Tampering with a Jury Pool of moral Prostitutes

Suppose you're a good-for-nothing lowlife lawyer, and you're asked to defend a good-for-nothing lowlife murder rapist of the Jack the Ripper caliber. What do you do? Well, the first thing you do is select jurors from a pool of moral prostitutes, and then tamper with them.

Is this another metaphor? You bet it is. But in the eyes of most people around the globe, this is more the reality of America's political life than it is a metaphor. It's not only what the people of the world see happening in America at this time – which they regard as the inevitable result of what has been unfolding for half a century – it's the depraved way in which the American politico-journalistic class has been responding to the Jewish assaults on the dignity of the American people.

The world is horrified by the sight of legislators and state governors proposing and passing legislation that obligates the American people to conduct business not in accordance with what is good for them and the other stakeholders, but in accordance with what is good for Israel and all the Jews everywhere. The world is also horrified by the knowledge that having gone this far, the same good-for-nothing lowlife specimen run around the country urging other legislators and state governors to do likewise.

As if this were not enough, the world looks with horror at an American population that is informed, entertained and educated by a media set-up that is made of two parts. The first is openly, loudly and fanatically pro-Israel. It is also dogmatically pro-Jewish and rabidly anti-American. As to the second, it is absolutely muted, totally subdued, and it is quietly acquiescing.

The world is horrified because it knows something that is kept from the American people. It is that the Jews have played this satanic game in every jurisdiction that welcomed them, unaware what diseased culture was animating the Jews. And when the people of the various jurisdictions discovered who and what had invaded them, they moved to sever the Jewish part of their society by pogrom and by holocaust.

The concepts in the above narrative come together in an article that appeared on April 11, 2016 in the New York Times, and a response to it has appeared in the same publication on April 15, 2016. The article was published under the title: “Israel's Unsung Protector: Obama,” and was written by Lara Friedman. The response – a letter to the editor – came from Danny Danon who is Israel's ambassador and permanent representative at the UN. The letter was published under the title: “U.S. Mideast Policy: The Israeli Ambassador's View”.

Lara Friedman has studied the current situation in Washington, and has posited that “President Obama may lay down his own outline for an Israeli-Palestinian two-state agreement, in the form of a resolution in the United Nations Security Council.” And she foresees that Netanyahu will oppose it. Also, a chorus of American politicians and commentators will suggest that the move would be unprecedented.

No, says Friedman – contrary to what John McCain had said – the move will not be unprecedented. It is that McCain's mouth races ahead of his brain when it comes to Jewish matters, which is how and why he blurted that the move will contradict ten previous presidents. He so asserted, having given the matter not a moment's thought … which is how this aging man is operating. And so Lara Friedman took the trouble to show that he and all those like him are delusional.

She says that previous presidents allowed numerous resolutions to pass at the Security Council condemning Israel, some of which were even sponsored by America. She counted at least 7 such resolutions under Johnson, at least 15 under Nixon, 2 under Ford, 14 under Carter, 21 under Reagan, a few more under the first Bush, 3 under Clinton, and 6 under the second Bush … Take that John McCain and come out of your trance if you can.

Faced with these realities, Danny Danon decided to play the role of the good-for-nothing lowlife lawyer that's out to defend Israel, the good-for-nothing lowlife murder rapist. Having selected a jury of depraved legislators and state governors to impress with the prowess of his intellectual self-massaging, Danon decided to tamper with them like the moral prostitutes he knows they are. He told them the following:

First, “America and Israel had differences of opinions that were minor in relation to the strong partnership and close friendship that our two countries enjoy.” This is like saying, my client may have raped and murdered the little girl, but you should think of the moments during which she was enjoying his superior sexual performance.

Second, “The resolutions supported by the United States were in response to policy disputes … to extrapolate from a selective reading of history [will] prejudice the peace agreement we hope to reach one day.” This is like saying, someday they might find a way to resurrect the dead, and the little girl will live again.

Third, “Obama and his predecessors have insisted that only negotiations between the two parties can end the conflict … peace will come when the Palestinians recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state.” This is like saying; my client would like to talk with the parents of the little girl. Love will flourish between them when the parents recognize the legitimate sexual needs of my client.

Fourth, “We achieved peace with Egypt and Jordan. These treaties are a result of direct negotiations … Direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians cannot be replaced by proposals that impose a solution”.

And this is where the world says to Danny Danon, peace with Egypt happened only because Egypt kicked Israel out of the Sinai. As to Jordan, peace happened when that country gave up the West Bank on the assumption that Israel will negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians, and end the occupation.

That never happened because the Palestinians never had the means to kick the Jews out of Palestine. And this is why the world is obligated to end the activities of the murder rapist Jew that has been savaging Palestine for what seems like an eternity. And keep those American prostitutes out of the loop; we've seen too much pornography already.

Cutting off one's Nose to slap the Face

The world is increasingly coming to accept the view that the United States of America is not only pimping for Israel; it has adopted a mentality similar to that of the immature suicide bomber who would blow up himself or herself to kill or injure innocent people because it is something that will please the mentor.

Israel is doing horrible things in occupied Palestine and the entire Middle Eastern region. They are things the likes of which the world has never seen before. Because they are of the sort that humanity can no longer ignore, the world has served notice it will no longer tolerate them. And this is where the Jews have mentored America to cut off its nose and slap its face. They told the superpower to stand up to the world and continue isolating itself by endorsing the crimes that Israel never stops committing, and never intends to. And America did just that.

Doing just that may not sound as bad as blowing up the self, but we're talking about 320 million noses and faces. You may still argue this is not as bad as the loss of a human life, but you'd be ignoring the fact that the consequence of America adopting that mentality is the death of millions of people and the displacement of millions more. You can see that outcome by looking at the situation in the Levant and Europe today.

Let it be known that America supporting Israel one hundred percent of the time in whatever it does, whenever and wherever it does it did not happen by fortuity. In fact, the situation developed the way that it did because the Jews designed it, paved the way for it and diligently executed it move by move, step by step, one brick at a time over a period of two or three generations.

No, the Jews did not come up with the principles involved in the operation just now. They have been working to take control of anything and everything they encountered for centuries, and have been practicing to do so in many places around the world. They behave the way they do because it is their religious belief, the ideology that requires them never to stop trying, and the culture that sustains them through thick and thin.

As far as they are concerned, to stop trying to control what's around them is to stop being Jews. In fact, those who cannot hack this kind of life anymore are invited to convert to something else … and some do. By the same token, new recruits are attracted to this kind of mentality, and they take a crack at it, which is how the ranks of the Jews are constantly replenished.

Germany where the Marxist vision of one world under Jewish governance took roots was the first to almost succumb to Jewish designs but quickly rejected them. The Soviet Union where Marxism was first practiced (contrary to Karl Marx's prediction that it will be America) came close to realizing the Jewish dream of one world, but then gave up the quest. There have been other Jewish attempts to take control of a local government, but they all came to naught. That happened when the populations mounted pogroms to let their own leaders as well as the Jews know how they feel about being governed by Jews.

Finally, America opened its door to the Jews. They went in and instantly resumed their never vanishing habit, undeterred by a history that screams at them to back off, to count their blessings and to refrain from repeating the horror show they have been taking with them everywhere they went. Well, if you think they listened to that advice, think again. And if you want to know how they are brushing off the advice, read “A climate chill,” an editorial that was published on April 10, 2016 in the Pittsburgh Tribune.

Here is the crux of the matter: “U.S. Code Title 22, Section 287e, is clear: 'No funds … shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the PLO the same standing as member states.'” And because the Palestinian Authority has been approved to join the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the editors of the Tribune want the US to eliminate funding for that UN agency.

It is one thing to pimp for Israel by prodding other nations to see its good side and establish relations with it. It is another thing to destroy America's ability to influence events in the world just to sit in the gutter with Israel and keep it company. At first, this looks like cutting off America's nose to slap its own face.

But when the game goes too far for too long – which it has – it begins to look like Uncle Sam cutting off its penis to alleviate the Jewish pain of feeling impotent.

A Democracy of Cowards and cowardly Values

No one in his right mind would look at the current scene in America and say that the people are happy with the way that their ship of state is governed.

Also, no one that knows something about the relationship which exists between the art of governance and culture would deny that political deterioration in America was spurred by the prevailing culture.

And no one who is endowed with a logical mind would fail to see that politics and culture in America have reached the point of negatively influencing each other, thus creating a downward spiral that may not yet be a death spiral but is coming close.

The problem with America that is difficult for Americans to see but is glaring to foreigners is that the politico-cultural mix now guiding the ship of state is one of cowardly values practiced by cowards occupying high and low positions across the entire spectrum of American life.

To put it simply, the Jewish haggling consisting of endless talk and no resolution or action, was mistaken for democracy and allowed to replace the European democracy of useful action that used to dominate in America for centuries before the advent of the Jews. The result is that cheap talk has exploded in America at a time when so little is done, the nation has become as paralyzed as the Congress of zombies.

So we ask: What is it that they talk about? And the answer, my friend, is that they practice the most cowardly thing you can ever imagine. It is that characters who would not lift a finger to save a child that's drowning in a swimming pool, just sit there and incite everyone else to go attack a third party. The truth be told … nothing is more Jewish than this attitude; an affliction considered elsewhere to be a disease.

What is horrifying is that attempts are now made to export the disease everywhere else in the world, especially Europe. You can see an example of that in the editorial that came under the title: “Upping the Pressure on Egypt,” a piece that was published on April 14, 2016 in the New York Times.

There is no doubt that Egypt is going through a difficult period where the choices that must be made – often instantaneously – have the potential to turn the country into a Switzerland or a Syria. These are situations where mistakes are made because everybody has responsibilities and nobody is perfect. The country of Egypt is now facing a situation of this sort involving a European young man from Italy.

The result of what has transpired so far is that friction still exists between Italy and Egypt, and the rest of Europe is watching to see how the matter will progress and how it will be resolved. You don't have to go out of your way to get a sense of the maturity with which the Europeans and the Egyptians are handling the situation. It is all there in the New York Times editorial. Here is an example:

“The Western governments that trade with and arm Egypt have continued to pursue business as usual with the argument that regional security and economic interests trump all … France, Britain and Italy have been counting on Egypt to help stop the spread of the Islamic State and deal with the chaos in Libya … Last Friday, Italy recalled its ambassador to Egypt for consultations … the British government finally called for 'a full and transparent investigation'”.

This is how things progress normally in the civilized world. Contrast this with what happens in America when something as horrifying as young Palestinians are shot by Israelis and their internal organs harvested for sale on the underground Judeo-Israeli market for stolen human parts. You get hundreds of print and electronic pundits to blame the victims, calling on their readers to understand that there is good and evil in this world.

The pundits explain that the good are the Jews whereas the evil are the Palestinians. They further explain: No matter how bad the good is, it will always be good. And no matter how good the bad is, it will always be bad.

This being the Jewish paradigm that has flooded the American culture, it is no wonder that the editors of the New York Times utter the cheap incitement: “It is time for Western democracies to reconsider their relationship with Egypt”. And the negative spiral is taken down one more notch.

Defenders of 'Democracy' rejecting Democracy

They made their bed and they can't sleep in it anymore. Unfortunately, it is also the bed in which they dragged America, and so they bemoan the fact that the bed has sickened their current partner for life. But they are troubled by it only slightly because it is something that happened to all their previous partners for life.

These are the Jewish members of an outfit which proudly refers to itself by the comical name “Foundation for Defense of Democracies” whose president is Clifford D. May. He is troubled, having realized what he and people like himself have done to America. And so, he took to his computer and wrote: “Can America change course?” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The next president needs a new approach to national security.” It was published on April 12, 2016 in The Washington Times.

Regardless of what he really thinks about the situation, Clifford May wants the American public to believe this is a “perilous period.” Despite all that, he points to the 2016 presidential campaign and calls it a circus. And he says he knows why. It is because “voters get what they ask for,” he says. Thus, what the people of America want, according to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is neither defense nor democracy but “politicians to entertain them”.

All the while, you have jihadi regimes rising in the Middle East and beyond it, a North Korea that is developing nuclear weapons as well as missile delivery systems, a China that is entering a period of neo-imperialism, and a Russia that is exercising revanchism, says the author. Note that the word revanchism is coming back in vogue, echo-repeated by the Jewish comrades of Clifford May.

He advises that because the world is a bad place, the presidential candidates ought to be talking about national security, and they should agree on the best way to protect America. Well, he admits that the candidates have hired teams of advisers to fill them in on matters of national security and foreign policy, but instead of agreeing on anything, they only “meet, talk and churn out papers,” he complains.

At this point in the article, May does something that must have come not from his frontal cortex but his subconscious mind. Look at this passage: “I recognize that if you're Obama or a supporter, you don't agree that the next president ought to change course.” Fair enough, you say, because you will not argue against that. But then, he goes on to assert: “On the contrary, you believe that Americans should stay the course charted by the current administration,” and you're confused. Doing some thinking, you guess that he must have meant to say something that did not come out right. Surely, he must have meant to say Americans believe that America should stay the course.

You feel you guessed correctly when you see how he starts the next paragraph. He says this: “Evidence to support that argument is not abundant.” Well, you may or may not be aware of statistics that say so, but you expected him to elaborate on what he just asserted … something he did not do. Instead, he went on to blame Obama for a security situation that he says is deteriorating all over the world, and lashing out like this: “Over the years since Obama entered the White House, there has been an increasing number of terrorist groups carrying out an increasing number of terrorist attacks in an increasing number of countries resulting in an increasing number of victims.” What does that mean?

You ask yourself: Is he suggesting that America should be everywhere in the world protecting everyone from every local gang of criminals that suddenly decides to pledge allegiance to one terrorist group or another? Does he want to see the body of American soldiers dragged in the streets of cities never heard of before a la “Black Hawk Down”? What's wrong with this guy?

You now realize that Clifford May skirted the obligatory elaboration on what he had asserted – blaming Obama instead for something that had nothing to do with his assertion – because his subconscious mind and his frontal cortex are at odds with each other. It looks like the subconscious mind is telling him he is wrong, whereas the cortex is refusing to face the truth. And here is the truth: Clifford May knows that Obama is implementing the wish of the American people – which is the democratic way to govern – but Clifford May, the supposed defender of democracies, does not like that approach one bit.

But if he does not like this brand of democracy, what does he like? Here, in his own words, is what he likes:

“Bold new approaches require public support, especially after a campaign in which public opinion was catered to rather than shaped. Is there a candidate who strikes you as having the skills to 'bring us together'? … I'd argue that a new national security doctrine will be needed … [one] that will serve to clarify objectives and outcomes”.

So here we have a Jew calling himself defender of democracies who likes to shape public opinion rather than cater to it. Such approach will “bring us together,” he says because it will clarify objectives and outcomes concerning national security.

And so, we are asked to presume that this will happen because a single voice that's animated by a single mind will always be clearer than a cacophony of voices … a democratic cacophony of voices.

This is so shocking; someone must give Clifford May a friendly advice. His problem is that he immersed himself too far into that Mein Kampf thing. Someone better give him another book to read.

They continue to abuse Barack Obama

There was a time when the Israelis would say, “the best defense is a good offense,” and every pen-holder, every keyboard banger and every talking head in America would puff up like a peacock, and mouth off the expression as would a proud child that's savoring candy he pulled from the jar without someone seeing him.

Times have changed, however, in that the victims who could not defend themselves in the old days can do so now. It also means that Israel can no longer mount an offense while pretending to defend itself and get away with the aggression. And so, the Jews of Israel and their American lackeys came up with a new expression they formulate in one of many different ways depending on the circumstances. But no matter how they say the thing, it always sounds like this: Them people are defending themselves therefore they must be evil.

In “Nuclear-Deal Fallout,” you can see how a saying that's as shameless as that is used by the Jews and their lackeys to insult the intelligence of their audiences. Worse, they do this in the belief that they are admired for their infinite knowledge and their eternal wisdom. By the way, that was the title of an article which also came under the subtitle: “Russia sells S-300 Weapons to Iran.” It was written by Tzvi Kahn and published on April 12, 2016 in National Review Online.

Here is the object of Kahn's wrath: “The Russian and Iranian regimes describe the S-300 as a defensive weapon, and so it is ... It would complicate any American or Israeli effort to bomb Iran's nuclear sites.” This is why the Jews are applauding the fact that a “State Department official issued a stern warning to the Kremlin: we consider this to be a bad and destabilizing move”.

That is, the Jews consider a vulnerable Iran to be a stabilizing factor. In fact, that's how they view the situation everywhere else in the Middle East. And that's why they incited America to bomb and destabilize Iraq and Libya. It is also why they periodically call on their mentally retarded friends in Hollywood to go destabilize the Sudan. Now you know why all the screwy things – which nobody can make sense of – happen in the Middle.

However, that approach to world diplomacy has always been alien to an America whose ambition from the start, was to see to it that everyone had a stake in maintaining the peace. So the question we must ask is this: How did the Jews manage to convince the Americans to make a hundred and eighty degrees turn? Lucky … or maybe not, we see in the Kahn article, an example on how the Jews go about doing these things.

Call it playing on the ego of those who listen to them, here is how the Jews put it to the Americans this time: “The S-300 sale to Iran serves Iranian and Russian goals. For Tehran, the system facilitates its quest for regional dominance. For Moscow, the system enables it to project power in the Middle East, combat Western influence, and advance its ambitions to undermine American global leadership.” And believe me, nothing stirs up America's ego like this kind of talk.

On the other hand, the Russians were never a reckless bunch as admitted to by Kahn. Going against their interests, the Russians refrained from delivering that system to Iran for nine years because there was a law passed by the Security Council of the United Nations to that effect. Here is Kahn's account of that episode:

“The ayatollahs and the Kremlin signed the S-300 contract in 2007, but Moscow froze the sale following the passage of a Security Council Resolution which called on states to 'exercise vigilance and restraint' in selling weapons to Iran. However, in April 2015, days after Iran and world powers reached an agreement prefiguring the final nuclear deal, Russia lifted the ban”.

Because this suggests that as nations, both Russia and Iran are model citizens of the world, and because they consider the united States to be “the region's true source of instability,” Tzvi Kahn felt obligated to tarnish their image – and of course that of Barack Obama too – before ending the presentation. Here is how this was done:

“Russia recognized a shift in the region favoring Moscow and Tehran. By lifting sanctions, the pact would spur Iran's emergence, enable it to increase financial support for its terrorist proxies, deter attacks from hostile states, and reduce America's leverage to influence its policies. Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to labor under the delusion that the nuclear deal may yet moderate the regime.” It is customary for Jews to blame everyone's shortcomings on Obama, and to try crucifying him for it. The man took so much abuse from them.

Still connecting bad Dots and fictional Dots

If you ever wanted proof that the Jews are no better equipped to learn from their mistakes now than they have been for thousands of years, read Bret Stephens' latest column. It came under the title: “Islam and the Radical West” and the subtitle: “The political orthodoxy of the left is the gateway drug to jihad,” published on April 12, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

Once you get past the personal experience he lived through – which he says comes to mind whenever the subject of Islamist radicalization comes up – you quickly realize that he is on a path to repeat what he and all those like him have been echoing for some time now. It is the false notion that an “agent of radicalization” such as Anwar al-Awlaki, sitting thousands of miles away, can turn perfectly content and well adjusted young men and women into suicidal terrorists just by corresponding with them.

Well, you shouldn't give all the credit to the Awlakis of this world, he hastens to add. That's because these people succeed only where others have prepared the terrain for them. And these would be the Western giants in the caliber of Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and perhaps Franz Fanon who produce works that are based on the political orthodoxies of the modern left.

So you wonder: What does that mean? Is Bret Stephens suggesting that we should emulate the Nazis and light bonfires in which we burn the books and the films that were produced by those authors? No; Bret Stephens does not come right out and says so. But he concludes his piece with a lamentation to the effect that the West has not recognized that the moral nihilism of the terrorists is the logical outgrowth of the moral relativism that is the default religion of today's West. And he leaves the decision up to the reader to burn or not to burn.

But those were the dots that our author saw fit to connect. First came the moral relativism of the West, he says, and then it spawned the jihad practicing terrorists. Thus the moral of the story we must draw from his reasoning can only go like this: To do away with jihad, we must first get rid of the West's moral relativism. It does not matter how you do it, just do it … starting in the schools, the media, the churches or whatever.

The reality, however, is that if you get rid of relativism – which he denigrated by attributing it of the left – you can only replace it with the sort of absolutism which he undoubtedly would attribute to the right. And this prompts the question: What has the right done for America that is worth celebrating? Well, the history of the American right as an offshoot of the European right, and then a stand-alone American conservatism, is well documented and there in the history books where it can be reviewed.

But what we must do is avoid immersing ourselves too much in that history trying to understand the current situation. That's because what exists today is so different from anything that happened in the past, the way to understand the current reality is to start from scratch and walk through the events of the recent past while holding a search light in one hand and a magnifying lens in the other.

What hits us in the face when we do that is the reality that the conservative movement in America today is nowhere near being like the conservative movement of yesteryear. Looking for the pivotal moment when the movement changed direction, we find it to be the time when the Jews shed the liberal mantle and put-on the conservative one. They called themselves the new conservatives or neocons. And true to the form that Bret Stephens is suggesting, these people started practicing a most rigid kind to absolutism.

So we ask: What have these people done to the conservative movement? What have they done to the Republican Party that was the flagship of that movement? And what have they done to the America that used to be a shining city on the hill guiding the world to moderation whether someone chose to be governed by a liberal regime or a conservative one?

Well, what made America the model of good governance it used to be was the tolerance it had for the views of everyone. The liberal Jews then brought to it taboos that must be avoided because they might violate Jewish sensitivities, and the neocons brought to it taboos that must be avoided because they might violate the dogmas that are created for the day. The net result has been the destruction of the conservative movement, the near destruction of the Republican Party and the feared destruction of the America that used to be.

If you want to know what magic the Jews have been using to destroy this much of a superpower in such a short period of time, the answer is that they connected bad dots with dots of their imagination, thus created pictures on a daily basis that no one recognized.

In short, the Jews have been doing what Bret Stephens is trying to do with his most recent column. It is brewing the poison that is killing America so very softly.

The bottom Line is the Control of America

Dozens of groups called non-state actors are fighting in the Levant, all being Muslim. There are some who rank as good guys, some as evil, and a number of others who sit at one point or another between the two extremes of the good-to-evil spectrum.

In addition to fighting each other, there are three coalitions of nations fighting against those actors. There is the American, the Russian and the Arab coalition. The reality that cannot be skirted, however, is that each coalition views the non-state actors through a different lens, ranking them differently on the good-to-evil spectrum.

The worry has been that one coalition may find itself fighting or supporting a non-state actor that's viewed and treated differently by another coalition. This would effectively put the two coalitions into a state of war against each other. But because they all profess to be fighting against ISIL, the most menacing of the non-state actors, the coalitions have devised rules that help them avoid coming into contact with each other when going against the same target at the same time.

This is the situation on the ground in the Levant at this time. All indications are that the coalitions are making significant progress fighting against ISIL. They are taking back chunks of territory that the non-state actor was planning to turn into a bona fide state flying the flag of a duly instituted and universally recognized caliphate.

This being the case, you would think that people are rejoicing while expressing the view that they cannot wait for the day when ISIL will be completely defeated, and the Middle East – indeed the whole world – will have returned to its normal state. Well, rejoicing is what's happening around the globe … except in two places. It is not happening in Jewish America or in Israel.

It is that the Jews adhere to a dogma of supremacy that runs afoul of every system of beliefs on the planet. As it happens, every culture uses the “idea” as tool to achieve tangible results. By contrast, the Jewish culture mandates the spinning of “tangible results” in such a way as to formulate ideas that reinforce the supremacy dogma. It is a rigid and self-reinforcing closed loop.

Now, given that the most effective way to achieve supremacy is to make everyone believe that the Jew is supreme, the way to accomplish this is to have the reputation of the Jew precede him everywhere he goes. When this happens and he gets there, he needs only to collect what he came to take. For example, if everybody is made to believe that the Jew never gives up when bidding for an item in an auction, the moment that the Jew starts bidding, everyone else stops bidding. He thus gets the item he came for at a dirt cheap price.

That's what happens at the personal level to the Jew in America. It is the place where he never loses because his reputation is such that nobody dares to challenge him anywhere he goes because his reputation has spread everywhere. And of course, the corollary to that is to demonize the enemy of the Jew so as to make everyone avoid him anywhere he might be, everywhere he might go.

As to what the Jews seek to accomplish at the global level; it can be seen in what they advocate. An example of that is found in the article which came under the title “See no evil,” and the subtitle: “Obama refuses to utter 'radical Islamic terrorism' amid 800% terror spike,” written by Madison Gesioto and published on April 7, 2016 in The Washington Times.

Having neglected to mention that ISIL is taking a beating where it counts the most, Gesioto points to the terrorist and criminal gangs that were in place around the globe before ISIL came into existence, and pledged nominal allegiance to ISIL when it used to score spectacular successes. Thus, Gesioto makes the false claim that ISIL is winning, and then complains that “Mr. Obama continues to insist, 'ISIL is not Islamic'”.

She goes on to paint the picture of an evil force that will not be defeated because, “how can we possibly defeat an evil that our country's leader refuses to name?” And she concludes: “We cannot eradicate radical Islamic terrorism if we cannot acknowledge that it exists”.

So we ask why the Jews are adamant at having the President of the United States utter the two words 'Islam' and 'terror' in the same sentence. And the question brings us to the dogma of Jewish supremacy where we find the answer.

Now that ISIL is certain to be defeated, and that the caliphate will not come into existence, the Jews and their friends are panicking. They are because the tangible result of a world in chaos will not materialize, and without it, they will have no tool by which to formulate the ideas that would have given life to their supremacy dogma. Their four thousand years old dream will have vanished into thin air yet again.

And so, before the defeat of ISIL is made official, the Jews want to permanently demonize Islam by associating it with terror. If this happens, the corollary of the Jew being supreme and invincible will remain intact in America, and he will remain in control of a superpower that can be used again to try and take over the world. And that's their bottom line.