A Parent's Duty to a handicapped Child?

Teenagers in their early to mid-teens have the habit of testing the limit to which they can push their luck on things that may be of interest to them; something they do out of perceived need – also push their luck on things that may not be of interest to them; something they do out of curiosity.

They get into trouble for what they do, whether they test their parents, their teachers or strangers whom they happen to encounter and deal with once in a while. And of course, these teens can always count on their parents to bail them out and explain why they should not do that again. Sometimes a teacher, a school principal or a counselor are called upon to help straighten the kid.

When a kid is a kid – in the sense that he or she is still a teenager – the adults around them have the duty to mentor them in the same way that they were mentored while growing up, and the way that the kids of today will mentor the next generation when they will have grown up themselves. Come to think of it, this cascading nurture is a trait that we, humans, share with most of the organisms that have evolved above the level of insects.

Because, as human beings, we have other traits that render our human experience more complicated than the lower primates, things do not always unfold with us as smoothly as we would like them to. And this applies to some teenagers who find it difficult to kick the habit of being childish, thus keep getting into trouble with their parents, their teachers, even strangers they might have encountered only once.

Such kids require attention for a longer period of time than their counterparts, and they usually get it unless it is observed that there is something seriously wrong with their character. In this case the kid is declared incorrigible by the normal methods, and is committed to receive a different kind of treatment. At other times, the kid can be visibly handicapped in a physical or emotional sense, in which case he or she is properly diagnosed and given the proper medical or psychological treatment.

Because the treatment in such cases takes a long time, the parents of these kids elect – most of the time but not always – to become the prime caregiver even as the child grows up and becomes an adult. The parents feel that it is their duty to care for and nurture an offspring that continues to require assistance. Also, no one must underestimate the love that a parent has for a child.

This is the culture and civilization of our planet; the reason why we survived and developed to the point of contemplating travel among the planets, and beyond them to the stars. But the journey up to now has not been an easy one. We had our share of trouble for the reason that throughout time, some cultures arose and correctly mimicked the growth of an organism in its various stages, but then experienced a developmental arrest. This motivated them to create trouble for their neighbors, even for the entire species. It was the kind of trouble that's not different from what the teenagers create, except that a culture that's out of control can cause trouble at the regional level, even on a planetary scale.

With the exception of one, most of the problem cultures came and went, leaving only a residue of the mischief they had caused when they were alive and kicking. The exception is a culture that kept morphing from one state of existence to another, adapting to the local conditions in form only while maintaining the essence of the ancient Jewish culture. Almost everywhere that these people went, they scored an initial success, but when the locals discovered that no matter how sweet their external form may appear, their internal essence remained as toxic as the deadliest of poisons. And so, the locals turned against the Jews … sometimes harshly, sometimes fatally.

You can see how and why the Jewish culture refuses to outgrow the teenager stage in which it has fossilized since coming to America – when you read the editorial of the New York Daily News that came under the title: “John Kerry's duty to Israel,” published on October 17, 2015.

When you'll have finished reading the piece, you will want to shout: Grow up, kid, no one owes you anything. You're not handicapped, and so you owe it to yourself to start learning how to get along with the rest of humanity. Thirty four centuries are long enough for you to have developed a human culture that's above the animal culture which continues to motivate you ever since you came down from the trees.

Enough is enough. The ball is in your court. And leave John Kerry alone; he has some serious work to do.

A Makovsky Test that de-legitimizes Israel

Michael Makovsky has devised a new approach, a kind of test by which to judge the right of a regime to be left alone as it governs the population it presides over the way it sees fit. He applied the test to the Iranian regime in Tehran, and has found it wanting. And yet, the Obama Administration is tolerating this regime, says Makovsky.

He wrote his opinion in an article that came under the title: “Iranian Cheating” and had it published in the Weekly Standard on October 16, 2015. His lament against President Obama is this: “The conclusion the administration draws is frightening. Iranian cheating in one area, we are to believe, should not be taken to mean that Iran will cheat elsewhere, too. Cheating is not, we are to believe, a general characteristic of a regime with nothing but contempt for the international legal institutions.”

The Jewish tendency being that these people would mutilate any concept – ranging from a historical event to a legal, philosophical or logical one – Makovsky came up with that test to mutilate the meaning of an event that's of little importance to humanity but a huge one to Israel and to the Jewish Establishment. It is the Iranian launch of a new missile about which Makovsky says: “Legally, this launch was an indisputable violation of Security Council Resolution 1929.”

Despite the fact that no one in the world sounded the alarm about that launch, and that America's own UN ambassador said only this: “if the facts are as we believe them to be, it would violate Security Council resolutions,” Makovsky has concluded that the test was an indisputable violation. He then used his own conclusion to argue that because he accused the Iranians of cheating on the missile resolution (passed by the Security Council without their consent) they will also cheat on the nuclear deal, an agreement to which they consented. That's layers of false accusations wrapped in delusional speculation.

It is also pure Jewish masturbation of the intellect, a trick by which people like Makovsky mutilate everything they can get their hands on to serve their current need. He did it despite the assurances that were given by White House press secretary Josh Earnest who said: “we've seen that Iran over the last couple of years has demonstrated a track record of abiding by the commitments they made in the context of the nuclear talks.”

And the Makovsky masturbation continues: “The fact is that the larger implications of the missile launch are staring us in the face. Indeed, what is most stunning about Earnest's statement is not the contention that Iran hasn't cheated but the implicit claim that … Iran could build and fire as many missiles as it wanted.” Look what this Jew is saying. He is saying: never mind that the Iranians proved to be honest, that's not my problem with them. My problem is that they are so advanced, they can build and fire any number of missiles they want.

Now that he falsely accused the Iranians of violating international agreements, and having convinced himself that he got away with it, he sets out to pave the way for violating the nuclear agreement negotiated with Iran by the P5+1 group of nations on behalf of the international community. Look how he does that: “Ballistic missiles are not some minor offshoot of a nuclear program … Thanks to the administration's delusion, in believing these matters are 'entirely separate,' Iran will be permitted to attain the capability to fire nuclear weapons at the American homeland.” Translation: the nuclear deal is bad and must be scrapped or reinterpreted.

What he is doing here is Jewish style demagoguery. That is, in the way that the Jewish leaders maintain control over the rank and file by scaring ordinary Jews, Makovsky, who is a self-appointed Jewish leader, is trying to establish control over the mentally deficient American legislators who will believe that Iran is preparing to attack America with nuclear weapons. He tells them the following: “the ballistic missile launch confirms that the deal has emboldened the Islamic Republic. This was predictable to anyone that sees the world as it is instead of through a delusional ideological prism.”

And he teases their brains nudging them to act: “We have a Congress that is entitled to try to make the world less dangerous. Does the nuclear deal require Congress to do nothing as Iran tests its missiles?”

Those American legislators may or may not understand what he says. But the world will see that the Jews are once again on the path to being treated according to the Makovsky criteria, and will most likely get burned yet again.

Next Year out of Jerusalem?

Under the title: “The Knives of Jerusalem” and the subtitle: “The cause and meaning of the new wave of Palestinian terror,” the editors of the Wall Street Journal threw a challenge at their critics. At the same time, however, they created an enormous amount of noise in the hope of smothering reality but failed in this attempt.

Here is the challenge they threw: “If Israel's critics in the West think they could do better under similar circumstances, they ought to explain how.” Well, here is the answer: The time has come for the Jews to understand that if they want to be treated like human beings, they ought to behave like human beings. They must avoid the pretense of being superhuman while behaving like subhumans.

And what human beings have done throughout space and time is recognize that military occupation creates resistance. Those who resist are not called terrorists. They are called freedom fighters by some, and outlaws by others. The moment that the Jews show signs they are beginning to understand this concept, they will want to end the occupation of Palestine, thus become as normal as the people who now live in places like South Africa and Zimbabwe – formerly Rhodesia.

Here now is the noise that the Journal editors created in the hope of smothering reality but failed in the attempt: “The taste for violence emerges from a deep-seated culture of hate, nurtured by Palestinian leaders over many years in mosques, schools, newspapers, TV channels and social media.” Do you know what this does, my friend? It denies the Holocaust and all the pogroms that have plagued the Jews since the beginning of time.

The undeniable reality is that normal human beings do not hate the Jews because there is something wrong with humanity. The undeniable reality is that everywhere the Jews go; they create an ocean of hatred in the hope of drowning those they plan to exploit but end up drowning themselves. At times, the phenomenon happens right away. At other times, it happens after an initial Jewish success that stimulates their appetite for more. They go to excess and bring the wrath of humanity on their heads. It can be said that the Jews are their own worst enemies, but it would be more accurate to say that the worst enemies of the Jews are their leaders.

Instead of starting with those undeniable realities, and go from there to counsel the Israelis that they ought to contemplate being out of the West Bank right away, and out of occupied Jerusalem next year, they created all that noise then reached this conclusion: “Equally to blame is Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

And that has been the Jewish mode of operation since the beginning of time. They always created the conditions for a big explosion, and when this happened, they blamed someone else for it. Right after that, they reached out to a third party, asked the sucker to save them and give them compensation for what they suffered. The sucker this time is an America they are bleeding like there is no one else to feed on. And the Wall Street Journal is one of the tubes through which they suck American treasures and young American lives.

Here now is the trick they use to go from blaming someone like Mahmoud Abbas – which nets them very little – to sticking the sucking tubes into the body of the sucker, which will net them the nutrients they need to keep going as they prepare another sucker for future exploitation.

Are you ready to see that trick? Here it is: “Such reckless talk should end Western illusions that Mr. Abbas is a reliable partner for Israel. It wouldn't hurt if the Obama Administration spoke up about it. Instead, John Kerry remind[ed] Israelis that this Administration's moral abdications in the Middle East match its strategic ones.”

And that means, to show any kind of moral rectitude, America must give them money to live on, weapons to go on a rampage throughout the neighborhood, and diplomatic protection for every crime against humanity they will commit in the effort to grab more and more of what belongs to others. That's Jewish style moral rectitude.

And the editors of the Journal have one more advice to give to their critics. They deliver it by pretending to talk to the Israelis. Here it is: “Israelis should also beware of arguments calling for an end to the occupation.”

Obviously, they love this kind of stuff and they want it to last for a long time … which will be the case for as long as the occupation of Palestine is maintained. This too is Jewish style moral rectitude.

Jewish Hysteria prevails over American Reason

It has been about 5,000 days since the American military went into Afghanistan. If we assume that 200 articles and audio-visual commentaries were made each day on this subject, we count a million contributions of perhaps 500 words each on average. This means that half a billion words were uttered on this topic … not counting the books that were written, the lectures that were given, and the shows (on big and small screens) that dealt with it.

And yet, during all that time, and despite all those words, the most important truth that needed to be said was never said. It is that America went into Afghanistan because of 9/11. And 9/11 happened not because America left a vacuum somewhere on the planet, but because America overstayed its welcome in Saudi Arabia. This is what infuriated Usama Bin Laden; what motivated him to carry out the 9/11 attacks on America.

And because this truth remained hidden – be it deliberately or inadvertently – all sorts of dots were connected in all sorts of funky ways to arrive at one and the same funky conclusion: America must go around the globe searching for vacuums to fill or a slew of 9/11s will hit it and hit its allies regularly now and forever.

An example that is often cited to show cause and effect is America's withdrawal from Iraq. Those who wish to see America involved in perpetual wars anywhere and everywhere around the globe, say that the withdrawal caused the deterioration of the situation in that country. And so they argue that America must not repeat that mistake ever again.

Of course, no one can go back in time and change history to see what would have happened if America had not withdrawn from Iraq. But what we can do is point to the places from which America withdrew and things turned out well. This would be Vietnam, for example. We can also point to the places from which America did not withdraw, and things remained as bad as ever – like Afghanistan, for example.

It would be useful to keep that backgrounder in mind when we try to make sense of the piece which the editors of the Wall Street Journal wrote under the title: “Obama's Afghan Reversal” and the subtitle: “Perhaps he learned something from his Iraq withdrawal.” It was published in the Journal on October 16, 2015.

What indicates that this editorial was inspired by Jews, and that it celebrates the years of hysteria they unleashed and maintained to convince President Obama to reverse his position on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan – is this passage: “It is possible that what drove Mr. Obama's decision was concern that an Afghanistan overrun would leave his foreign-policy reputation in tatters.” Never mind that they always said Obama's foreign-policy reputation has been in tatters from the start. So the question: By what logic can something that is one thing become the thing it already is? Beats me!

You see, my friend – when the Jews decide to denigrate someone, they interpret everything surrounding him or her in personal terms. And they attribute negative motives to those who act on something – whether the action that's taken coincides with their Jewish point of view, or it goes against their grain. Thus, the Journal editors painted Obama as the enemy when he tried to keep America out of wars, and they continue to paint him as the enemy now that he reversed his decision, coming close to their point of view.

Well, maybe we can find in the rest of the piece, the reasons why the Journal editors still dislike Obama that intensely. Here is one possible reason: “The central issue now is whether the Administration will do enough militarily in Afghanistan to ensure that the war inherited by the next President isn't worse than it is today.” This means they are worried Obama may not have the kind of war that will justify and validate their state of hysteria.

Also, they do not like the idea that he only wants to do “supporting counter-terrorism operations,” something they say, understates the nature and scale of the threat. They also say it troubles them that he will reduce troop levels to 5,500 by January 2017, questioning if this will prevent the Taliban, al Qaeda and ISIS from taking large swaths of Afghanistan.

Finally, the editors of the Wall Street Journal remind the readers that the US continues to have 29,000 troops in South Korea, 62 years after the end of the war there. By that, they mean to say it is okay for America to go in the places about which they plan to create a Jewish hysteria. Once there, it will be okay for America to stay for decades – better yet, stay there forever.

Without explaining why America is tolerated in South Korea, when it was rejected in dozens of other places, the editors assert that the presence of American troops in South Korea “allowed East Asia to flourish.”

Apparently these people are ignorant of the saying: It's the exception that proves the rule.

This Lawyer has gone Banana

When it comes to a law that someone does not like and sets out to disparage, you can tell the difference between a lawyer that is arguing against such law, and a layman that is struggling to do likewise.

The lawyer will construct a legal argument that highlights the weaknesses of the law, and its possible negative effects on society. And he will suggest some ways as to how this can be rectified, such as amending the law or replacing it entirely. As to the layman, he will attack the law on grounds that may have nothing to do with its weaknesses or the possible negative effects it might have on society.

And then, there are a third kind of people who will astound you. Listening to them, you'll think they are laymen with very little education and a false idea about what the law means in general and why it exists in the first place. Yet, here they are attacking a particular law not knowing what it is supposed to stand for. The worse part comes at the end of their presentation when they blow your mind with the revelation that they are not laymen but trained lawyers – actual lawyers and members of the bar, which also makes them officers of the Court. Imagine!

Is this for real, or is it a metaphor? Believe it or not, it is for real; and there is an example of it in black and white. It is an article that was written by David French who is a lawyer and a contributor to National Review Online. What he has contributed this time is an article that came under the title: “Palestinian Reasoning: Yield to our Crazy Religious Intolerance or We'll Kill You,” published on October 13, 2015.

No one can deny that French knows how to express outrageous ideas in subtle ways, thus fool his readers. Lawyers often do that, and he seems to have learned at least this trick of the profession. He is using it in the current article as shown in the following montage of relevant passages: “The holy compound in Jerusalem, a place revered by Jews and Muslims … According to security arrangement [the law] dating back to 1967, the site, while open to Jewish visitors at specific times, is sealed off to non-Muslim prayer … Let's be clear – this is crazed, anti-Semitic religious intolerance, and Israelis are expected to 'respect' this intolerance.”

Behold a supposed lawyer who is speaking like a layman that's raised on little education or none at all. He is attacking the law on grounds that have nothing to do with its weaknesses or the possible effects it might have on society. He calls anti-Semitic an arrangement that has remained in force and has worked well for nearly half a century, moaning that Israelis are expected to respect this law. And he calls himself a lawyer. Imagine!

This being a dispute that can and must be discussed on merit only, David French chose to do otherwise. He chose to attack the Palestinians who demand that the law be respected and enforced. He does that because he knows that to discuss the law on merit will lead to the Palestinian point of view prevailing over the Jewish,

Is David French stupid or is he hiding something he is guarding jealously? The chances are that he is hiding something. This view flows from the fact that he accuses the Palestinians of anti-Semitism because they advocate respect for the law, which he complains advances their agenda. Well, experience tells us that when someone does that, he has an agenda of his own which he guards jealously. What could it be?

It is a risky business to speculate on something when there is not enough data to rely on. Having made this admission, I venture to guess a possible Jewish agenda. The model I see is one that was adopted by the late Ariel Sharon. At a low point after suffering several political defeats, he sent his soldiers to the holy site knowing that the Palestinian will come out in force and defend it. He counted on a major disturbance and got an intifada.

Sharon did that to achieve a number of goals. (1) He wished to tell the Americans that Israel was in danger and needed help – money, money, money. (2) He wanted to mobilize the rank and file in America, forcing the foot soldiers to double their effort promoting Israel's causes. (3) He wanted to tell the world, especially the Arabs, that Israel continues to own America and that the Jewish lobby continues to operate Israel's possession.

With Netanyahu expected to visit America next month carrying the message of gimme, gimme, gimme, money, money, money, he is trying to accomplish goals similar to those of Sharon. At the risk of sparking an intifada, he started sending America the message that he needs money, weapons and a public declaration from the American president that Arab lives matter little or not at all … which is why America will make sure Israel has superior weapons with which to kill them. This will come to pass, and Americans will wonder why they are hated.

NY Daily News advocates arming Palestinians

The editors of the New York Daily News are too stupid to know what they just did. Unless they do, but are hiding their true sentiments, if they come to realize what they did – considering what they say they really stand for – they will probably want to get drunk or stoned or something.

To understand what they did, we need to recall the saying of Donald Rumsfeld that went something like this: “You fight with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.” Well, if you generalize this saying, you come up with this universal formula: “You make do with what you have.” Taking this back to the military analogy, you can now say this: “You fight with the weapons you have, not those you wish you had.” And that's where the editorial in the New York Daily News features prominently.

Those editors wrote a piece under the title: “Madness unleashed,” which they published on October 13, 2015. They start their argument by making the point that “Palestinians are now murdering Israelis with knives and cars.” What this means according to the Rumsfeld wisdom is that the Palestinians are fighting the Jewish intruders who are ransacking and looting their homes – with the weapons that they have, not those they wish they had.

Think about it, what would you do if an intruder came into your house in the middle of the night, and you have no gun to fight him with? Well, you grab a knife and hit him with it, won't you? If he survives, and he runs out into the driveway, you try to hit him with the car, would you not? This is what the Palestinians are now doing, say the editors of the Daily News who are keenly aware of the Second Amendment in the US Constitution. And Rumsfeld – wherever he may be – must be saying: God bless them.

There is this little annoying thing, however. It is America that's making sure the Palestinians never get the weapons they wish they had while at the same time arming the Jews with all the weapons they wish to have … and then some. Not only does America restrict the sale of weapons to the Palestinians, it pressures everyone else to do the same. And so, you my friend can now see why the editors of the New York Daily News are unhappy with the current situation.

And from all that, you the reader, can now understand why those editors are advocating that the Palestinians be given weapons comparable to those which are used by the Jews, and given to them by America. It is only fair, isn't it? After all, Mortimer Zuckerman owns and publishes the Daily News, and he is so wise and so potent, he fancies himself as the ninety year old man that can father a baby.

If he can do that, it must be that he can also see why there must be fairness in this world for things to calm down, and why there is the necessity that everyone be allowed to live securely in what humanity has termed the “territorial integrity” of every people – be they free on their own turf, or be they under the military occupation of an age old culture that's as savage as the wildest of animals.

It may be for those reasons that the editors of the Daily News decided on their own (or maybe they were directed by the publisher) to attribute to the United States the suggestion that Israel and the Palestinians share equal moral culpability for the violence. The editors say this is outrageous … and guess what; seven billion people on this planet agree with them.

Just think about it, how can anyone blame a homeowner for protecting his family from a murderous intruder that came from a far away place where he tried to pull the same stunt, was gassed in the chamber as a result, and nearly baked in the oven? There is no comparison. Which is why even the editors of this Jewish publication have concluded that “The guilt is clear.”

To reinforce that point of view, they invoke the saying of John Kerry who is America's Secretary of State, and the saying of Ban Ki-moon who is Secretary General of the United Nations. They say that “Kerry was suggesting Israeli responsibility,” whereas Ban Ki-moon found “troubling' the “use of force by the Israelis.”

Now you have seven billion people, together with the United States and the United Nations saying: Give the Palestinians weapons comparable to those in the hands of the Israelis to make the fight a fair one. Amen.

Is this the end of a Century of Wars?

Peter Vincent Pry seems to deplore what he calls the end of the American century. He doesn't actually predict it but he asks the question: “The end of the American Century?” In fact, this is the title of the article he wrote; one that also came under the subtitle: “Obama has curtailed the U.S. role as guarantor of peace.” It was published on October 12, 2015 in The Washington Times.

You can see in the subtitle why the writer considers the decline of America a bad thing. It is that he believes the country brought peace to the world, and has maintained it since World War Two. But that's precisely where a serious question ought to be posed. Having involved itself in something like four or five dozen wars in the 70 years that separate our time from WW II, and having been the initiator of most of these wars, can someone honestly claim that America brought peace to the world?

Vincent Pry says that the idea of America becoming a benign global superpower and build a world order that's based on political and economic freedom – first came to Henry Luce as far back as the year 1941. His vision began to take shape at the end of the Second World War in 1945 and lasted for seventy years. But there is now a question mark as to whether America will retain its position much longer.

To explain why America has been successful during that time but may not be so lucky going forward, he seems to pick up the narrative of history from when the Cold War ended with the collapse of the old Soviet Union in 1991. The problem is that he tells of no historical event that may have unfolded between then and now. The only historical reference he makes to that period comes at the end of the article where he says: “Obama has destroyed the credibility of the United States as the security guarantor of the free world.” But Obama did not occupy the White House till January 2009; what about the rest of the time?

Instead of discussing history, Peter Pry lays out a list of the things that supposedly went wrong for America. These would be the things which, in his view, contributed to the country's decline. He begins with this assertion: “In 2015, American power and influence is in decline … [other] actors are on the march...” And he goes on to discuss the list item by item.

The first item is this: “Russia has annexed the Crimea and invaded Ukraine … it is embarked on a buildup of nuclear and conventional forces against a U.S. and European NATO allies that are militarily a pale shadow of the alliance that prevailed during the Cold War.”

He goes on: “Russia's return to the Middle East ... successfully displacing the United States with military strikes on U.S.-backed Syrian rebels, may mark the exact date of the death of the American Century. Russia has replaced the U.S. as the dominant power in the Middle East, in a world still dependent on oil … a decisive humiliation, canceling the credibility of guarantees to contain aggression and sustain the American Century.”

What the author has omitted is mention of the role that Israel was supposed to have played protecting America's interests in the region. In fact, the reason why America spent so much money, lives, prestige, political capital and standing in the eyes of the local populations and those beyond, is that Israel was going to return in spades what it was receiving from America.

Instead of doing that, the Jews of Israel have, for 70 years, been pocketing all the goodies that came from America, using the money to live well, the diplomatic protection to act freely, and the weapons to turn up the hatred of the non-Jews who cannot defend themselves – all that to tell the neighbors in words and in deeds that come hell or high water, America is kept so tightly inside the pocket of World Jewry, it will give up on the American Century before cutting ties with Israel.

That's what explains the items on the Pry list, among them how and why: “Iran has prevailed over the United States in toppling a U.S. ally in Yemen and has virtually taken over Iraq.” Why “terrorism grows ever stronger.” And why Russia has made a triumphant re-entry into the Middle East.

America was conned, and the con-artists have been the Jews. And maybe – just maybe – something good will come out of all this. Maybe America will stop initiating wars all over the globe.