Mainstream Billboards for Terrorist Manifestos

It looks like the responsibility for giving aid and comfort to illegitimate dissidents and would-be terrorists has passed from the hands of the long-established media in America to the newly formed mainstream publications.

It used to be that anyone in the non “democratic” world that had a manifesto to publicize, found a welcoming mat at such old rags as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. They do so to a lesser extent now but find a warm embrace and a billboard on which to array their manifestos at the Huffington Post and other similar publications.

It must also be noted that what's done by the print media is replicated in some fashion by the electronic networks that have the ability to scroll news at the bottom of the screen. The networks also own websites on which they publish full blown opinion pieces that often sound like terrorist manifestos.

This is not new to the self-described “liberal democracies” that have a tacit but unwritten understanding among themselves not to fight each other like they used to, as long as there are weak nations they can exploit and get from them what they can, thus keep their own people content and quiescent. To make sure that the weak remain weak and not progress enough to demand better treatment, the democracies continue to give voice to the dissidents who labor to start an uprising, destabilize the government and further weaken already weak nations.

For example, shortly after the 1952 Nasser revolution in Egypt, there arose as many as a dozen pirate radio stations that openly incited the people of Egypt to rise against their government. When this did not happen, the two colonial powers, Britain and France invaded the Canal to cripple the waterway and deny Egypt a vital source of income, thus help sow discontent. When the aggression failed and the discontent did not materialize, the European powers invited Egypt's dissidents to come set-up shop in Europe and continue to incite the Egyptian population as well as plan sabotage activities in the country from there.

When the Europeans were warned they were playing with fire, they rejected the warning thinking that they had a winning hand and will not lose. But then, it happened that the children of the dissidents – who grew up in a place that felt as alien to them as living on a different planet – realized they were treated as second class citizens because of who they were. They turned against the countries of their births, thus served notice that the world had changed for good. And that's when the warning that was rejected at an earlier time proved to be a wisdom too advanced for a self-deluded liberal democrat to have understood.

While all this was happening on one level, something else was brewing on another level. It is that the Jews whose manifesto (they call the Old Testament) promises them dominion over the entire planet – worked stealthily to take on the role of ultimate colonial power. To achieve the promised outcome, they infiltrated the American media, took control of a large number of outlets, and used them to shag a Congress of simpletons. Now firmly in control of that thing, the Jews used it to take possession of the American military, sending it to inflict on the weak nations the horror that the dissidents could never inflict. They destroyed the nations they visited to the delight of the Jews – especially those operating out of Israel – the Jewish base of operations; the Jewish al-Qaeda.

Still unable to spark an incident that can be used to order the American military to go destroy Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia, the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis of hate and incitement is putting savage pressure on the media to blanket America with anti-Arab slander, and anti-Muslim denigration of the kind never seen previously outside the Yiddish vernacular. Their goal is to reconstitute a plan that went awry … but they know not how to do it.

Nevertheless, the Jews continue to work on the plan. You can see in the Huffington Post an example of the borderline sort of terrorist manifesto you'll never see anywhere else in the civilized world. It came under the title: “Egypt On a Mission to Abolish Its Youth,” penned  by Menna Elnaka, and published on May 9, 2016 in the Post.

You'll also see an example of how an old associate in crime – such as Doug Bandow of Jack Abramoff fame – works on such matters. He penned a wishful thinking kind of article under the title: “Egypt's Copts Likely to find Persecution Ahead from Increasingly Repressive Military Regime,” published on May 14, 2016 in the Post.

The first writer boasts he has the power of the persistent voice, and the gift of rebellion to win the final battle. The second revels in the Jewish fantasy of a civil war in Egypt he hopes will prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The savage john that perverted the children

Imagine an outstanding wealthy family being hit by a mysterious radiation that kills the patriarch of the family, weakens the wife and perverts the children beyond recognition. It turns out that the butler had always wanted the wealth of the family, and had coveted the wife of his employer. To take possession of both, he procured from the devil the radiation producing gadget that allowed him to transform the family.

This is the story of the American motherland and her children, a family in which the spirit of the founding patriarchs was killed by influences as mysterious as a radiation that appears at predicted moments. It becomes visible when the election season approaches, and turns the children of the American family who run for office, into depraved individuals who confine their motherland to the bedroom, and prepare her for rape by a savage john who calls himself Sheldon Adelson – no longer a fictitious butler but a real-life gambling hustler.

Not only does he get to rape the mother, he also gets the children to hand him billions of the family fortune in return for crumbs they get as kickbacks. Right now, Sheldon the john and his Jewish cohorts in New York and Washington are working on getting 50 billion dollars from the American treasury to add to the quarter of a trillion that have already gone to Israel over the years. Note that this is the official count, and does not include the steady stream of cash that flows to Israel all the time under the guise of charitable donations.

As to the kickbacks, Mitt Romney received a paltry million-dollar handout for saying that the Jews are superior to the Palestinians. Newt Gingrich received chump change for fantasizing aloud that neither Palestine nor the Palestinians ever existed. Marco Rubio received chickenfeed for French-kissing every Jewish ass he encountered. And so did Ted Cruz who thought he'd win the race to the White House, thus prepared a banquet serving what he considers to be French delicacy without bothering with the French fries or French wine. Still, he lost to Donald Trump, and quickly made himself useful to the john by readying his American motherland for the savage to come and rape her again and again.

He did it with this: “The Mullahs and their Missiles,” an article he wrote and published on May 13, 2016 in the New York Times. In it, Ted Cruz echo-repeats the same old Jewish lies about Israel being in danger, and the Jewish lie about Israel having a successful missile system which guards against incoming missiles. And here is the catch: that system needs America's money to be deployed, they say. This, my friend, is the method by which the depraved children of the American motherland and children of the founding patriarchs – transfer the family treasures bit by bit to the savage john who rapes the mother and gets paid with her money for doing it.

This time, the label of maternal pimp goes to Ted Cruz who promises to please the savage john this way: “Shockingly, the president [Obama] could not find a single dollar to put toward procurement for [Israel's] defense systems ...” Previously, “we had all been impressed by … the generous assistance of American taxpayers … Rather than starving these programs, Congress should seize this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to Israel.” Never forget that the one who almost made it as pimp-in-chief is a pimp through and through.

As to the john named Sheldon G. Adelson, he wrote: “I endorse Donald Trump for president,” an article that was published on May 13, 2016 in the Washington Post. His message is this: “I endorse Trump and encourage Republicans: elected officials, party loyalists and operatives, and those who provide financial backing to do the same.” He goes on to tell the children of the motherland what he wants for the next time that they confine the mother to bed: “We waged battles over the Iran nuclear deal; an issue of paramount importance to me personally … We gained some victories, but on too many issues Obama achieved his goals … America's goals”.

He continues: “I've spent time talking to Donald trump.” And we know what has transpired between the two men from an article that came under the title: “Sheldon Adelson Is Poised to Give Donald Trump a Donation Boost,” written by Jonathan Martin, and published on May 13, 2016 in the New York Times.

Here is what Martin says: “Adelson told Trump that he was willing to contribute more to help elect him than he has to any previous campaign, a sum that could exceed $100 million”.

It remains to be seen if Donald Trump is the manly man he says he is, or he too will drop to his knees and tie-up his own motherland to the bed, inviting the savage john named Adelson to come rape her again and again.

Talk is cheap and the Audience isn't clapping

They are business and financial geniuses but they don't get it.

Michael Bloomberg and Charles Koch co-authored a piece urging America's college presidents, boards, administrators and faculty to do something about a worrisome trend they see developing regarding the subject of free speech on campus.

It is a powerful piece that may shake a few things here and there but, having made the wrong diagnosis, the authors failed to work out an effective cure for what they perceive to be the ailment.

The piece they wrote came under the title: “Why Free Speech Matters on Campus” and the subtitle: “'Safe spaces' will create graduates unwilling to tolerate differing opinions – a crisis for a free society.” It was published on May 13, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.

Every subject has a natural starting point from which to launch a debate about it. So we ask: What is the natural starting point from which to debate the subject of free speech? And the answer is this: There was a time during the decade of the 1970's when television had gone a long way toward “blazing new trails.” Many people did not like what they were made to see and hear, and they complained about it.

The broadcasters acknowledged receiving such complaints, and responded. They told their audiences, that if they don't like what they see or hear, they can always change the channel or turn off the set. In a memorable response to a medical doctor who suggested that broadcasters should be licensed to work in their profession the same way that doctors are, the legendary Eric Sevareid admitted that broadcasters make mistakes, but that's done in the open for all to see, he said. And that's different from the deadly mistakes that doctors make, and get buried without someone knowing about them.

What is happening on campus today is that audiences everywhere took the above advice and turned off the proverbial set. They are saying to a certain category of people they have had it up to here listening to them. They don't want to hear from them anymore because their words are not music to their ears but damaging noise. And if you, my friend, want to know who the dreaded people of the category are; they are the self-serving members of the establishment who give out cheap talk and offer it as a bouquet of opium for the masses to get drugged on it and slump into complacency.

Unlike the young rebels of the 1960s and 1970s who invaded the spaces of the establishment seeking to shake it and change society to make it work for them, the young rebels of today chose to go into a defensive mode, turning into safe zones the spaces in which they happen to stand at any time. The forceful response of the establishment to the movement calling itself Occupy Wall Street, may have convinced the youngsters it would be futile to take on the establishment at this time. This left them with no choice but to “cocoon” into small zones they call their own and feel safe in them.

Thus, when Bloomberg and Koch – two of the biggest moguls in the establishment – use the term “so-called” to mock terrified youngsters trying to protect themselves, the moguls compel those young to hang on even more tightly to the safe spaces, speech codes, trigger warnings and microaggressions that annoy the moguls. And when the latter advise the university establishment to oppose the activities of the young, the latter ask why that is. They look for an answer and find what disturbs them no end.

Here is a sample of what they find: “As the campus dialogue fades, it will make material and social progress that much harder to achieve.” This is precisely what the young fear the most. They always thought that the establishment wanted to use them as gladiators who will fight each other to entertain the bigwigs of the establishment, and to generate the new ideas that will make those at the top gain financially from the material and social progress that will result from the fights.

In short, the young feel that Bloomberg, Koch and all those like them want one thing only: to exploit the young and get wealthier still while they who produced the ideas, get nothing in return.

Now that Bloomberg and Koch know what motivates today's young, they can rethink the whole thing anew.

Jews telling their Stories and the Arabs' too

If you want to know why the media and the politics in America are screwed up to the extent that they are, there is a good place for you to start the self-teaching process on this subject. It is the editorial page of the New York Times where you'll find two telling articles published lately.

One article came under the title: “The Israel Defense Forces vs. the People of Israel,” written by Shmuel Rosner, and published on May 11, 2016. The other came under the title: “The Arab Withering,” written by Roger Cohen, and published the next day, May 12, 2016.

Rosner is an Israeli who lives in Israel and writes regularly for the readers of the American publication the New York Times. He tells them all about the good and bad things he witnesses in Israel. Being a master spin doctor, he specializes in letting the American readers know how superior the good things are in Israel, and how trivial the bad things are.

Imagine what used to be a Palestinian Garden of Eden called the West Bank of the Jordan River, now turned into a hellhole occupied by Jewish settlers that came mostly from America, a superpower that regularly supplies the Israeli army and the settlers with weapons galore. Worse, this happens at the same time that the same America makes sure the people of Palestine remain unarmed, unable to defend themselves and totally helpless.

After half a century of life in this Jewish-American snake pit, the Palestinian kids whose grandparents could barely remember the days when they were a free people, started to do what kids under occupation normally do: they resisted the occupation. But how can they fight a murderous animal they encounter in the kitchen; one that comes equipped with night goggles, a radio to call for air support and a machine gun? Well, the kids have learned to be creative. They grabbed kitchen knives and fought the Jewish animals to scare them away.

Mindful of the Nuremberg Trials of yesterday, and of The Hague Criminal Court of today, one Israeli general sought to cover his ass by distancing himself from that horrible situation. He said he saw “similarities between Nazi Germany of the 1930s and Israel today.” He criticized Israeli soldiers emptying a magazine “at 13-year-old girls holding scissors,” and criticized the practice of shooting “wounded Palestinians in the head as they lay on the ground.” But Rosner noted that such actions were approved and encouraged by 82 percent of the Israeli population. There you go; the animals are found in the kitchens and everywhere else.

So then, how does Shmuel Rosner spin all that and make the American readers continue to believe that all is well in Israel? He does it by brushing aside the whole thing, thus erase the negative impressions that were created. He also makes a comment to the effect that “the army has become politicized.” This done he builds on all that in an effort to turn the resulting negative image into a positive one.

That's how he does it: “As politicians turn the army into a political football, the center – that is most of us – watches in horror.” Nice try Shmuel but your math does not add up. If, like you admit, 82 percent of the Israelis are on the bloodthirsty side, it leaves only 18 percent for both the center and the sober side. Assuming you split that 9 percent for each, how does a center of 9 percent represent what you says is “most of us”? Out here in the new world where I live, we still adhere to the old math which says that 9 percent is only 1 in 11, and cannot be viewed as “most of us”.

So much for the Jews telling their story. Now to the Jews telling the Arab story. Roger Cohen begins to tell it with a preamble that describes the start of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. Before letting his friend Robert F. Worth – that wrote a book on the subject – tell the rest of it, he repeats a fantasy that the Jews had developed about the Arabs. It is one of the fantasies that enabled the Jews to exploit America financially, militarily and diplomatically. It tells of the Arabs suffering from a festering “humiliation [that] would have been replaced by empowering dignity,” something that did not happen because the Revolution – known as the Arab Spring – stalled or turned into something nefarious.

Smart enough to realize that if he mentions Israel or the Jews at this point, he would flush his presentation down the toilet, Roger Cohen uses the “West” as surrogate to convey the notion that if the Arabs are not letting the Jews do to their legislatures what they do to the American Congress, it is because the Arabs have a problem. He put it like this: “The West might escape its conspiracy-fueled place in the Arab mind as the hypocritical enabler of every iniquity”.

That is, the Arab Spring has failed, he says, and the people did not get “the meaningful citizenship” they hoped for. What this reveals is that in the eyes of the Jews, no country that does not let itself be taken over by the Jews, can claim to give its inhabitants meaningful citizenship. Because no Arab country has done so, it must be that most if not all have abandoned the Arab Spring in favor of the ISIS Caliphate.

This being the case, Roger Cohen who is a regular columnist at the New York Times should now go to his editorial bosses and tell them to stop beating up on Egypt. They must also stop accusing that country of employing a “scorched earth” policy fighting ISIS in the Sinai. Go tell those animals that Egypt has surrendered to ISIS, Roger. They might celebrate and then shut up.

Credit Obama for a Regime change in Iran

Ever since I was a small boy going to Sunday school, it was etched in my memory that a big organization such as a church or a country, for example, will always choose the person most effective to lead it harmoniously during the prevailing times. In fact, no less than the Pope was chosen according to this criterion, we were told, and this is why we had Pope Pius XII as head of the Church at that time.

I became interested in the history that was unfolding before my eyes as I watched (1) UN soldiers board ships that took them to fight in Korea; (2) Friends of the family whose relatives were fighting in Vietnam flinch at the mention of the name Dien Bien Phu; (3) The early ups and downs of Nasser's Revolution in Egypt. And so I tried to match that history with what I had learned about leading a big organization. Alas, I did not have much success for, I was too young to fully understand what I was looking at.

I matured eventually and began to understand why Nasser was revered by his people following the Franco-British invasion of the Suez Canal Zone. Why the French sacked Guy Mollet afterward, and the British sacked Anthony Eden. Why America voted for Eisenhower to be President, why Lyndon Johnson did not run for reelection, and why Richard Nixon resigned the presidency. But nothing helped me understand the Sunday school lesson better than what used to churn in the old Soviet Union and later the new Russia.

I was not a Kremlin watcher in the sense that the term is commonly used, but from the days of Bulganin to the days of Putin, I watched with interest who or what the USSR-cum-Russia chose to be the man or triumvirate deemed best suited to lead the country for the time that the choice was made. And that's when the lesson I had learned as a small boy was finally validated.

How does that help me understand things now? Well, there is a difference between the Vatican, the Russian system and the Iranian system, of course, but all three have one thing in common as far as I can determine. It is that they choose the best suited person they put in charge at the helm of their ship of state to run the jurisdiction in harmony with the prevailing conditions, thus implement their agenda as fully as possible.

This is why I have something to say regarding the content of the column written by Clifford D. May under the title: “Obama's 'boy wonder'” and the subtitle “How Ben Rhodes helped the president betray the trust of the American people,” published on May 10, 2016 in The Washington Times. Because much has already been said about the Ben Rhodes episode, I shall not take up this matter. Instead, I shall concentrate on half a dozen paragraphs that touch on other topics. The paragraphs condense as follows:

“To sell the Iran deal, the public was told there was a new political reality in Iran which brought moderates to power in that country. The intelligence community understood that the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard ran the country with a strong arm. They faced no challenge from a rising moderate faction. Mr. Obama disregarded the intelligence. He and his top foreign policy adviser made up a fictitious narrative that they thought would sell better than the truth. They persuaded journalists that Iran's moderates were open to compromise and eager to improve relations. In fact, however, Obama's envoys had begun negotiating with Iran's rulers long before the elections. Indeed, from his first days in the White House, a time when Ahmadinejad was Iran's president, Mr. Obama's goal was a pivot toward Iran”.

Well, you don't have to be a genius of history to figure out what happened here. It is that Obama's overture to Iran convinced the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard that America was governed by a man who wanted to start an era of peaceful co-existence with them. In response, they did what a Pope or a Khrushchev would have done were they going through similar circumstances.

It is that the Iranians engineered a situation in which Ahmadinejad was eased out of office and replaced by someone who could talk to the Americans and deal with them on the basis of mutual respect. The negotiations began, and everyone proceeded with caution while keeping their powder dry. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry responded positively, the Iranians reciprocated and the deal was eventually made.

Now that this mission is accomplished, we can see that not only did Barack Obama fashion a nuclear deal with Iran, he brought about the regime change in that country many were clamoring for.

He did it without creating the horror show we are witnessing in the Levant at this time, a region where the Jewish style regime change was implemented by another President. This was the change that led to the opening of the gates of hell no one has yet figured out how to close.

Meanwhile, it can no longer be denied that Barack Obama has earned the peace prize awarded to him.

The Ben Rhodes Episode one more Time

One more thing had to be said about the Ben Rhodes episode and it was said. When this happened, it called for a response, and that gave impetus to this presentation.

This time, Richard Cohen said what had to be said. He did so in a column he wrote under the title: “Of pride, falls – and Obama's foreign policy,” published on May 9, 2016 in the Washington Post. What follows is the passage he wrote that called for a response:

“The lie exposed a truth. Obama wanted the deal (almost) no matter what. He had not been beckoned into the talks by more reasonable Iranians, but had initiated them with the previous regime. In other words, he wanted the talks more than the Iranians did – a negotiating position of great weakness. It explains why nothing in the agreement thwarts Iranian efforts to support terrorism in the Middle East or continue to make mayhem in Iraq. It lowers the odds that Iran will continue to adhere to the agreement”.

If you do not recall what was said about the deal while it was negotiated, you should know that many of the articles written at the time were discussed on this website. They can be accessed in the archives on the right side of the page. In short, what was said by a pundit that had “connected the dots,” and was endlessly echo-repeated by every pundit and his copycat apprentice – each of whom had discovered new dots to connect – was that the sanctions brought the Iranians to the negotiating table.

When that notion was hammered securely into the heads of its creators, each pundit took the trouble to advise the Obama administration of a new way to take advantage of the situation because each had determined that the Iranians were negotiating from a position of weakness whereas America was holding a strong hand. And no matter from which direction each pundit approached the discussion, they all converged on the idea that America must take a tougher negotiating stance at the table, and must tighten the sanctions even more. And they speculated that such moves will bring the Iranians to their knees, forcing them to concede more and more.

Go back now and look again what Richard Cohen was saying, having proclaimed that the truth had been exposed: “Obama wanted the deal. He was not beckoned into the talks; he initiated them.” Well, we are left with no choice but to admit that this revelation kills all the determinations and speculations that were fabricated when the “lie” was thought to be the “truth.” And true to Jewish form – in the same way that the pundits of yesterday saw fit to build on the foundation of the prevailing lie – Richard Cohen sees fit now to make new determinations, and to fashion new speculations based on the truth of today.

Thus, he has determined that “nothing in the agreement thwarts Iranian efforts to support terrorism in the Middle East.” And he speculated that nothing will thwart the Iranians from “continuing to make mayhem in Iraq.” And that's not all because there is worse (or perhaps it is a glimmer of hope depending on your point of view) in that the newly discovered truth will “lower the odds that Iran will continue to adhere to the agreement,” says Richard Cohen. Maybe the Iranians will reject the deal, and America's pundits of the echo chamber will have reason to celebrate. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, something that’s even more consequential than all that – if you can believe it – comes out the Ben Rhodes saga. It is that in the hands of those pundits and their apprentices, the truth and the lie are interchangeable in the same way that six-of-one or half-a-dozen of the other can be used to reach the desired outcome. You'll find that in the Richard Cohen column, the desired outcome is explained in a lengthy and drawn out manner over two paragraphs. When condensed, the passages read as follows:

“If Obama can reach understanding with Iran, he can rid himself of the Middle East and pivot elsewhere. American boots will not hit the ground unless to protect American interests … It could be that Obama's foreign policy is brilliant or that the establishment is stuck in the amber of lessons from World War II and the Cold War. I do not know that these lessons are irrelevant to our day. Hitler and Stalin were evil. The sheer inability of U.S. leadership to appreciate that fact doomed millions of people”.

In other words, he says in his subtle way that America must not leave the Middle East – which means must not abandon Israel – to pivot elsewhere, because the Middle East is burning and needs America the fireman to douse the fire.

All we can say to that is: here we go again. We say it because it was the neocon repeated arguments that brought America to set the Middle East on fire in the first place. And you know what, my friend? All those pundits and their apprentices are authentic neocons or neocon-trained echo-repeaters.

For Cohen to come now and ask America to douse that fire is akin to the son of the fireman who set fire to properties then joined the effort to douse the fire. The difference between the two situations is that the Middle Eastern fire will only get worse the longer that Jewish America remains in the region.

Thus, the wish of peace-loving people around the globe should be that America pivot away from the Middle East, and never look back. Just go away. In Arabic – erhal.

Better Ben Rhodes than Nathan Sharansky

Fred Fleitz is foaming at the mouth trying to tell the world that President Obama let Ben Rhodes run the foreign policy of the nation rather than adopt the George W. Bush model of letting Israel's Nathan Sharansky and the so-called children of Holocaust survivors, do the honor. To express his disappointment, Fleitz wrote: “The Sycophantic Political Operative Shaping Obama's Foreign Policy,” an article that was published on May 9, 2016 in National Review Online.

Fleitz can foam all he wants but he knows nothing of what he's talking about, and he convinces no one of what he's saying. After all, the world knows that Ben Rhodes did not recommend the destruction of Iraq or Syria, and neither was he responsible for the death of nearly a million people or the destitution of millions more. What Barack Obama may be guilty of, and what Ben Rhodes has embraced is the dullness of peaceful coexistence among nations. This is what exasperates bloodthirsty Fred Fleitz and all those like him. Let them suffer.

The Bush doctrine relied on old hands such as those that designed the invasion of Iraq a decade before it happened … and did it at a time when W. Bush was still experimenting with marijuana and other hallucinatory drugs. He grew up eventually, ran for election and won. The first big thing he did after inauguration is that he ran around the globe like a headless chicken, and tried to shove the Sharansky witches' brew they call democracy down the throats of the Arabs and the Chinese. Instead of accepting this evil baton and run with it – having succeeded Bush – Barack Obama did something infinitely more intelligent.

First, he surrounded himself with the people that knew how to hunt for and get Osama Bin Laden … and do the other things that decimated the leaderships of both al-Qaeda and ISIS. Second, he recognized that to prevent his foreign policy from being hijacked by those who take their orders from Sharansky's Likud Party, he needed a highly talented and very deft hand to liaise with the outside world so as to keep the American people informed of what he aimed to achieve, and keep the Likud people misinformed as to how well he was succeeding. Obama saw that Ben Rhodes was the talent that could fill the bill, and hired him for the position.

What then could Fleitz say that would diminish the accomplishments of Barack Obama, and denigrate the work of Ben Rhodes? Well, the first thing he did was conflate the informational loop which consists of the White House and the general public, with the loop that consists of the White House and the foreign policy elites such as Fleitz and the gang. Whereas the public wishes to know the intent of their leaders, the elites want to see the details so as to create the noise that will paralyze the ship of state and hand the helm to the Sharanskys and the Likudites of this world.

And so, he begins the presentation with this: “the Obama administration lied about the nuclear deal with Iran.” He then sets out to tell what he insists was the most important lie to come out the White House. Here it is: “The Obama administration claim[ed] that the nuclear deal came about in 2013 … even though the most meaningful part of the negotiations had begun in mid-2012.” Oh gosh, how deceitful!

Deceitful you say? Prove it. How did the masses react to the news that the negotiations with Iran started a year earlier than stated? Well, if that was not stated previously, it has now been so stated, and there is no negative reaction among the general public. The same cannot be said about the loop comprising Fleitz and the rest of the gang, however. These characters are foaming and fuming; and they are inciting the masses to rise and demand that heads roll. But no one is rising, and no one is drooling.

Having made the false claim that “the president has allowed his National Security Council (NSC) staff to run his foreign policy,” Fleitz shoots himself in the foot, telling of John Kerry's account of what really happened. It is that “intense U.S. diplomacy, including 69 trips across the Atlantic” undertaken by himself and by Hillary Clinton is what clinched the deal.

That was a revelation Fred Fleitz could not let stand, and so he dismissed it like this: “efforts by Kerry and Clinton to get a nuclear deal were irrelevant – a deal was always in the cards.” Now you know why people take 69 trips across the Atlantic; they do it to fool the public. Knowing this much is important to you, my friend, which is why you should thank Fred Fleitz for making it available to you and the rest of the public.

But that's no laughing matter when you consider what he and those like him are recommending to the current president and to the next. To Obama, they say this: “fire Rhodes and others in the NSC and hire competent advisers.” They mean hire people like those who engineered the Iraq invasion and the destruction of the Levant.

To the next president, they recommend this: “hire competent advisers and trust [them] to do their jobs.” They mean hire people like those who engineered the Iraq invasion and the destruction of the Levant.

These people never learn and never change but remain hopeless.