago from my observations that the so-called think tanks littering the moral landscape of the Continent were nothing but septic tanks full of intellectual discharges like only the Judeo-Yiddish mentality can produce, and only the Jewish organizations can excrete. As if to help me prove my point, Kramer does something that is right out of the Judeo-Yiddish culture. He writes this: “Interesting that she opted not to repeat these … allegations … The anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism at the core of these assertions belie her insistence that...” What he did here just before tackling the points that came in her article, is stir the hatred of the readers by calling her antisemitic and anti-American. Nothing can be more Jewish than that, and this should tell you who founded Freedom House.
He now tackles the article of the minister starting with this: “Aboulnaga wrote in The Post that the dispute involves a handful of NGOs … [But] beyond the 10 [foreign] organizations … some 400 Egyptian … organizations are under investigation … All could be shut down … In other words … Aboulnaga has unleashed a full-frontal assault [on] civil society.” And this is another way of presenting a case that is very much in the Judeo-Yiddish style. It is the filthy habit of accusing someone by speculating on what they might do. Nobody but nobody except the Jews had used this method of presentation, and now the Americans are absorbing it by osmosis and using it too. No wonder America is sinking deeper and deeper into the Jewish septic tank.
Having accused Aboulnaga directly of being antisemitic and anti-American, and having accused her of other things by the method of speculation, he now wants the reader to believe that his organization was operating as legally as did the Egyptian organizations. But the truth is that each group is regulated by a different law, and what applies to one does not apply to the other as he will himself demonstrate in a moment. But for now, he uses a cheap trick to commit his misrepresentation: “None of us is operating illegally.” He continues to misrepresent the case by stating this: “Freedom House's application … was acknowledged … three days before the raid.” But to acknowledge that an application was received does not mean to approve. Still, he goes on to cite law 84 which states that lack of denial within 60 days constitutes acceptance of the organization as a legal entity. What this means is that an organization that has been accepted will be allowed to operate but only after it is given a license containing a description of what it can and cannot do. The gang at Freedom House, however, started to do their thing before they got the license.
Kramer now does the bellyaching routine: “Heavily armed security forces stormed into our office and those of nine other organizations without … in some cases any legal authority … The actions of Egyptian authorities have been different from [those under] the rule of law.” First of all, when the military is in charge of a country deemed to be in a state of insurrection, ordinary rule of law does not apply. Second of all, Kramer implicitly acknowledges here that the 10 foreign organizations were treated differently from the Egyptian organizations; and this means he admits that he deliberately deceived the readers early on when he lumped together all the organizations. Third of all, there is this question: What difference would it have made if the security forces were less heavily armed? And this one: Would he have fought back? And this one: If not, why mention something as trivial as this unless he wants to stir up emotions?
He now does something that typically falls in the realm of the Judeo-Yiddish tragicomedy. In other words, he does it to himself for some strange reason. You want to laugh at him at the same time as you feel sorry for him. Look what he does: “Don't take my word for it … Egyptian NGOs condemned the 'ongoing slandering and intimidation.' They described the December raids as 'a crime' … A judge … told … Al-Ahram that the substance of the case was 'nonsense.'” Well now, my friend, if the Egyptians are capable of something to which he clutches like a crutch so as to stay on his feet, why the hell do they need him or need someone of his low caliber? What can he teach them that they do not already know?
Apparently, he has an answer to that question: “We are in Egypt to support civil society organizations, encourage respect for fundamental human rights … We would not be in Egypt were there no indigenous demand for the kind of work we do.” If he really believes he can do what he says he can, I have a few suggestions for him. How about leave the Egyptians alone and go to the District of Columbia where he will find characters so illiterate in the art and the science of governance, a monkey could teach them a thing or two about running their congress more effectively. How about coming to Canada and showing the folks here how not to blacklist people who have things to say that can enrich the audience. And how about going to Israel and showing them there how to behave -- not necessarily as human being which they will never be able to do – but as something that is a little more evolved than a snake.
David Kramer insists at the end of his article on showing his readers the sort of fantasy land in which he lives. First, he quotes Aboulnaga who wrote: 'Our friends must understand that Egypt will never be the same, that this is an Egyptian revolution and that the Egyptian people will determine its outcome.' And guess what he does next. Well, with the authority of a pope pardoning a sinner that came to confess, he solemnly declares: “I endorse these sentiments.” But a good pope would not stop here because there is the fear that the sinner may recidivate. And so he warns: “But this is a strange claim from an official who … is a holdover … from the previous … regime.” And he makes her feel guilty to deter her from sinning again: “The campaign she leads … is a betrayal of … the ultimate sacrifices made by … Egyptians.”
Hey, Mr. Pope of the land of fantasy, pick up your marbles and go to hell if you're worthy. If not, go to the District of Columbia or come to Canada or go to Israel where the houses to worship freedom are so full of horror, they feel worse than hell itself.
Monday, March 12, 2012
The Sad Saga Of A Suicidal Leech
When Charles Darwin observed that nature offers survival to the fittest, he did not mean to say everything that is attributed to him. He only meant to say that when the environment produces less supply than there is demand for it, those who adapt to that environment stand a better chance at acquiring what they need to survive. Because the human brain has the capacity to draw analogies between subjects in different fields, it has what amounts to a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that this kind of analogy has led to the formulation of several scientific theories which, in the end, proved to be correct. The curse is that this kind of analogy can sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions -- which is what happened with the many erroneous interpretations that have appeared on the Darwin theory.
For example, some people make the analogy between what they believe is authentic Darwinism and the ideas they already have in mind. And what they believe about Darwin's theory is something they define as being a fight where the winner vanquishes the loser absolutely and takes all the spoils. They say that this happens in nature all the time, and it happens between the various cultures as well as the civilizations. This is why they predict that a final clash will take place between the civilizations after which the race that adheres to the correct philosophy of life will dominate the Earth and forever impose its will on everyone else.
These people look at the same history as everyone and attribute the fall of every civilization that came and went to the fact that none was so perfect as to remain dominant for ever. Sadly, they add, this also applies to the Roman Empire which they believe came the closest to being perfect but failed to cross the finish line. They think, however, that this does not mean crossing the finish line cannot be done. On the contrary, they view the modern “West” -- which adheres to the democratic philosophy of governance -- as having the perfect formula to take over the world and run it perfectly well. But there is much work to be done before the West can achieve the final victory it deserves, they say, because standing in the way is Islam, a religion and a philosophy of life that is adhered to by Muslims, a people who harbor ambitions antagonistic to those of the West.
But who are the people who interpret Darwin in this manner? The answer to this question is a complicated one because it ties in with subjects such as the science of eugenics, the philosophy of the White supremacists, the ideas of the self-styled master race, the wannabe Aryans and so on. In our era, such groups come; they have their moment under the sun then go away or lay dormant for a while to rear their heads on occasions, be silenced again and be sent back into hiding. Their claim rests on the premise that their historic idols who are the Nazis could make things such as ships and airplanes that no one else could make which proves they were better than everyone therefore entitled to rule the world. But the Nazis were eventually beaten by ships and airplanes that were made by someone else, an event that silenced them and had them accept the reality that they were equal to the rest of us, not better. But this part of history apparently does not register with their modern followers who still cling to the fantasy of Nazi superiority.
To be fair to all, however, it is true that the Nazis sat at the peak of Western Civilization for a time. They saw themselves as being a little better than their look-alike neighbors against whom they fought, and they saw themselves as being exceedingly better than the races from which they were separated by space and by physical appearance. Having failed to establish the thousand years Reich they wished for, and having been defeated militarily, a number of groups arose even in places like their former enemies, Britain and the United States, to idolize them. In fact, these groups idolized the Nazis so much that they claimed their mantle, and emulating them in style and in appearance. But the rule has always been that when they went too far, such groups were silenced by their critics and sent back into hiding. And when they took up arms and became violent, as they did on occasions, they were clobbered by the authorities and dismantled as a group.
There has been an exception to this rule, however. It is the story of a group that is operating with impunity in the English speaking world. It preaches the supremacy of an ill-defined ethno-religious race that is neither a group of any known ethnicity nor a race by any definition or even a religion by any sense of the word. The group advocates the violent transformation of other cultures in the Middle East, and it works feverishly to cause a clash between the Christian civilization and its Muslim counterpart. It is a group of Jews and their sympathizers who claim supremacy over the rest of us because they say that God has chosen the Jews to be his preferred children, therefore has chosen them to reign supreme over everyone and over everything else.
Unlike the other crackpots who claim supremacy because their idols could do things no one else could, the Jews and their followers are not required to prove they can do anything to deserve wearing the crown except demonstrate that they are Jews or wannabe Jews at heart. And since God is never available to be quizzed as to his choice, the supremacy of Jews is never disputed in the English speaking world where children now grow up in an environment that is saturated with things which say it is normal to view the Jew as a master worthy of their love; where it is normal to worship him like a god on Earth.
Because of this mentality and this state of affairs, and despite the promise made to them by that same God -- a promise to the effect that they will multiply and become as many as the grains of sand they see on the beaches and the stars they see in the heavens -- the Jews still cannot fill one mega city, when the religions that came after them easily fill a continent of nations each containing several mega cities. So the question becomes: With this reality staring them in the face, how can the Jews get into a fight to the death with bigger opponents, win decisively against them and come to dominate the world?
They can do it by riding on someone else's back. Here is what works for them; unlike the rest of the English speaking world which gives lip service to the Jewish causes and little else, the Jewish groups have found America to be the land of their opportunity because it is fertile ground that grows more goodness for them the more fertilizer they throw at it. And there is a reason why the American political system is well disposed to bloom with altruistic largess as it consumes the stinky discharges from the Jewish propaganda machine. It is that people originally emigrated to America for two reasons: to be free of tyranny and to get wealthy. In time, the two reasons have fused together, and the American ideal has transformed into the notion that happiness means the freedom to pursue wealth. Thus, if someone or something such as the government tries to curtail this freedom, the Americans lose their happiness which means they get angry. How angry? Well, they once had a civil war and they will not hesitate to have another one if pushed hard enough.
What is crucial here, and what must be understood is that the American culture is still imbued with the notion that you can only get wealthy by the process of exploitation, a process that the Jewish mind has painted as a commendable virtue. Some people see themselves get wealthy by exploiting an oil well or a mine; other people would feel just as comfortable exploiting someone the way their ancestors exterminated the natives to take their possessions or the way they used slaves as cheap labor. Thus, if the government is seen to take away the right to exploit by instituting a program that is deemed to be “socialist” at its core, some people react as if the government had declared war on them and they respond in kind. The resulting confrontation takes the shape of a cold civil war.
In this tumult, the meaning of freedom becomes confused. As it turns out, most Americans believe they enjoy freedom because they are willing to fight for it. But the truth is that the Americans do not have a concept of freedom in the abstract. They only understand the freedom that relates to something they want to do such as the right to bear arms, the right to travel, the right to exploit someone or something, and so on. And this is where the Jewish organizations score big with the Americans. To take advantage of this uniquely American trait, they give their interlocutors the right to choose freely as in the following example: I offer you ten thousand dollars to spend an hour with you little girl, or a hundred thousand dollars to have her for the night. Which do you take? Where a foreigner feel so insulted as to want to administer capital punishment on the spot, the American would feel honored that he was given a choice. He may choose one option or reject the offer but not feel insulted or violated for a moment. In politics, the offer that the Jewish organizations make comes in a form that sounds like this: Choose to do it my way and I'll take you to the promised land, to which the American responds: Show me the way to the promised land, my Lord?
This is what American freedom has come to mean. It can be seen at work in a column written by Clifford May under the title: “How to Stop Putting Gas in The Islamist Tank” and the subtitle: “Enriching your enemy may not be a brilliant strategy.” It was published on March 8, 2012 in the National Review Online. What the author tries to do at the start is respond to the fact that for the last dozen years or so, America has depleted itself in every field of its nationhood in order to fight a ghost that came under the rubric “war on terrorism.” It was a Jewish idea that was proven to be so ill-advised, the people who gave it and the people who took it should, in the name of justice, be locked in solitary confinement for life.
And the way that Clifford May responds is not to say let's back off, take a deep breath and allow America to rebuild itself, but say the following instead: tough luck, America. Our advice did not work this time but do not stop here; continue the fight because if the threat did not come, as we said, from a bunch of Muslim kids out to have fun playing cops and robbers with the biggest cop in the world, then the threat will still come from them and from the fact that someone called Hassan al-Banna once stated he would rather dominate than be dominated. And there is behind him the Islamists who support those same kids and his ideas too. And remember, America, that all these people have oil, a resource they were not smart enough to discover but one that was discovered by the “West”. It is a resource we need badly at this time but one we must wean ourselves off – or else we cease to exist as a civilization in no time at all.
And he offers a remedy. He says that America should drill to unearth more of its own oil and should rely on natural gas of which it has plenty. But the fact is that these ideas are not new at all; they have been discussed non-stop for a number of decades, the last time being a recent article written by Robert McFarlane -- a figure from the past to be sure -- but one he quotes in his column as if the ideas were a light that is starting to shine at the end of the tunnel.
But if those ideas have been around for this long, why is it that no one has acted on them by now? Clifford May has an answer to this question. He says this: “...government is not doing its economic duty. Nor is it doing its national-security duty … at the moment we are knowingly funding the 'violent extremists' who want to kill us, as well as the more moderate Islamists who merely want to dominate us.” And he wants to ram all this down your throat, so he goes on to say this: “...Islamists of both stripes must … wonder: 'How can people … be so stupid? … this must be a gift from Heaven.'”
What is wrong with all this is that there has never been a permanent winner on this Planet and there will never be one. On the other hand, there has been one permanent loser; the Jew who was kicked around for three and a half thousand years by a human race that always appreciated the authentic Arab Semite and the Muslim but never tolerated the real Jew or the fake one.
Clifford May who is a Jew is using everything at his disposal to scare people and to incite America, if not incite the Western world. He wants to maintain the war against the Christian Arabs and the Muslim world in the hope of weakening everybody to give the opportunity for people like himself to dominate the whole world. The scaremongering he does being the stick, he also has a carrot that comes in the form of a promise to the effect that at the end of it all, the West will triumph, will rule everywhere and rule for ever.
This is why it is generally accepted that those who claim to be Jews have always been their own worst enemies. Like a leech with a death wish, they get onto a host and abuse it to death thus come very close to extinction themselves. For thousands of years, everything they touched has turned into the poison that debilitated them as a group and reduced their numbers.
It remains to be said that if someone shows inclination to take the advice of Clifford May or the advice of someone like him, that person should check into a mental hospital and ask the staff to throw away the keys.
It would be the best thing that Clifford D. May could do to save the Western and the Arab civilizations as well as save humanity from himself and his likes.
For example, some people make the analogy between what they believe is authentic Darwinism and the ideas they already have in mind. And what they believe about Darwin's theory is something they define as being a fight where the winner vanquishes the loser absolutely and takes all the spoils. They say that this happens in nature all the time, and it happens between the various cultures as well as the civilizations. This is why they predict that a final clash will take place between the civilizations after which the race that adheres to the correct philosophy of life will dominate the Earth and forever impose its will on everyone else.
These people look at the same history as everyone and attribute the fall of every civilization that came and went to the fact that none was so perfect as to remain dominant for ever. Sadly, they add, this also applies to the Roman Empire which they believe came the closest to being perfect but failed to cross the finish line. They think, however, that this does not mean crossing the finish line cannot be done. On the contrary, they view the modern “West” -- which adheres to the democratic philosophy of governance -- as having the perfect formula to take over the world and run it perfectly well. But there is much work to be done before the West can achieve the final victory it deserves, they say, because standing in the way is Islam, a religion and a philosophy of life that is adhered to by Muslims, a people who harbor ambitions antagonistic to those of the West.
But who are the people who interpret Darwin in this manner? The answer to this question is a complicated one because it ties in with subjects such as the science of eugenics, the philosophy of the White supremacists, the ideas of the self-styled master race, the wannabe Aryans and so on. In our era, such groups come; they have their moment under the sun then go away or lay dormant for a while to rear their heads on occasions, be silenced again and be sent back into hiding. Their claim rests on the premise that their historic idols who are the Nazis could make things such as ships and airplanes that no one else could make which proves they were better than everyone therefore entitled to rule the world. But the Nazis were eventually beaten by ships and airplanes that were made by someone else, an event that silenced them and had them accept the reality that they were equal to the rest of us, not better. But this part of history apparently does not register with their modern followers who still cling to the fantasy of Nazi superiority.
To be fair to all, however, it is true that the Nazis sat at the peak of Western Civilization for a time. They saw themselves as being a little better than their look-alike neighbors against whom they fought, and they saw themselves as being exceedingly better than the races from which they were separated by space and by physical appearance. Having failed to establish the thousand years Reich they wished for, and having been defeated militarily, a number of groups arose even in places like their former enemies, Britain and the United States, to idolize them. In fact, these groups idolized the Nazis so much that they claimed their mantle, and emulating them in style and in appearance. But the rule has always been that when they went too far, such groups were silenced by their critics and sent back into hiding. And when they took up arms and became violent, as they did on occasions, they were clobbered by the authorities and dismantled as a group.
There has been an exception to this rule, however. It is the story of a group that is operating with impunity in the English speaking world. It preaches the supremacy of an ill-defined ethno-religious race that is neither a group of any known ethnicity nor a race by any definition or even a religion by any sense of the word. The group advocates the violent transformation of other cultures in the Middle East, and it works feverishly to cause a clash between the Christian civilization and its Muslim counterpart. It is a group of Jews and their sympathizers who claim supremacy over the rest of us because they say that God has chosen the Jews to be his preferred children, therefore has chosen them to reign supreme over everyone and over everything else.
Unlike the other crackpots who claim supremacy because their idols could do things no one else could, the Jews and their followers are not required to prove they can do anything to deserve wearing the crown except demonstrate that they are Jews or wannabe Jews at heart. And since God is never available to be quizzed as to his choice, the supremacy of Jews is never disputed in the English speaking world where children now grow up in an environment that is saturated with things which say it is normal to view the Jew as a master worthy of their love; where it is normal to worship him like a god on Earth.
Because of this mentality and this state of affairs, and despite the promise made to them by that same God -- a promise to the effect that they will multiply and become as many as the grains of sand they see on the beaches and the stars they see in the heavens -- the Jews still cannot fill one mega city, when the religions that came after them easily fill a continent of nations each containing several mega cities. So the question becomes: With this reality staring them in the face, how can the Jews get into a fight to the death with bigger opponents, win decisively against them and come to dominate the world?
They can do it by riding on someone else's back. Here is what works for them; unlike the rest of the English speaking world which gives lip service to the Jewish causes and little else, the Jewish groups have found America to be the land of their opportunity because it is fertile ground that grows more goodness for them the more fertilizer they throw at it. And there is a reason why the American political system is well disposed to bloom with altruistic largess as it consumes the stinky discharges from the Jewish propaganda machine. It is that people originally emigrated to America for two reasons: to be free of tyranny and to get wealthy. In time, the two reasons have fused together, and the American ideal has transformed into the notion that happiness means the freedom to pursue wealth. Thus, if someone or something such as the government tries to curtail this freedom, the Americans lose their happiness which means they get angry. How angry? Well, they once had a civil war and they will not hesitate to have another one if pushed hard enough.
What is crucial here, and what must be understood is that the American culture is still imbued with the notion that you can only get wealthy by the process of exploitation, a process that the Jewish mind has painted as a commendable virtue. Some people see themselves get wealthy by exploiting an oil well or a mine; other people would feel just as comfortable exploiting someone the way their ancestors exterminated the natives to take their possessions or the way they used slaves as cheap labor. Thus, if the government is seen to take away the right to exploit by instituting a program that is deemed to be “socialist” at its core, some people react as if the government had declared war on them and they respond in kind. The resulting confrontation takes the shape of a cold civil war.
In this tumult, the meaning of freedom becomes confused. As it turns out, most Americans believe they enjoy freedom because they are willing to fight for it. But the truth is that the Americans do not have a concept of freedom in the abstract. They only understand the freedom that relates to something they want to do such as the right to bear arms, the right to travel, the right to exploit someone or something, and so on. And this is where the Jewish organizations score big with the Americans. To take advantage of this uniquely American trait, they give their interlocutors the right to choose freely as in the following example: I offer you ten thousand dollars to spend an hour with you little girl, or a hundred thousand dollars to have her for the night. Which do you take? Where a foreigner feel so insulted as to want to administer capital punishment on the spot, the American would feel honored that he was given a choice. He may choose one option or reject the offer but not feel insulted or violated for a moment. In politics, the offer that the Jewish organizations make comes in a form that sounds like this: Choose to do it my way and I'll take you to the promised land, to which the American responds: Show me the way to the promised land, my Lord?
This is what American freedom has come to mean. It can be seen at work in a column written by Clifford May under the title: “How to Stop Putting Gas in The Islamist Tank” and the subtitle: “Enriching your enemy may not be a brilliant strategy.” It was published on March 8, 2012 in the National Review Online. What the author tries to do at the start is respond to the fact that for the last dozen years or so, America has depleted itself in every field of its nationhood in order to fight a ghost that came under the rubric “war on terrorism.” It was a Jewish idea that was proven to be so ill-advised, the people who gave it and the people who took it should, in the name of justice, be locked in solitary confinement for life.
And the way that Clifford May responds is not to say let's back off, take a deep breath and allow America to rebuild itself, but say the following instead: tough luck, America. Our advice did not work this time but do not stop here; continue the fight because if the threat did not come, as we said, from a bunch of Muslim kids out to have fun playing cops and robbers with the biggest cop in the world, then the threat will still come from them and from the fact that someone called Hassan al-Banna once stated he would rather dominate than be dominated. And there is behind him the Islamists who support those same kids and his ideas too. And remember, America, that all these people have oil, a resource they were not smart enough to discover but one that was discovered by the “West”. It is a resource we need badly at this time but one we must wean ourselves off – or else we cease to exist as a civilization in no time at all.
And he offers a remedy. He says that America should drill to unearth more of its own oil and should rely on natural gas of which it has plenty. But the fact is that these ideas are not new at all; they have been discussed non-stop for a number of decades, the last time being a recent article written by Robert McFarlane -- a figure from the past to be sure -- but one he quotes in his column as if the ideas were a light that is starting to shine at the end of the tunnel.
But if those ideas have been around for this long, why is it that no one has acted on them by now? Clifford May has an answer to this question. He says this: “...government is not doing its economic duty. Nor is it doing its national-security duty … at the moment we are knowingly funding the 'violent extremists' who want to kill us, as well as the more moderate Islamists who merely want to dominate us.” And he wants to ram all this down your throat, so he goes on to say this: “...Islamists of both stripes must … wonder: 'How can people … be so stupid? … this must be a gift from Heaven.'”
What is wrong with all this is that there has never been a permanent winner on this Planet and there will never be one. On the other hand, there has been one permanent loser; the Jew who was kicked around for three and a half thousand years by a human race that always appreciated the authentic Arab Semite and the Muslim but never tolerated the real Jew or the fake one.
Clifford May who is a Jew is using everything at his disposal to scare people and to incite America, if not incite the Western world. He wants to maintain the war against the Christian Arabs and the Muslim world in the hope of weakening everybody to give the opportunity for people like himself to dominate the whole world. The scaremongering he does being the stick, he also has a carrot that comes in the form of a promise to the effect that at the end of it all, the West will triumph, will rule everywhere and rule for ever.
This is why it is generally accepted that those who claim to be Jews have always been their own worst enemies. Like a leech with a death wish, they get onto a host and abuse it to death thus come very close to extinction themselves. For thousands of years, everything they touched has turned into the poison that debilitated them as a group and reduced their numbers.
It remains to be said that if someone shows inclination to take the advice of Clifford May or the advice of someone like him, that person should check into a mental hospital and ask the staff to throw away the keys.
It would be the best thing that Clifford D. May could do to save the Western and the Arab civilizations as well as save humanity from himself and his likes.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Delighted That The Gift Keeps On Giving Me
If you are a Zionist fanatic and you see that the Zionist project is coming apart in Israel, you will most certainly try to do something about it. If the only tool you have in your bag of tricks -- that you know how to use and know will protect the Zionist project -- is to saturate the airwaves and the print media with what has come to be known as the Yiddish moral syphilism, you will saturate the airwaves and the print media with Yiddish moral syphilism. This is now happening, and the Wall Street Journal is taking the lead.
The way things stand at this point in time is that Israel has been unmasked as being a non-economy that was put together by a bunch of kibbutz dwelling Marxist-Leninists turned Zionists who continue to steal land and water from their neighbors, the unarmed people of Palestine. To drag America into their fantasy and to have it finance them as well as protect them, the Zionists have called on Jews everywhere in the world to go to Israel and do something demonic to help placate America. Upon their arrival, the newcomers are given two rights: the right to steal land and water from Palestinian families, and the right to say whether or not they like it. This second right is called the right to vote which is so important to the Americans, it will calm the folks over there and encourage them to continue supporting the Zionist project in Israel. No wonder even Lucifer feels he is always outwitted by these people.
This set-up worked as long as America remained the unchallenged industrial and military superpower that it was. But several occurrences happened in succession that were instrumental in eroding America's power, most of which were traced directly and indirectly to the work of the Jewish lobby in America and to America's blind support for Israel. The result has been that the superpower could no longer support Israel at the level that it did previously; and this began to happen at a time when the false image of the saintly Jew was fading in the country. Life became harder in Israel, and the fanatics among them started to savagely attack not only the Muslims there but also the Christians.
To counter the image of the fanatic Jewish gangs attacking Christian families in Israel, the Jewish lobby was called upon to start two parallel campaigns in North America. One campaign that will speak of the plight of Christians in Muslim countries, and one that will speak of the danger of Muslims living in America. Add to this a third campaign that will speak of the danger of Iran -- a Muslim country -- to make progress in the nuclear field. And guess what happened on March 9, 2012; the wall Street Journal published three pieces, one on each of these subjects.
Michael Oren who is Israel's ambassador to America wrote: “Israel and the Plight of Mideast Christians” and the subtitle: “Just as Jews were once expelled from Arab lands, Christians are now being forced from countries they have long inhabited.” Richard Clarke, Judith Miller and R.P. Eddy wrote: “New York's Finest Are Getting Smeared” and the subtitle: “The Police department's counterterrorism work protects lives and civil liberties.” Robert P. Casey, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman wrote: “Iran can't Be Allowed Nuclear 'Capability'” and the subtitle: “When some say that our red line is a 'nuclear weapon,' it suggests that anything short of a working bomb is acceptable. This is exactly the wrong message to send.”
To me, the Wall Street Journal is the gift that keeps on giving, and here it is giving me the opportunity to tell why I started this website at the time that I did. I had wanted to start it at least ten years ago but I could not because I had a heart condition, my eyesight was failing and my financial situation was precarious. But then I had a heart operation and my financial situation started to improve. As to my eyesight, I was told I was not yet ready for a cataract operation but that the time was approaching. Thus, I decided to wait another year or two before starting a website but then something happened that hastened me to start it sooner.
While the whole world has this image of the Mosad as being the vaunted spy agency of Israel, I never thought of it as being more vaunted than a bird's dropping. And this is because I knew who and what the real spy agency of Israel was. It was and still is every Jew who goes to a synagogue, a Jewish agency, an Israeli consulate or embassy to report on what they see at school, in the homes of friends and foes they visit, in the workplace, in public places, in the government and so on, and so on, and so on. This information goes to many places where it is acted upon; and some of it may well go to the Mosad but this was irrelevant to me. What was relevant was the fact that someone wanted to know everything that happens here in Canada the same way they want to know what happens everywhere else in the world, especially in Palestine. In fact, they treat us all as if we were Palestinians living under occupation the way that they do in the West Bank of the Jordan.
What I saw them do in Canada is find someone who knows someone who will approach someone they have in their cross-hairs and gather information on them to recruit them, frame them or set them up for a fall and so forth. Two things were of maximum importance to these people. One was the financial situation of ordinary Canadians of Arab descent, whether they are wealthy or not. The other was the state of individual Christian Arabs, especially the Coptic Egyptians whom they tried to recruit and train so as to launch a sectarian civil war in Egypt the way that they have managed to do in Lebanon and the way that they are trying to do in Iran at this very moment.
Then something happened. They felt I was coming close to cracking open a case whereby they had recruited an Egyptian young man in Turkey and brought him to Canada where they gave him a job at a bank. His instruction was to gather information on bank accounts that belong to Canadians of Arab descent. He was a Muslim but they had him convert to Christianity, had compromised him by taking pictures of him engaging in a homosexual act, and they were blackmailing him. When they detected that I was on the trail of something, they panicked and got someone to go on television, pretend to be a Christian and cry out for help. I immediately wrote to the hosts of the show that carried this piece of Jewish filth and told them they were being used to do something so filthy they should drop it right away.
Afraid that I may eventually discover the identity of the young Egyptian they had recruited in Turkey, they approached the Egyptian security service in Egypt and told them about him. At the same time, they paid the guy to go and do a job for them in Egypt whereby he was arrested upon landing at the airport.
This is why I started this website when I did. Since then, I had an operation in one eye and will have another one in the other eye.
With this information in mind, I ask you to now go and read those three articles. You will understand how pure evil works, and why the security apparatus of America should concentrate on every single Jew that lives in that country.
And leave the Arabs alone because you will find them to be the most loyal people in the world when you treat them well.
The way things stand at this point in time is that Israel has been unmasked as being a non-economy that was put together by a bunch of kibbutz dwelling Marxist-Leninists turned Zionists who continue to steal land and water from their neighbors, the unarmed people of Palestine. To drag America into their fantasy and to have it finance them as well as protect them, the Zionists have called on Jews everywhere in the world to go to Israel and do something demonic to help placate America. Upon their arrival, the newcomers are given two rights: the right to steal land and water from Palestinian families, and the right to say whether or not they like it. This second right is called the right to vote which is so important to the Americans, it will calm the folks over there and encourage them to continue supporting the Zionist project in Israel. No wonder even Lucifer feels he is always outwitted by these people.
This set-up worked as long as America remained the unchallenged industrial and military superpower that it was. But several occurrences happened in succession that were instrumental in eroding America's power, most of which were traced directly and indirectly to the work of the Jewish lobby in America and to America's blind support for Israel. The result has been that the superpower could no longer support Israel at the level that it did previously; and this began to happen at a time when the false image of the saintly Jew was fading in the country. Life became harder in Israel, and the fanatics among them started to savagely attack not only the Muslims there but also the Christians.
To counter the image of the fanatic Jewish gangs attacking Christian families in Israel, the Jewish lobby was called upon to start two parallel campaigns in North America. One campaign that will speak of the plight of Christians in Muslim countries, and one that will speak of the danger of Muslims living in America. Add to this a third campaign that will speak of the danger of Iran -- a Muslim country -- to make progress in the nuclear field. And guess what happened on March 9, 2012; the wall Street Journal published three pieces, one on each of these subjects.
Michael Oren who is Israel's ambassador to America wrote: “Israel and the Plight of Mideast Christians” and the subtitle: “Just as Jews were once expelled from Arab lands, Christians are now being forced from countries they have long inhabited.” Richard Clarke, Judith Miller and R.P. Eddy wrote: “New York's Finest Are Getting Smeared” and the subtitle: “The Police department's counterterrorism work protects lives and civil liberties.” Robert P. Casey, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman wrote: “Iran can't Be Allowed Nuclear 'Capability'” and the subtitle: “When some say that our red line is a 'nuclear weapon,' it suggests that anything short of a working bomb is acceptable. This is exactly the wrong message to send.”
To me, the Wall Street Journal is the gift that keeps on giving, and here it is giving me the opportunity to tell why I started this website at the time that I did. I had wanted to start it at least ten years ago but I could not because I had a heart condition, my eyesight was failing and my financial situation was precarious. But then I had a heart operation and my financial situation started to improve. As to my eyesight, I was told I was not yet ready for a cataract operation but that the time was approaching. Thus, I decided to wait another year or two before starting a website but then something happened that hastened me to start it sooner.
While the whole world has this image of the Mosad as being the vaunted spy agency of Israel, I never thought of it as being more vaunted than a bird's dropping. And this is because I knew who and what the real spy agency of Israel was. It was and still is every Jew who goes to a synagogue, a Jewish agency, an Israeli consulate or embassy to report on what they see at school, in the homes of friends and foes they visit, in the workplace, in public places, in the government and so on, and so on, and so on. This information goes to many places where it is acted upon; and some of it may well go to the Mosad but this was irrelevant to me. What was relevant was the fact that someone wanted to know everything that happens here in Canada the same way they want to know what happens everywhere else in the world, especially in Palestine. In fact, they treat us all as if we were Palestinians living under occupation the way that they do in the West Bank of the Jordan.
What I saw them do in Canada is find someone who knows someone who will approach someone they have in their cross-hairs and gather information on them to recruit them, frame them or set them up for a fall and so forth. Two things were of maximum importance to these people. One was the financial situation of ordinary Canadians of Arab descent, whether they are wealthy or not. The other was the state of individual Christian Arabs, especially the Coptic Egyptians whom they tried to recruit and train so as to launch a sectarian civil war in Egypt the way that they have managed to do in Lebanon and the way that they are trying to do in Iran at this very moment.
Then something happened. They felt I was coming close to cracking open a case whereby they had recruited an Egyptian young man in Turkey and brought him to Canada where they gave him a job at a bank. His instruction was to gather information on bank accounts that belong to Canadians of Arab descent. He was a Muslim but they had him convert to Christianity, had compromised him by taking pictures of him engaging in a homosexual act, and they were blackmailing him. When they detected that I was on the trail of something, they panicked and got someone to go on television, pretend to be a Christian and cry out for help. I immediately wrote to the hosts of the show that carried this piece of Jewish filth and told them they were being used to do something so filthy they should drop it right away.
Afraid that I may eventually discover the identity of the young Egyptian they had recruited in Turkey, they approached the Egyptian security service in Egypt and told them about him. At the same time, they paid the guy to go and do a job for them in Egypt whereby he was arrested upon landing at the airport.
This is why I started this website when I did. Since then, I had an operation in one eye and will have another one in the other eye.
With this information in mind, I ask you to now go and read those three articles. You will understand how pure evil works, and why the security apparatus of America should concentrate on every single Jew that lives in that country.
And leave the Arabs alone because you will find them to be the most loyal people in the world when you treat them well.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Histrionics At Its Worst
There is something called histrionics which is the presentation of a happening in the form of a series of events that have followed each other in a chronological order at some point in the past. If you do this while also highlighting the relationships and the motivations that have existed between the players, you now have what is called history. You can tell the story of Planet Earth from its beginning four and a half billion years ago to about a few million years ago as a series of events, and you would have a histrionics that is complete and acceptable. But the higher primates began to appear on Earth a few million years ago and something changed, giving rise to history, a new way of stitching together a story.
It is that those higher primates have developed relationships and motivations for acting the way that they did, and their story could not be told without highlighting these facts. From that point on, theirs was no longer a series of events that can be presented as histrionics, but a full fledged history that must be narrated in the form of drama. And the human race being the highest of the primates, it would be a crime to omit the reasons why history develops the way that it does, and simply tell our story in the form of histrionics.
Here is a passage that shows histrionics at its worst even if it tries to redeem itself toward the end: “The U.S. changed alliances many times during the Cold War. Egypt started out as a pro-Western country, shifted to radical socialist nationalism, and came back to the West in the late 1970s. Iraq and Iran turned from staunch allies of the U.S. to bitter opponents. The Gulf states and the Saudis had little love for the U.S., but their interests lay so close to ours that most of the time alliances prospered even if friendship soured.” It is a passage that came in an article written by Walter Russell Mead and published in the Wall Street Journal on March 7, 2012 under the title: “America Is Stuck With the Mideast” and the subtitle: “Global oil markets and global commerce mean that American presidents will simply not be able to set this region off to the side.”
Despite the fact that Walter Mead is a college professor, he did not see fit to give even a hint as to why the relationships between America on one hand, and each of Egypt, Iraq and Iran on the other have evolved the way that they did. He made an attempt with regard to the Gulf states and the Saudis but it was a feeble attempt because it only said that those countries never loved America, the friendship between them was sour but they all had a common interest so they became allies to prosper together.
It is not surprising, therefore, to see that the professor has followed that piece of histrionics with a passage that describes the current state of affairs without yielding any useful insight as to why things are the way they are. Here is this passage: “Today, the grounds of alliance are once again shifting, and in unpredictable ways. Turkey and the U.S. are closer than they were three years ago. Egypt and the U.S. are further apart. The Saudis if anything are impatient with U.S. moderation on Iran; here they and the Israelis are reciting from the same book of prayers.”
Having characterized the motivation of the Gulf States and the Saudis as being one of self interest, he now says that the Saudis have the same wish as those of the Israelis; that of seeing a tougher American stand toward Iran. And what this says about him is that his understanding of the people of the region is close to nil. Thus, what he does is simply reflect the Israeli and Jewish-American point of view. In fact, it may well be that they wrote the article for him, and he just signed it. Knowing this helps us to understand why the article is written the way it is, thus upgrade what we draw from it despite the wish of the author who may or may not have wanted to hide elements of the history behind the histrionics.
And so I ask: “What is it that he or they want?” Well, we find this at the beginning of the article: “The Middle East is on fire … even as President Obama assures us that he has Israel's back and 'will not countenance' Iran getting a nuclear weapon … [he] speaks about 'leading from behind' and of a 'pivot toward Asia.'” As you can see, he laments in the name of “us” that the President has chosen to lead from behind and to pivot towards Asia, acts he will later explain are taking place at the expense of attention being diverted away from the Middle East and from the protection of Israel.
And lest people accept this as being due to the decline in American power, he assures us that America “remains the paramount power in the region and will remain committed to it for a long time to come.” If this sounds more like a wish than a deep understanding of what is happening, wait till you see how far his wish extends. Here is a piece of that: “The U.S. wants a balance of power … that prevents any power or a coalition of powers inside or outside the region to block the flow of oil … It wants Israel to be secure. And … it hopes to see the establishment of … democratic governments.” Of course, it is now understood that “democratic government” has become a euphemism to mean a puppet of the Jewish lobby the way that things are in America.
The wish becomes a full blown fantasy when he goes on to say this: “If it must, the U.S. will act directly and on its own to achieve these goals.” This is a Yiddish style rebuke and a challenge to a President that prefers to divert his attention to Asia and to lead from behind. And when the Yiddish fantasize, they fabricate the reality that suits the moment. Here is how Mead expresses it on their behalf: “In today's Middle East, core U.S. goals enjoy wide … support … a strong coalition has formed around Washington's … priority -- the Iranian drive for regional hegemony capped by its nuclear program … U.S. objectives command enormous support across the region … If this is decline, we could use more of it.”
And what would not be Judeo-Yiddish that exploits a current event even if the event is no more relevant than say, to spot someone wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday? Walter Mead has a contribution to make in this regard; more like something handed to him by his Jewish mentors: “In recent weeks, rising Middle East tensions have helped drive up the price of gasoline in the U.S. More price increases will anger voters, scare consumers, and could well knock the nascent U.S. economic recovery on its head … For President Obama, those developments would pretty much doom his re-election efforts. The same will be true of his successors.” It always comes down to this: Kiss Jewish ass or get booted out your position of power.
Moreover, these people never tire looking for and finding a mouthpiece that will bark the right sound at the leader they wish to nudge in the direction of their cause. Having spent decades telling the Americans to get off their addiction to oil if they can, or get off dependence on Middle Eastern oil if they can't, they now get Mead to say the following on their behalf: “...the global nature of the world oil market, and the effect of supply insecurity … means that American presidents will simply not be able to set this region off the side. It is easier to pivot toward Asia than to pivot away from the Middle East. The reality is that the U.S. will have to walk and chew gum at the same time.” As you can see, when these people realize that their wish is about to come true and not deliver what they dreamed about, they change their wish and escalate the dream.
What else is left to do but to say to America's future leaders: Hang on in there and things will get rosy and sweet again. If you want to know how this looks like, my friend, look through the colored glasses they have created, and marvel at the vision they painted to entice a President: “Should political conditions change in Iran, the kaleidoscope could change again … the U.S. and Iran were close allies; new leadership in Tehran might seek to rebuild the relationship. The Sunni world will likely divide if the Iranian threat diminishes … some Sunni states will want [the] U.S. to protect them...” As you can see, they get Walter Mead to promise America a marriage with Shiite Iran, and they promise the possible break up of the bond that keeps together the Sunni Arabs.
He ends the piece by admitting that many in the Middle East want America to bow out, and there are many in America who would like to leave but he tells them all: “For now, both groups must learn to accept disappointment.”
Why should they? you ask. Have you not figured it out, my friend? Because it suits Israel and the Jews, stupid. They are the only ones that count because theirs is a history that comes complete with human relationships and motivations while everyone else has but a histrionics that amounts to very little.
So says Professor Walter Russell Mead.
It is that those higher primates have developed relationships and motivations for acting the way that they did, and their story could not be told without highlighting these facts. From that point on, theirs was no longer a series of events that can be presented as histrionics, but a full fledged history that must be narrated in the form of drama. And the human race being the highest of the primates, it would be a crime to omit the reasons why history develops the way that it does, and simply tell our story in the form of histrionics.
Here is a passage that shows histrionics at its worst even if it tries to redeem itself toward the end: “The U.S. changed alliances many times during the Cold War. Egypt started out as a pro-Western country, shifted to radical socialist nationalism, and came back to the West in the late 1970s. Iraq and Iran turned from staunch allies of the U.S. to bitter opponents. The Gulf states and the Saudis had little love for the U.S., but their interests lay so close to ours that most of the time alliances prospered even if friendship soured.” It is a passage that came in an article written by Walter Russell Mead and published in the Wall Street Journal on March 7, 2012 under the title: “America Is Stuck With the Mideast” and the subtitle: “Global oil markets and global commerce mean that American presidents will simply not be able to set this region off to the side.”
Despite the fact that Walter Mead is a college professor, he did not see fit to give even a hint as to why the relationships between America on one hand, and each of Egypt, Iraq and Iran on the other have evolved the way that they did. He made an attempt with regard to the Gulf states and the Saudis but it was a feeble attempt because it only said that those countries never loved America, the friendship between them was sour but they all had a common interest so they became allies to prosper together.
It is not surprising, therefore, to see that the professor has followed that piece of histrionics with a passage that describes the current state of affairs without yielding any useful insight as to why things are the way they are. Here is this passage: “Today, the grounds of alliance are once again shifting, and in unpredictable ways. Turkey and the U.S. are closer than they were three years ago. Egypt and the U.S. are further apart. The Saudis if anything are impatient with U.S. moderation on Iran; here they and the Israelis are reciting from the same book of prayers.”
Having characterized the motivation of the Gulf States and the Saudis as being one of self interest, he now says that the Saudis have the same wish as those of the Israelis; that of seeing a tougher American stand toward Iran. And what this says about him is that his understanding of the people of the region is close to nil. Thus, what he does is simply reflect the Israeli and Jewish-American point of view. In fact, it may well be that they wrote the article for him, and he just signed it. Knowing this helps us to understand why the article is written the way it is, thus upgrade what we draw from it despite the wish of the author who may or may not have wanted to hide elements of the history behind the histrionics.
And so I ask: “What is it that he or they want?” Well, we find this at the beginning of the article: “The Middle East is on fire … even as President Obama assures us that he has Israel's back and 'will not countenance' Iran getting a nuclear weapon … [he] speaks about 'leading from behind' and of a 'pivot toward Asia.'” As you can see, he laments in the name of “us” that the President has chosen to lead from behind and to pivot towards Asia, acts he will later explain are taking place at the expense of attention being diverted away from the Middle East and from the protection of Israel.
And lest people accept this as being due to the decline in American power, he assures us that America “remains the paramount power in the region and will remain committed to it for a long time to come.” If this sounds more like a wish than a deep understanding of what is happening, wait till you see how far his wish extends. Here is a piece of that: “The U.S. wants a balance of power … that prevents any power or a coalition of powers inside or outside the region to block the flow of oil … It wants Israel to be secure. And … it hopes to see the establishment of … democratic governments.” Of course, it is now understood that “democratic government” has become a euphemism to mean a puppet of the Jewish lobby the way that things are in America.
The wish becomes a full blown fantasy when he goes on to say this: “If it must, the U.S. will act directly and on its own to achieve these goals.” This is a Yiddish style rebuke and a challenge to a President that prefers to divert his attention to Asia and to lead from behind. And when the Yiddish fantasize, they fabricate the reality that suits the moment. Here is how Mead expresses it on their behalf: “In today's Middle East, core U.S. goals enjoy wide … support … a strong coalition has formed around Washington's … priority -- the Iranian drive for regional hegemony capped by its nuclear program … U.S. objectives command enormous support across the region … If this is decline, we could use more of it.”
And what would not be Judeo-Yiddish that exploits a current event even if the event is no more relevant than say, to spot someone wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday? Walter Mead has a contribution to make in this regard; more like something handed to him by his Jewish mentors: “In recent weeks, rising Middle East tensions have helped drive up the price of gasoline in the U.S. More price increases will anger voters, scare consumers, and could well knock the nascent U.S. economic recovery on its head … For President Obama, those developments would pretty much doom his re-election efforts. The same will be true of his successors.” It always comes down to this: Kiss Jewish ass or get booted out your position of power.
Moreover, these people never tire looking for and finding a mouthpiece that will bark the right sound at the leader they wish to nudge in the direction of their cause. Having spent decades telling the Americans to get off their addiction to oil if they can, or get off dependence on Middle Eastern oil if they can't, they now get Mead to say the following on their behalf: “...the global nature of the world oil market, and the effect of supply insecurity … means that American presidents will simply not be able to set this region off the side. It is easier to pivot toward Asia than to pivot away from the Middle East. The reality is that the U.S. will have to walk and chew gum at the same time.” As you can see, when these people realize that their wish is about to come true and not deliver what they dreamed about, they change their wish and escalate the dream.
What else is left to do but to say to America's future leaders: Hang on in there and things will get rosy and sweet again. If you want to know how this looks like, my friend, look through the colored glasses they have created, and marvel at the vision they painted to entice a President: “Should political conditions change in Iran, the kaleidoscope could change again … the U.S. and Iran were close allies; new leadership in Tehran might seek to rebuild the relationship. The Sunni world will likely divide if the Iranian threat diminishes … some Sunni states will want [the] U.S. to protect them...” As you can see, they get Walter Mead to promise America a marriage with Shiite Iran, and they promise the possible break up of the bond that keeps together the Sunni Arabs.
He ends the piece by admitting that many in the Middle East want America to bow out, and there are many in America who would like to leave but he tells them all: “For now, both groups must learn to accept disappointment.”
Why should they? you ask. Have you not figured it out, my friend? Because it suits Israel and the Jews, stupid. They are the only ones that count because theirs is a history that comes complete with human relationships and motivations while everyone else has but a histrionics that amounts to very little.
So says Professor Walter Russell Mead.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Romney Says Will Sting Iran And America
Romney won big last night and the time has come to examine him closely. No, you got it all wrong, dear reader. It is not that Mitt Romney promises to sting Iran like a gadfly would sting or that he promises to sting that country as a bumble bee would sting. It is that he says he will do what Ronald Reagan did. The trouble is that there is the historical fact as to what Reagan did, and there is the Romney understanding as to what Reagan did.
The historical fact is that Reagan worked with Israel to supply Iran with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft Stinger missiles in return for freeing the American hostages. Given the circumstances at the time, this may well have been the best course to take. History has not yet passed a final judgment on this. As to what the Romney understanding of that historical fact may be however -- well, that's something else.
Romney expressed his views on this subject in an article he wrote under the title: “How I would check Iran's nuclear ambition” published in the Washington Post on March 5, 2012. Since he has never been President of the United States and since he has never dealt with Iran before, we can begin to formulate an idea as to how he will proceed to fulfill his promise only by analyzing his words and by studying his performance in another field of endeavor. This would be his understanding as to how an economy works. I'll come to that in a moment.
Before we embark on that study, let us look at the promise he made to deal with Iran as he explained it himself in the article. He writes that while US diplomats were held hostage “America's feckless president, Jimmy Carter, fretted in the White House.” The truth is that President Carter ordered the military to mount a rescue operation. An attempt was made but the operation ran into difficulties and was aborted. To say that the American President was feckless and that he fretted in the White House is to be fickle like only a flip-flopping Romney can be. And this alone casts doubt as to whether or not he is fit to occupy that White House. But there is more.
Romney goes on to say: “...Reagan made it crystal clear that the Iranians would pay a very stiff price.” But the fact is that they never complained about receiving the Stinger missiles or about letting the hostages go. So where is the stiff price, Mitty boy? The truth is that in return for bribing the Iranians with Stinger missiles, the Reagan negotiators had asked for a reciprocal gift which they fretted when it came to calling it a bribe. They asked that the hostages be let go on January 20. It's okay with us, said the Iran negotiators but out of curiosity, why January 20? Ron's birthday? asked the Iranians. No, inauguration day, said the Americans. Oh, that little thing you call democracy, remarked the Iranians. Yes, yes. And they all exploded in laughter. The American negotiators drank whiskey and the Iranians drank orange juice. I made up this last part.
Having understood history in his little screwy manner and in the big swaggering manner that his Jewish advisers have explained it to him, Romney continues like this: “...Reagan was serious about turning words into action.” Indeed he did; he chose life over death by thinking of the hostages and their families, and by doing the best that he could for them rather than display his phony manhood the way that they do in the Yiddish culture. In the end, Reagan got the Americans home from a foreign land and into the arms of their loved ones. In the end, Romney will send American boys and girls to die in foreign lands so as to please the Jewish donors of his electoral campaign.
Having engaged in this display of intellectual pornography, Romney advises the reader of this: “America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake.” You think for a moment that he is going to admit America is held hostage by the Jewish lobby at every electoral cycle, and that he will do what he can to break from this demonic tradition thus end it once and for all. But this is not what he promises. Instead, he says that feckless Barack Obama “has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets … the Iranians are making progress...”
To elaborate on this, he takes a few paragraphs to froth at the mouth the filth that is usually leveled against Iran, the Middle Eastern types and Islam. He then promises that as President, he would move America in a direction where its “...foreign policy will be the same as Ronald Reagan's.” At this point you wonder if he will offer to give the Iranians more Stinger missiles but then, you come to think that the Israelis will probably not cooperate this time around, and that the Iranians might not want such a deal given that they now make their own missiles. Luckily and to your relief, that's not what Romney promises. What he does is promise to say and do exactly what President Obama is now doing with one exception: “I will demonstrate our commitment to the world by making Jerusalem the destination of my first foreign trip.”
This puzzles you because it is recognized both in international law and in American law that Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. Does he intend to visit Palestine to demonstrate commitment to Israel? Or is he advocating a one state solution? Or is he advocating the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank of the Jordan to facilitate the annexation of that territory by Israel? It looks like Romney has flipped on this question. It will be interesting to see if he will flop as well.
This being a good question, he does not leave you without an answer. But he waits till the end to give it to you. Here is the last sentence in his article: “Either the ayatollahs will get the message, or they will learn some very painful lessons about the meaning of American resolve.” This is the manner he employs to pretend that his resolve is American resolve which, as we may expect, is to flop every time he flips. No, Romney is not a gadfly or a bumble bee, but he is a bumbler, alright. What he will do is not supply Iran with Stinger missiles but sting America and its people with the sharp tongue of the language of insults that is inculcated in him by his Jewish handlers. This is the Yiddish language and the culture that sprung up around it.
All of this point to a mental deficiency which you also see at work in the way that he understands economics. What should be emphasized here is that builders of nation know that an economy is made of two parts. There is the first part which consists of producing wealth like tangible goods and useful services. And there is the second part which consists of speculating and gambling, a game by which someone can accumulate the wealth created by other people. It is necessary to have these two parts in a capitalist system because risk taking is an important component of it. An economy that flies on these two wings is a dynamic economy that usually does very well.
The thing is that you can have an economy that flies on the wing of the first part only. It will be a stagnant economy but it will fly, however sluggishly as it has for thousands of years on Planet Earth. What you cannot have is an economy that flies on the second wing alone. Indeed, what happens to economies that start out well then fall off is that they lose the wing of the first part and try to rely only on speculation and gambling. It never works.
Yet, this is what Romney promises to bring to America. He never created wealth; he only accumulated what others have created. This is economics according to the Yiddish mentality. This is what is now breaking the back of America. To let Romney take over is to call on the executioner to deliver the coup de grace to America. It will be the sting of death.
The ayatollahs will survive the Romney sting, America may not. Watch out, people of America, someone is trying to gamble with your lives and with your livelihood to please his Jewish bank-rollers and his Jewish advisers.
The historical fact is that Reagan worked with Israel to supply Iran with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft Stinger missiles in return for freeing the American hostages. Given the circumstances at the time, this may well have been the best course to take. History has not yet passed a final judgment on this. As to what the Romney understanding of that historical fact may be however -- well, that's something else.
Romney expressed his views on this subject in an article he wrote under the title: “How I would check Iran's nuclear ambition” published in the Washington Post on March 5, 2012. Since he has never been President of the United States and since he has never dealt with Iran before, we can begin to formulate an idea as to how he will proceed to fulfill his promise only by analyzing his words and by studying his performance in another field of endeavor. This would be his understanding as to how an economy works. I'll come to that in a moment.
Before we embark on that study, let us look at the promise he made to deal with Iran as he explained it himself in the article. He writes that while US diplomats were held hostage “America's feckless president, Jimmy Carter, fretted in the White House.” The truth is that President Carter ordered the military to mount a rescue operation. An attempt was made but the operation ran into difficulties and was aborted. To say that the American President was feckless and that he fretted in the White House is to be fickle like only a flip-flopping Romney can be. And this alone casts doubt as to whether or not he is fit to occupy that White House. But there is more.
Romney goes on to say: “...Reagan made it crystal clear that the Iranians would pay a very stiff price.” But the fact is that they never complained about receiving the Stinger missiles or about letting the hostages go. So where is the stiff price, Mitty boy? The truth is that in return for bribing the Iranians with Stinger missiles, the Reagan negotiators had asked for a reciprocal gift which they fretted when it came to calling it a bribe. They asked that the hostages be let go on January 20. It's okay with us, said the Iran negotiators but out of curiosity, why January 20? Ron's birthday? asked the Iranians. No, inauguration day, said the Americans. Oh, that little thing you call democracy, remarked the Iranians. Yes, yes. And they all exploded in laughter. The American negotiators drank whiskey and the Iranians drank orange juice. I made up this last part.
Having understood history in his little screwy manner and in the big swaggering manner that his Jewish advisers have explained it to him, Romney continues like this: “...Reagan was serious about turning words into action.” Indeed he did; he chose life over death by thinking of the hostages and their families, and by doing the best that he could for them rather than display his phony manhood the way that they do in the Yiddish culture. In the end, Reagan got the Americans home from a foreign land and into the arms of their loved ones. In the end, Romney will send American boys and girls to die in foreign lands so as to please the Jewish donors of his electoral campaign.
Having engaged in this display of intellectual pornography, Romney advises the reader of this: “America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake.” You think for a moment that he is going to admit America is held hostage by the Jewish lobby at every electoral cycle, and that he will do what he can to break from this demonic tradition thus end it once and for all. But this is not what he promises. Instead, he says that feckless Barack Obama “has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets … the Iranians are making progress...”
To elaborate on this, he takes a few paragraphs to froth at the mouth the filth that is usually leveled against Iran, the Middle Eastern types and Islam. He then promises that as President, he would move America in a direction where its “...foreign policy will be the same as Ronald Reagan's.” At this point you wonder if he will offer to give the Iranians more Stinger missiles but then, you come to think that the Israelis will probably not cooperate this time around, and that the Iranians might not want such a deal given that they now make their own missiles. Luckily and to your relief, that's not what Romney promises. What he does is promise to say and do exactly what President Obama is now doing with one exception: “I will demonstrate our commitment to the world by making Jerusalem the destination of my first foreign trip.”
This puzzles you because it is recognized both in international law and in American law that Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. Does he intend to visit Palestine to demonstrate commitment to Israel? Or is he advocating a one state solution? Or is he advocating the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank of the Jordan to facilitate the annexation of that territory by Israel? It looks like Romney has flipped on this question. It will be interesting to see if he will flop as well.
This being a good question, he does not leave you without an answer. But he waits till the end to give it to you. Here is the last sentence in his article: “Either the ayatollahs will get the message, or they will learn some very painful lessons about the meaning of American resolve.” This is the manner he employs to pretend that his resolve is American resolve which, as we may expect, is to flop every time he flips. No, Romney is not a gadfly or a bumble bee, but he is a bumbler, alright. What he will do is not supply Iran with Stinger missiles but sting America and its people with the sharp tongue of the language of insults that is inculcated in him by his Jewish handlers. This is the Yiddish language and the culture that sprung up around it.
All of this point to a mental deficiency which you also see at work in the way that he understands economics. What should be emphasized here is that builders of nation know that an economy is made of two parts. There is the first part which consists of producing wealth like tangible goods and useful services. And there is the second part which consists of speculating and gambling, a game by which someone can accumulate the wealth created by other people. It is necessary to have these two parts in a capitalist system because risk taking is an important component of it. An economy that flies on these two wings is a dynamic economy that usually does very well.
The thing is that you can have an economy that flies on the wing of the first part only. It will be a stagnant economy but it will fly, however sluggishly as it has for thousands of years on Planet Earth. What you cannot have is an economy that flies on the second wing alone. Indeed, what happens to economies that start out well then fall off is that they lose the wing of the first part and try to rely only on speculation and gambling. It never works.
Yet, this is what Romney promises to bring to America. He never created wealth; he only accumulated what others have created. This is economics according to the Yiddish mentality. This is what is now breaking the back of America. To let Romney take over is to call on the executioner to deliver the coup de grace to America. It will be the sting of death.
The ayatollahs will survive the Romney sting, America may not. Watch out, people of America, someone is trying to gamble with your lives and with your livelihood to please his Jewish bank-rollers and his Jewish advisers.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
He Says Believe Me That I Lie To You
I hate to make the sort of prediction that either becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy or that gets in the way of the unfolding of a natural phenomenon thereby deny its fulfillment. But this case has the potential to yield so much insight for just discussing it that I am willing to take a chance and discuss it here and now. What I see as being in the realm of probability in the future is that the Wall Street Journal columnist, Bret Stephens, will experience a reversal in his views with regard to the Middle Eastern issues. It may not be a total reversal but it should be significant enough to bring the man close to seeing the light in the way that many good people have done before him.
You can see signs of this in his latest column: “The 'Jewish' President” which also bears the subtitle: “Don't believe Obama when he says he has Israel's back,” published in the Journal on March 6, 2012. Both the title and the subtitle are somewhat misleading in the sense that the article is not really about Obama but about Peter Beinart who is one of the good people that saw the light and understood that the salvation of Jews will come not by the sword of biblical fantasies but by the acceptance of Jews that they are normal people who must learn to behave normally because they live in a normal world.
Stephens uses as jumping pad a happening that had President Obama address AIPAC a couple of days earlier at which time he discussed the standoff between an Iran that has embarked on a nuclear program and an Israel that feels threatened by it. It was then that the President assured his audience: “I have Israel's back”. Stephens asks if the President should be believed and he answers with a resounding no. To explain that answer, he takes a paragraph in which he lists four examples that involve the President, his defense secretary and his top national security adviser, all of which demonstrate that the President does not mean what he says according to the columnist.
He also cites a fifth example -- this one outside the realm of the standoff between Iran and Israel -- to commit what looks like an elaborate Freudian slip. He tells of the secretary of state who was visiting Tunisia recently and had a meeting with a number of students there. When asked a question on the subject of the American politicians who court the Zionist lobbies, she replied that “a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention,” to which he comments: “It seems it didn't occur to her to challenge the premise of the question.”
Whoa! several times over. What we have here is something so flabbergasting, it rivals the Zeno paradox which asks if you would believe someone that says he is a liar. Here is a guy -- apparently an intelligent one – who says you should not believe a President who makes promises during an election campaign, now chiding the secretary of state for saying don't believe politicians who make promises during election campaigns, then suggesting that she should have lied by challenging the very premise of the question. Would you now believe this guy saying that you must not believe the President?
Having so betrayed himself, the author now advises that Peter Beinart would be a source you can look at to find evidence that Mr. Obama is disingenuous. He tells us that Beinart used to advocate the war against Iraq but that he reinvented himself as a scourge of Israel and the Jewish causes. He has a book coming out soon under the title: “The Crisis of Zionism” whose chapter five, which is titled: “The Jewish President”, discusses President Obama's education on matters related to the Middle East.
Stephens discusses a few passages from that chapter to show that contrary to the common wisdom which has it that Obama was educated on such matters at the hands of his friends Rashid Khalidi and pastor Jeremiah Wright, it was a coterie of Chicago Jews who bred in the future President a vision of Israel and of American Jewry.
He goes on to say that in Beinart's point of view, this intellectual journey of Mr. Obama is evidence that he is in tune with the authentic views of ordinary Jews but not their leaders. He then surprises you by giving his own opinion. Get this now; Stephens says “maybe” to that same point of view. He has one small reservation though, which is this: “Still, one wonders why organizations more in tune with those 'real' views rarely seem to find much of a base.”
Frankly, I am puzzled as to why he would say this in the face of polls conducted in America and in Israel showing that the base is there, that it is growing and that it is supporting a peaceful resolution of all the problems relating to Israel and to its neighbors. As to why the columnist brought up this point, it could be that he is revealing a deep seated desire to start an organization that will rally a base around these ideas. I would say he will do a good job leading a movement like this. Go for it, Bret.
In the meantime though, he still is who he is, and so he writes the following to end his column: “...the important question ... [is] about the president's honesty … On the evidence … Mr. Obama's speech at Aipac was one long exercise in political cynicism.”
I just hope that these words will not so affect Bret Stephens as to prompt him to do things differently from what he would have done ordinarily. If he was about to reinvent himself, he should continue on that path at his own pace. If he were not, he will spend the rest of his life trying to explain how he can tell people to trust what he says at the same time as he tells them not to trust the people who say what he says.
You can see signs of this in his latest column: “The 'Jewish' President” which also bears the subtitle: “Don't believe Obama when he says he has Israel's back,” published in the Journal on March 6, 2012. Both the title and the subtitle are somewhat misleading in the sense that the article is not really about Obama but about Peter Beinart who is one of the good people that saw the light and understood that the salvation of Jews will come not by the sword of biblical fantasies but by the acceptance of Jews that they are normal people who must learn to behave normally because they live in a normal world.
Stephens uses as jumping pad a happening that had President Obama address AIPAC a couple of days earlier at which time he discussed the standoff between an Iran that has embarked on a nuclear program and an Israel that feels threatened by it. It was then that the President assured his audience: “I have Israel's back”. Stephens asks if the President should be believed and he answers with a resounding no. To explain that answer, he takes a paragraph in which he lists four examples that involve the President, his defense secretary and his top national security adviser, all of which demonstrate that the President does not mean what he says according to the columnist.
He also cites a fifth example -- this one outside the realm of the standoff between Iran and Israel -- to commit what looks like an elaborate Freudian slip. He tells of the secretary of state who was visiting Tunisia recently and had a meeting with a number of students there. When asked a question on the subject of the American politicians who court the Zionist lobbies, she replied that “a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention,” to which he comments: “It seems it didn't occur to her to challenge the premise of the question.”
Whoa! several times over. What we have here is something so flabbergasting, it rivals the Zeno paradox which asks if you would believe someone that says he is a liar. Here is a guy -- apparently an intelligent one – who says you should not believe a President who makes promises during an election campaign, now chiding the secretary of state for saying don't believe politicians who make promises during election campaigns, then suggesting that she should have lied by challenging the very premise of the question. Would you now believe this guy saying that you must not believe the President?
Having so betrayed himself, the author now advises that Peter Beinart would be a source you can look at to find evidence that Mr. Obama is disingenuous. He tells us that Beinart used to advocate the war against Iraq but that he reinvented himself as a scourge of Israel and the Jewish causes. He has a book coming out soon under the title: “The Crisis of Zionism” whose chapter five, which is titled: “The Jewish President”, discusses President Obama's education on matters related to the Middle East.
Stephens discusses a few passages from that chapter to show that contrary to the common wisdom which has it that Obama was educated on such matters at the hands of his friends Rashid Khalidi and pastor Jeremiah Wright, it was a coterie of Chicago Jews who bred in the future President a vision of Israel and of American Jewry.
He goes on to say that in Beinart's point of view, this intellectual journey of Mr. Obama is evidence that he is in tune with the authentic views of ordinary Jews but not their leaders. He then surprises you by giving his own opinion. Get this now; Stephens says “maybe” to that same point of view. He has one small reservation though, which is this: “Still, one wonders why organizations more in tune with those 'real' views rarely seem to find much of a base.”
Frankly, I am puzzled as to why he would say this in the face of polls conducted in America and in Israel showing that the base is there, that it is growing and that it is supporting a peaceful resolution of all the problems relating to Israel and to its neighbors. As to why the columnist brought up this point, it could be that he is revealing a deep seated desire to start an organization that will rally a base around these ideas. I would say he will do a good job leading a movement like this. Go for it, Bret.
In the meantime though, he still is who he is, and so he writes the following to end his column: “...the important question ... [is] about the president's honesty … On the evidence … Mr. Obama's speech at Aipac was one long exercise in political cynicism.”
I just hope that these words will not so affect Bret Stephens as to prompt him to do things differently from what he would have done ordinarily. If he was about to reinvent himself, he should continue on that path at his own pace. If he were not, he will spend the rest of his life trying to explain how he can tell people to trust what he says at the same time as he tells them not to trust the people who say what he says.
Monday, March 5, 2012
A Litany To Commit High Treason
First, let me try something on you, then we'll see where we should go from here. It is that I suspect I have a problem with my girlfriend because she says she likes me, yet she does the things that tell me she does not. And I have a whole host of reasons which I call infractions to prove my suspicion. For example, she has ten pairs of shoes, nine of which are black and one brown. And believe it or not, last Wednesday she wore a black pair instead of the brown even though she knows I like her better when she wears brown shoes on Wednesday. Also, when we sit in a restaurant, instead of looking at me or the food all the time, she would take a few glances – if only for a fraction of a second – away from me or the food; and this, in the span of one hour or two. You get the idea and so I do not need to give you the whole list of infractions.
So now I ask you this: What do you think of me? A jerk you say? I agree. But the thing is, I'm not like that. You want to know who is? The Jewish lobbyists. When they wish to own something as they do America at this time, they want it for themselves in whole and in part, lock stock and barrel, from head to toe, from dawn to dusk, for better or for worse, in good times and in bad, for ever and ever till infinity and past it to the next infinity and beyond that. One of those who specialize in keeping track of the American infractions towards Israel and the Jewish causes, is Dan Senor. When he writes something, he always gives you a litany of the little things that the American President does which, in his view, constitute serious infractions -- as serious as neglecting to wear brown shoes on a Wednesday, for example.
He did it again. On March 5, 2012 (today) the Wall Street Journal published his latest list under the title: “Why Israel Has Doubts About Obama” and the subtitle: “Even Democrats have publicly questioned U.S. statements and policies toward America's most important Mideast ally.” What flares up your bile as you read the stuff is that it goes down your throat like a chutzpah brew that is served in a glass of hubris. He begins by calling President Obama immodest for saying that his “administration has done more in terms of the security of … Israel than any previous administration.”
Senor takes this as being the presidential equivalent of “I love you Israel and I have your back” to which he replies in the name of Israel: “You love me, my ass. If you did, you would wear brown shoes on Wednesday.” In fact, he dismisses Obama's assertion by attributing America's largess to someone else: “...there has been increased U.S. funding for Israeli defense … the bulk of which comes from … a 10-year commitment made by … W. Bush … in 2007.”
So then, what else would satisfy these people if not just the security of Israel? you ask. And they tell you without shame, fear or reluctance that they expect nothing less than presidential high treason of country in return for a bribe. And Senor is so certain that the lobby is already getting this much from American presidents, he does not ask for it anymore. On the contrary, he explains why Obama is attributing to himself Bush's largess toward Israel by offering this analysis: “Monday he [Obama] meets with … Netanyahu … know[ing] that he lost a portion of the Jewish vote … With the election nine months away, he's scrambling to win back Jewish voters and donors.” In other words, he says matter-of-factly that in the style of the most primitive of Third World traditions, American presidents of both parties betray their country for money and foreign political support.
Now he tells you what really bugs him and what he really, really wants: “...a key element of Israel's security is deterrence [which] rests on … the perception … that Israel will defend itself, and that … America will stand by Israel.” This would be like me telling my girlfriend she cannot glance away from me because people in the restaurant will perceive such act as being a sign there is daylight between us; and perception is what counts. To avoid that dreaded possibility, she must remain visually fixated only on me or her plate at all time.
Now comes the litany of the things that Senor believes the Obama administration did to upset that order. The first came in October of 2011 when Leon Panetta raised questions about Israel -- questions that Senor characterizes as being provocative. Here is that moment: “Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena?” This would be like the girlfriend telling me to find a few more friends and have a real life with them, not just depend on her attention, her love and the fact that she is so rich and powerful, I fully depend on her in everything that sustains me. It is scandalous that she would think in these terms. What kind of relationship she wants with me? An open marriage?
Senor now sheds a tear or two: “The president's stern lectures to Israel's leaders were delivered repeatedly and very publicly at the United Nations, in Egypt and Turkey, all the while he did not make a single visit to Israel to express solidarity.” And speaking of Turkey, Israel's past lover, he says this: “Indeed, almost every time the Obama administration has scolded Israel, the charges have been repeated by Turkish officials.” Like a tender moment in a noon time soap opera, you feel like sopping at Israel's heartbreak. A moment of silence please: sop, sop, sop. Or is it whine, whine, whine?
Senor goes on to discuss a few more such incidents which took place in November and December of 2011, as well as in January and February of 2012. But having loaded the readers with a heavy dose of emotional content, he now provides the comic relief. Like me saying to the girlfriend: “I'm not the only one saying this about you, even your mother is saying it,” Senor reveals this tidbit of truth: “...Obama dismissed critics … as 'actors who want to … drive a wedge … between [him] and the [Jews].' But … these criticisms have been leveled by Democrats.”
To show how, he gives you another litany, this time of democrats such as Sen. Robert Menendez who lambasted administration officials. There were also the leading democrats, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer who felt compelled to speak out. There was Sen. Charles Schumer who used even stronger language to respond to things terrible he heard, and finally there was the turncoat Senator Joe Lieberman who said of Obama: “...he's handled the relationship with Israel in a way that has … unsettled the Israelis.”
He ends by voicing concern that if re-elected, Obama will be even more one sided in his approach toward Israel. But he promises him a pat on the back if “...he will stand by Israel...” Senor then says that Obama came close to promising this much in his speech to the AIPAC crowd (yesterday), and he hopes that “this is the beginning of a policy change and not just election year rhetoric.”
In the meantime, Dan Senor is now advising the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. I wonder how he is telling them to commit acts of high treason for the benefit of Israel and hope to get away with it.
So strange a democracy America has become; let's cross our fingers and hope for the best or at least avoid the worst.
So now I ask you this: What do you think of me? A jerk you say? I agree. But the thing is, I'm not like that. You want to know who is? The Jewish lobbyists. When they wish to own something as they do America at this time, they want it for themselves in whole and in part, lock stock and barrel, from head to toe, from dawn to dusk, for better or for worse, in good times and in bad, for ever and ever till infinity and past it to the next infinity and beyond that. One of those who specialize in keeping track of the American infractions towards Israel and the Jewish causes, is Dan Senor. When he writes something, he always gives you a litany of the little things that the American President does which, in his view, constitute serious infractions -- as serious as neglecting to wear brown shoes on a Wednesday, for example.
He did it again. On March 5, 2012 (today) the Wall Street Journal published his latest list under the title: “Why Israel Has Doubts About Obama” and the subtitle: “Even Democrats have publicly questioned U.S. statements and policies toward America's most important Mideast ally.” What flares up your bile as you read the stuff is that it goes down your throat like a chutzpah brew that is served in a glass of hubris. He begins by calling President Obama immodest for saying that his “administration has done more in terms of the security of … Israel than any previous administration.”
Senor takes this as being the presidential equivalent of “I love you Israel and I have your back” to which he replies in the name of Israel: “You love me, my ass. If you did, you would wear brown shoes on Wednesday.” In fact, he dismisses Obama's assertion by attributing America's largess to someone else: “...there has been increased U.S. funding for Israeli defense … the bulk of which comes from … a 10-year commitment made by … W. Bush … in 2007.”
So then, what else would satisfy these people if not just the security of Israel? you ask. And they tell you without shame, fear or reluctance that they expect nothing less than presidential high treason of country in return for a bribe. And Senor is so certain that the lobby is already getting this much from American presidents, he does not ask for it anymore. On the contrary, he explains why Obama is attributing to himself Bush's largess toward Israel by offering this analysis: “Monday he [Obama] meets with … Netanyahu … know[ing] that he lost a portion of the Jewish vote … With the election nine months away, he's scrambling to win back Jewish voters and donors.” In other words, he says matter-of-factly that in the style of the most primitive of Third World traditions, American presidents of both parties betray their country for money and foreign political support.
Now he tells you what really bugs him and what he really, really wants: “...a key element of Israel's security is deterrence [which] rests on … the perception … that Israel will defend itself, and that … America will stand by Israel.” This would be like me telling my girlfriend she cannot glance away from me because people in the restaurant will perceive such act as being a sign there is daylight between us; and perception is what counts. To avoid that dreaded possibility, she must remain visually fixated only on me or her plate at all time.
Now comes the litany of the things that Senor believes the Obama administration did to upset that order. The first came in October of 2011 when Leon Panetta raised questions about Israel -- questions that Senor characterizes as being provocative. Here is that moment: “Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena?” This would be like the girlfriend telling me to find a few more friends and have a real life with them, not just depend on her attention, her love and the fact that she is so rich and powerful, I fully depend on her in everything that sustains me. It is scandalous that she would think in these terms. What kind of relationship she wants with me? An open marriage?
Senor now sheds a tear or two: “The president's stern lectures to Israel's leaders were delivered repeatedly and very publicly at the United Nations, in Egypt and Turkey, all the while he did not make a single visit to Israel to express solidarity.” And speaking of Turkey, Israel's past lover, he says this: “Indeed, almost every time the Obama administration has scolded Israel, the charges have been repeated by Turkish officials.” Like a tender moment in a noon time soap opera, you feel like sopping at Israel's heartbreak. A moment of silence please: sop, sop, sop. Or is it whine, whine, whine?
Senor goes on to discuss a few more such incidents which took place in November and December of 2011, as well as in January and February of 2012. But having loaded the readers with a heavy dose of emotional content, he now provides the comic relief. Like me saying to the girlfriend: “I'm not the only one saying this about you, even your mother is saying it,” Senor reveals this tidbit of truth: “...Obama dismissed critics … as 'actors who want to … drive a wedge … between [him] and the [Jews].' But … these criticisms have been leveled by Democrats.”
To show how, he gives you another litany, this time of democrats such as Sen. Robert Menendez who lambasted administration officials. There were also the leading democrats, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer who felt compelled to speak out. There was Sen. Charles Schumer who used even stronger language to respond to things terrible he heard, and finally there was the turncoat Senator Joe Lieberman who said of Obama: “...he's handled the relationship with Israel in a way that has … unsettled the Israelis.”
He ends by voicing concern that if re-elected, Obama will be even more one sided in his approach toward Israel. But he promises him a pat on the back if “...he will stand by Israel...” Senor then says that Obama came close to promising this much in his speech to the AIPAC crowd (yesterday), and he hopes that “this is the beginning of a policy change and not just election year rhetoric.”
In the meantime, Dan Senor is now advising the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. I wonder how he is telling them to commit acts of high treason for the benefit of Israel and hope to get away with it.
So strange a democracy America has become; let's cross our fingers and hope for the best or at least avoid the worst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)