“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” Netanyahu said of the Islamist theocracy.

Should the Obama administration fail to stop Iran, Netanyahu said, Israel might be forced to preemptively strike the Islamic Republic.

Since the Bible affirms that Europe—not Israel or the United States—will ultimately smash the Iran-led “king of the south” (Daniel 11:40), in some ways, Israel’s hawkish threats against Tehran might distract us from other, far more consequential events, prophetically speaking.

The Bible says the spectacular clash between the European “king of the north” and radical Islam will primarily revolve around Jerusalem. It’s the division of Jerusalem, not Iran’s quest for nuclear power, that will trigger the next worldwide war.

The Inevitable Clash

“Behold, the day of the Lord cometh,” Zechariah wrote in a prophecy for the end time. “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city” (Zechariah 14:1-2).

In the vision, the prophet begins with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and then works his way back to describe events that immediately precede the Messiah’s appearance on Earth. Before all nations gather to fight against Christ at His return, Jerusalem “shall be taken”—conquered by the European conglomerate. This event, signaling the beginning of what the Bible calls the Great Tribulation, occurs shortly after Europe’s whirlwind attack against radical Islam.

Shortly before that clash between the kings of the north and south, Zechariah says half of Jerusalem will “go forth into captivity,” indicating the city will be divided by some kind of violent struggle. What this prophecy indicates is that a Hamas-dominated Palestinian insurgence, backed by Iran, will take half the city of Jerusalem captive.

The Israeli-Islamist clash over Jerusalem is what we need to be watching for next.

For the past decade, at times it appeared as if Israel would willingly give up East Jerusalem at the negotiating table. In December of 2005, a poll published by Yedioth Ahronoth found that about half of Israelis supported the idea of giving up parts of Arab East Jerusalem if it would solidify a peace deal with the Palestinians.

Even before he became prime minister, Ehud Olmert said that Israel would someday have to give up its dream of an eternally united Jerusalem under Jewish sovereignty. After one month in office, one of Olmert’s colleagues in Kadima told the Associated Press that Olmert’s government was devising a plan for dividing Jerusalem.

Compare that with where we suddenly are today. What a difference three years makes, as Pierre Atlas wrote March 27 for Real Clear Politics, contrasting Israel’s new government with Ehud Olmert’s. Atlas noted that in 2006, most Israelis supported the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and much of the Knesset favored withdrawing from parts of the West Bank. At the time, the right-wing Likud party, which opposed unilateral withdrawals, suffered most as a result of the electorate’s mood. It lost 26 of its 38 seats in the 2006 parliamentary elections.

“No one could have imagined then that, three years later,” Atlas wrote, “Netanyahu would be forming the next Israeli government.”

Actually, shortly before those 2006 elections, as our regular readers know, our editor in chief mentioned on his weekly Key of David television program that Benjamin Netanyahu would likely return to power in Israel because of the prophecy in Zechariah 14:2. He said half of Jerusalem is “going to be taken by force, and you need to realize that. Now, that might also indicate that the Likud, or the conservative party, will get in power” (Jan. 6, 2006).

With a right-wing coalition now in power in Israel, that brings us one giant prophetic leap closer to the inevitable clash over Jerusalem.

The Fight for the City of David

In sharp contrast to his predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu campaigned for prime minister on keeping Jerusalem united. At a campaign stop at the Regency Hotel on Mt. Scopus, Netanyahu said, “If we gave up half of Jerusalem, there would be an Iranian base right near this hotel.”

International scorn for this harder-line stance has been intense. In early March, for example, Israel was blasted for its proposal to expand an archaeology park in the City of David, which would require the demolition of dozens of Palestinian homes that have been constructed there illegally over the past 20 years. This in spite of the fact that, under the plan, not only would East Jerusalem wastelands be converted into beautiful gardens and parks, but the illegal residents would also be given generous compensation packages, which would include relocation land.

During her March visit to the region, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said any plan that calls for the demolition of Palestinian homes would not help the peace process.

Nir Barkat, Jerusalem’s new mayor, criticized Clinton for being duped by Palestinian propaganda. The Palestinian Authority has accused Israel of “ethnically cleansing” East Jerusalem in order to “Judaize” the city.

The European Union has also harshly criticized Israel. According to a confidential EU report that was leaked to the media in March, EU officials have accused Israel of “actively pursuing the illegal annexation” of East Jerusalem (emphasis ours).

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has vowed to push ahead with this multiyear development plan even as critics lambaste the government for making it harder to divide Jerusalem as part of any two-state solution. One official from Netanyahu’s office who defended the government’s position told the Times of London, “Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of the Jewish people for some 3,000 years and will remain the united capital of the State of Israel.”

Mayor Barkat, like Prime Minister Netanyahu, supports keeping Jerusalem united. Under the direction of Barkat, Jerusalem authorities recently sent eviction notices to 90 families in East Jerusalem near the Old City, warning that because their homes had been built without proper council approval, they would be demolished.

In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Barkat defended the municipality’s plans for the city by saying, “I would like to see what [New York Mayor Michael] Bloomberg would say about illegal building in Central Park. Would he give up Central Park because there is illegal building there?”

The battle for the City of David, located in the Arab neighborhood of Silwan, is a microcosm of a larger struggle that will soon thrust the entire city of Jerusalem into a boiling cauldron of hatred and violence.

Becoming a War Zone

Tension between Palestinians and Jews increased substantially after the Gaza war in January. It intensified further after the elections of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mayor Barkat. Many right-wing Jewish movements, invigorated by the new government’s refusal to cave in to Palestinian ambition, are experiencing a renaissance.

This is not to imply that the Palestinian cause is flailing. In fact, it too is gaining steam, thanks to increasing direct and indirect support from the international community—most notably from the American administration of Barack Obama.

Jerusalem, especially East Jerusalem, is quickly deteriorating into a war zone!

Consider a few recent events. On April 2, in the West Bank town of Bat Ayin near East Jerusalem, a Palestinian brandishing a pickax hacked a 13-year-old Israeli boy to death and wounded his 7-year-old friend. Islamic terrorist groups Islamic Jihad and the Imad Mughniyeh Group claimed responsibility for the murder, warning ominously that it was merely a “natural response to the crimes of the occupation.”

The same day, at about 2 a.m. in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City, seven Jewish settlers broke into the home of Nasser Jaber, a Palestinian businessman who had moved out of the home while renovations were being done. Claiming they owned the house, the settlers replaced the locks and took over the home.

In April, a Palestinian man driving a car tried to run over Israeli police officers. The police, who were monitoring the demolition of the Jerusalem home of the Palestinian terrorist who killed three Israelis in a bulldozer rampage last July, shot the man dead. Afterward, a scuffle erupted between police officers and dozens of angry Palestinians who sympathized with both the driver of the vehicle and the terrorist whose house was being bulldozed.

The next day, a spokesman from Hamas’s military wing delivered a prophetically electrifying response to Israel’s efforts to defend itself against illegal Arab intrusions. Hamas official Abu Ubayda “threatened Israel of an ‘explosion’ if it continues to consolidate control of Jerusalem,” the Ma’an News Agency reported. Ubayda also warned that “the Judaization of Jerusalem and threat to the iconic al-Aqsa Mosque could provoke reprisals.”

Jerusalem’s cobbled streets are rumbling, tension is mounting, war is brewing. This is sobering. But it is also incredibly exciting.

This intensifying conflict will result in the prophesied division of Jerusalem, which is the trigger that will set off a rapid-fire sequence of events culminating in the return of the Messiah to the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4).

“When half of Jerusalem falls,” editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote in March 2006, “it starts a chain reaction of events—an avalanche of crises—that leads directly to Christ’s Second Coming!” This is why—even during economic, political, social and personal calamity—we must not take our eyes off Jerusalem.

Events in that city are the measure of how close we are to the most awesome event in human history!

Logically, Jesus’s focus right now is on ensuring Jerusalem, His landing pad, is ready for His return. In a spectacular way, conditions in Jerusalem today—politically, demographically, economically, even archaeologically—are aligning just as Christ described in the Bible 2,000 years ago!

We need to watch Jerusalem closer than ever. Even now, events in that city indicate that the Messiah’s return is imminent, and that the time rapidly approaches when He will transform Jerusalem into exactly what its name means: a city of PEACE!

Study Zechariah’s prophecy in detail in our free booklet Jerusalem in Prophecy, ?specifically Chapter 3. •

]]> http://chetbowen.pieksma.com/?feed=rss2&p=216 0 http://chetbowen.pieksma.com/?p=214 http://chetbowen.pieksma.com/?p=214#comments Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:40:23 +0000 Chet Bowen http://chetbowen.pieksma.com/?p=214 The Watcher by Chet Bowen

Oil prices have now dipped — albeit only briefly — below US$40 a barrel, a precipitous plunge from their highs of more than US$147 a barrel in July. Just as high oil prices reworked the international economic order, low oil prices are now doing the same. Such a sudden onset of low prices impacts the international system just as severely as recent record highs.

But before we dive into the short-term (that is, up to 12 months) impact of the new price environment, we must state our position in the oil price debate. We have long been perplexed about the onward and upward movement of the oil markets from 2005 to 2008. Certainly, global demand was strong, but a variety of factors such as production figures and growing inventories of crude oil seemed to argue against ever-increasing prices. Some of our friends pointed to the complex world of derivatives and futures trading, which they said had created artificial demand. That may well have been true, but the bottom line is that, based on the fundamentals, the oil numbers did not make a great deal of sense.

Things have clarified a great deal of late. We are now facing an environment in which the United States, Europe and Japan are in recession, while China is, at the very least, expecting to see its growth slow greatly. Demand for crude the world over is sliding sharply even as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) member states so far seem unable (or, in the case of Saudi Arabia, perhaps unwilling) to make the necessary deep cuts in output that might halt the price slide. The bottom line is that, while the breathtaking speed at which prices have collapsed has caught us somewhat by surprise, the direction and the depth of the plunge has not.

Prices are likely to remain low for some time. Most of the world’s storage facilities — such as the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve — are full to the brim, so large cuts are needed simply to prevent massive oversupply. Yet any OPEC production cuts — the cartel meets Dec. 17 and deep cuts are expected — will take months to have a demonstrable impact, especially in a recessionary environment. And there is the simple issue of scale. The global oil market is a beast: Total demand at present is about 86 million barrels per day. This is not a market that can turn on a dime. A firm fact that flies in the face of conventional wisdom is that oil actually falls far faster than it rises when the fundamentals are out of whack. This has happened on multiple occasions, and not that long ago.

Falls occurred both in the aftermath of the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War and as a result of the 1997-1998 Asian financial crises that were similar in percentage terms to the present drop. Until the balance between supply and demand is restruck — something not likely until a global economic recovery is well under way — there is no reason to expect a significant price recovery. The journey, of course, is not necessarily a one-way trip. Quirks in everything from weather to shipping to Nigerian riots and Russian military movements can set prices gyrating, but the fundamentals are clearly bearish. It will most likely take several months for the core features of the new reality to change much at all.

Low oil prices create both winners and losers on the international scene. First, the winners’ list.

Far and away the biggest winner from drastically lower prices is the world’s largest consumer and importer of oil: the United States. The last two years of high prices have spawned a sustained American consumer effort to get by with less oil via a mix of conservation and a shift to better-mileage vehicles. Whether this purchase pattern in automobiles lasts is not at issue. The point is that it has already happened: Many Americans have already shifted to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Just as the 1990s obsession with sport utility vehicles artificially boosted American gasoline demand so long as those automobiles were on the road, so the new fleet of hybrids and smart cars will push demand in the opposite direction for a sustained period.

Overall U.S. oil consumption has plummeted by nearly 9 percent from its peak in August 2007 to November 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Combining this with the drop in prices since July translates into U.S. energy savings of approximately US$1.95 billion at a price of US$50 a barrel and US$2.1 billion at a price of US$40 a barrel. And that is daily cost savings. In recessionary times, that cash will go a long way to building confidence and stanching the recession.

Next on the list are the major European importers of crude: Germany, Italy and Spain. As a rule, European economies are less energy-intensive than the United States, but by dint of fuel mix and lack of domestic production these three major states are forced to rely on substantial amounts of imported oil. We exclude the other major European economies from this list as they are either major oil producers themselves (the United Kingdom and the Netherlands) or their economies are extremely oil efficient (France, Belgium and Sweden). Don’t get us wrong — the EU states are all quite pleased that oil prices have dialed back. Nevertheless, in terms of relative gain, Germany, Italy and Spain are the real winners. And with Europe facing a recession much deeper and likely longer than that in the United States, the Europeans need every advant age they can get.

India, far removed from Europe culturally and geographically, sports a somewhat similar economic structure in that it boasts (or suffers from, based on your perspective) an industrializing base that is highly dependent on oil imports. Broadly, the Indians are in the same basket as Spain in that they are voracious energy consumers who have seen their demand skyrocket in recent years. Between the Nov. 26 Mumbai attack, upcoming federal elections and the energy price pain from earlier in the year, the government is desperate to pass on the cost savings to the population to shore up its support.

Then there are the East Asian states of South Korea, China and Japan (listed in descending order of how much each one benefits from the price drop). All import massive amounts of crude oil, but we put them at the end of the list of winners because of their financial systems. In East Asia — and particularly in China and Japan — money is not allocated on the basis of rate of return or profitability as it is in the West. Instead, the concern is maximizing employment. It does not matter much in East Asia if one’s business plan is sound; the government will provide cheap loans so long one employs hordes of people. One side effect of this strategy is that firms can get loans for anything, including raw materials they otherwise could not afford — such as oil at US$147 a barrel.

Therefore, high oil prices just do not affect East Asia as badly as they affect the West. Just as the East Asian financial system mutes the impact of high prices, the converse is true as well. In the West, energy consumers are not shielded from high prices, so lower prices immediately translate into more purchasing power, and thus more economic activity. Not so in East Asia, where the same financial shielding that blunts the impact of high prices lessens the benefits of low prices.

The order in which we listed the three Asian giants relates to how much progress they have made in reforming their financial practices. South Korea’s financial system is much closer to the Western model than the Asian model: South Korea hurts more as prices rise, and so will be more relieved as prices fall. China is in the middle in terms of financial practices, but it is also attempting to unwind its system of energy price-fixing as oil costs drop; due to subsidies being reduced, Chinese consumers actually may not be seeing much of a change in retail prices. Finally, Japan will benefit the least because its system is already highly efficient compared to the other two, so the price impact was less in the first place. One barrel of oil consumed in Japan generates approximately US$2,610 of Japanese gross domestic product (GDP), while the comparative figures for Korea and China are US$1,270 and US$1,130 respectively.

In short, the heavily industrialized Asians still benefit, but the impact isn’t as much as one might think at first glance. In fact, the biggest benefit to these states from cheaper energy is indirect — lower prices spur consumption in the West, and then the West purchases more Asian products.

And now, the losers.

Venezuela and Iran top this list by far. Both are led by politicians who have lavished vast amounts of oil income on their populations to secure their respective political positions. But that public approval has come at its own price in terms of economic dislocation (why diversify the economy if strong oil prices bring in loads of cash?), low employment (the energy sector may be capital-intensive, but it certainly is not labor-intensive), and high inflation (high government spending has led to massive consumption and spurred rampant import of foreign goods to satiate that demand).

Of the two states, Venezuela is certainly in the worse position. By some estimates, Venezuela requires oil prices in the vicinity of US$120 a barrel to maintain the social spending to which its population has become accustomed. Iran’s number may be only somewhat lower, but President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in the process of at least beginning to bow to economic reality. On Dec. 5, he announced massive cuts in subsidy outlays with the intent of reforging the budget based on a price of only US$30 a barrel.

It is an open question whether the Iranian government — and especially the increasingly unpopular Ahmadinejad — can survive such cuts (if they are indeed made), but at least there is a public realization of the depth of the crisis at the top level of government. In Venezuela, by contrast, the mitigation process has barely begun, and for political reasons it cannot truly be implemented until after a referendum in early 2009 on term limits that could allow Chavez to run for president indefinitely.

Next is Nigeria. In terms of seeing an increase in human misery, Nigeria should probably be at the top of the losers’ list. But the harsh reality is that Nigerians are used to corrupt government, inadequate infrastructure, spotty power supply and all-around poor conditions. Some of the perks of high energy prices undoubtedly will disappear, but none of those perks succeeded in changing Nigeria in the first place.

The real impact on Nigeria will be that the government will have drastically less money available to grease the political wheels that allow it to keep competing regional and personal interests in check. Those funds have been particularly crucial for funneling cash to the country’s oil-rich Niger Delta region, giving local bosses reason not to hire and/or arm militant groups like the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta to attack oil and natural gas sites. With Abuja having less cash, the oil regions will see a surge in extortion, kidnapping and oil bunkering (i.e., theft). We already have seen attacks ramp up against the country’s natural gas industry: Within the last few days, attacks against supply points have forced operators to take the Bonny Island liquefied natural gas export facility offline. And since Nigeria’s mil itants never really differentiate between the country’s various forms of energy export, oil disruptions are probably just around the corner.

Russia is also in the crosshairs, but not nearly to the same degree as Venezuela, Iran and Nigeria. Russia has four things going for it that the others lack. First, it exports massive amounts of natural gas and metals, giving it additional income streams. (Venezuela and Iran actually import natural gas and have no real alternative to oil income.) Second, Russia never spent its money on its population. Thus, Russians have not become used to massive government support, so there will be no sharp cuts in public spending that will be missed by the populace. Third, Russia has saved nearly every nickel it made in the past eight years, giving it cash reserves worth some US$750 billion. The financial crisis is hitting Russia hard, so at least US$200 billion of that buffer already has been spent, but Russia still remains in a far better position than m ost oil exporters. Fourth and last, the Russians can rely on Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin to (somewhat forcefully) keep the books firmly in balance. At his insistence, the government is in the process of refabricating its three-year budget on the basis of oil prices of below US$35 a barrel, down from the original estimate of US$95.

At the end of the losers’ list we have two states that most people would not think of: Mexico and Canada. Both have other sources of economic activity. Canada is a modern service-based economy with a heavy presence of many commodity industries, while Mexico has become a major manufacturing hub. But both are major oil exporters, and have been leading suppliers to the American economy for decades. So both are exposed, but their concerns are more about unforeseen complications rather than the “simple” quantitative impact of lower prices.

Mexico has purchased derivatives contracts that, in essence, insure the price of all its oil exports for 2009. So should prices remain low, Mexico’s actual income will be unchanged. We only include Mexico on the list of losers, therefore, because it’s quite rare in geopolitics that such planning actually works out as planned. Hurricanes and strikes happen. (Mexico also faces the problem of insufficient funds, expertise and technology to counter rapidly declining output, something that will leave it with a lack of oil to sell in the first place — but that is an issue more for 2012 than 2009.)

As for Canada, most of the oil it produces comes from Alberta province, the seat of power of the ruling Conservative Party. Right now, the Canadian government is wobbling like a slowing top. Seeing the Conservatives’ power base take a massive economic hit due to oil prices is not the sort of complication the government needs right now. In the longer term, Alberta recently increased taxes on oil sands projects. Oil sands extraction is among the more capital-intensive and technologically challenging sorts of oil production currently possible. Combine the tax changes with the nature of the subindustry and the recent price drops and there is likely to be precious little investment interest in oil dur ing — at a minimum — 2009.

Most readers will take note of the countries we have chosen not to include on the list of vulnerable states. These include the bulk of the OPEC states — specifically Angola, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Libya. All of these states count oil as their only meaningful export (except the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, which also export natural gas), so why do we feel such countries are not in the danger zone?

For its part, Angola only became a major producer recently. Nearly all of Angolan oil output is from offshore projects controlled by foreigners — shutting in such production is a very tricky affair for a country that is utterly reliant on foreign technology to operate its only meaningful industry. But the primary reason Angola is not feeling the heat is that most of its income has not been spent but instead has been stashed away due to a lack of the necessary physical and personnel infrastructure needed to leverage the income.

Iraq is in a somewhat similar position as far as finances are concerned. While Iraq has been producing crude for decades, its current government is only a few years old, and its institutions simply cannot allocate the monies involved. Despite massive outlays by both Iraq and Angola, their respective governments simply lack the capacity to spend, and so have stored up cash accounts worth US$26 billion and US$54 billion respectively.

The rest of the Arab oil producers warrant a much simpler explanation: They’ve been fiscally conservative. While all have shared the wealth with their somewhat restive populations, none of them has repeated the mistakes of the 1970s, when they overspent on gaudy buildings and overcommitted themselves to expensive social programs. All have been saving vast amounts of cash, with the Saudis alone probably having more than US$1 trillion socked away. Tiny Kuwait officially has a wealth fund worth more than US$250 billion.

So while none of the Arab oil states are particularly thrilled with the direction — and in particular the speed — oil prices have gone, none of these governments faces a mortal danger at this time. What they are now missing is the ability to make a substantial impact on the world around them. At oil’s height the Gulf Arab oil producers were taking in US$2 billion a day in revenues — far more cash than they could ever hope to metabolize themselves. Bribes are powerful tools of foreign policy, and their income allowed them — particularly Saudi Arabia — to wield outsized influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even in Beijing, London and Washington. So while none of these states faces a meltdown from falling prices, there are certainly some hangovers in store for them. It is jus t that they are more political than economic in nature, at least for now.

~~~Chet~~~

By Mark Harvey Sunday, November 23, 2008

I haven’t done a War News Update in quite a while due to the fervor of the elections quagmire but now that it is almost over, I will begin these updates at least once a week. I do have nearly 700+ dispatches saved up so expect a flurry of data that the media cannot reveal. Seeing that this is Victory In Iraq Day (VI-Day), let us begin with some information that has been widely ignored b y the Defeatocrats and those responsible for the war going as long as it has.

The first order of business will be a report from GrEaT sAtAn’S gIrLfRiEnD with the Military Advisors Manual. This report reveals what I have been espousing for quite some time seeing that I have some experience in this area. It is a worthy report and I agree with it entirely. General David Petraeus is a genius and it is too bad that politics got in the way of his ability to win this war earlier. If his ideas and concepts had been implemented sooner, perhaps the traitors and subversives would have been put in their proper places…in prison. Then again, the folks that could have done that are too cowardly to actually enforce current law.

CIA: Every Major Terror Threat, World Wide, Involves Pakistan

This has been known for quite some time but it wasn’t politically expedient to make it known. I am sure Czarbie would know something about this seeing that he did spend quite some time in Pakistan before he had threatened to bomb the hell out of Pakistan during his illegal campaign. Illegal campaign? Yes, that is what I said…the fool isn’t a US citizen but that won’t stop the enemies of the US from the coronation of the impostor.

Other posts I have done involve the Global Cultural Jihad. England is experiencing this and the United States is on track for Shar’ia Law by 2050. I suppose the Democrats will realize this when they are the first to be put to death by the sword of allah. In accordance with Shar’is Law, the ungodly will die first. The fools that have been “upset” by Prop 8 in California will be the most surprised.

In spite of the alleged Obama victory, Iran has decided not to honor their original “promises”. They will continue their Hate America mantra. They are also going to have a meeting. This isn’t a big surprise to me seeing that I still have difficulty differentiating the basic democrat party leader from the terrorists and their leaders…they speak the same language – America Sucks.

Steven J. Rosen has a piece up at the American Thinker published on 11/16 entitled, ”Did Iran Offer a ‘Grand Bargain’ in 2003?” Without getting into the details here at this time, we all know where this is going and from where it came. We also know that the premise was born in the bowels of the morons that have prolonged this war for the sake of political expediency and power. It was a farce and a lie then and it is even more so now. Rosen explains it in detail and I have the background of all that nonsense stored right here…have fun.

It is said that OBL is still alive and his busily farming out details of more attacks now that the week-kneed and thin-skinned coward Obama has theoretically won the election. They, the terrorists, know that Czarbie will do nothging to defend this Nation so their plots and plans will move forward in the hopes to reverse their losses in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraqw as well as just about everywhere else.

Vindication. It smells and tastes oh so sweet. For those of you that know me, you will know and remember that I have said this for years: CIA Agent Confirms Al-Qaeda Was In Iraq In 2002. Remember? This is one of the many areas that I have major issues with President Bush. It wasn’t politically expedient to make this known. Why? I have no idea. I do know that the war was prolonged because of it. I also know for a fact that the ones that made hay-day over President Bush being silent on this FACT also knew the data was factual but utilized the silence to further their cause of political power. They also rendered aid and comfort to the enemy during that process. Did I not make it widely known that we “watched them flee Afghanistan and flee to the Four Winds”? Yes, I did. I will stress this once again. We watched the enemy flee Afghanistan to Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. We stopped them in Tajikistan. Flopping Aces has more. However, neither Gateway Pundit, Flopping Aces or CQ Politics has what I have in my head and heart. They were not there. I was. Like I said. Vindication is sweet. Eat that you libtard morons. The libtards can also eat their BS about the WMD deal as well.

In other news, Stealth Jihad? It seems as though the Jihad is using the List of 45. Interesting that. Please note that I didn’t say “surprising”. Then again, we can always consider the Muslim Brotherhood and their ties to CAIR and the List of 45, can’t we? The proponents of CAIR and their democrat and RINO sympathizers are useful idiots in the demise of this Nation and the libtards are “Rather” pleased with themselves. I am going to laugh at them as their heads are lopped off by the sword of allah and just might break out the marshmallows to roast over their burning bodies. Then we can focus on killing the Jihadi scum in this nation.

While we are at it, seeing that Obama was having meetings with HAMAS all during his campaign, what if we had an investigation about that and why Syria and Iran have given HAMAS the green light? Surely there is something to that besides Obama being the pathological liar that he is. And, knowing that Obama is such a pathological liar on top of being a narcissist, can we really believe that he will not support the “Saudi” Israeli-Arab peace pact? Or, can we actually know why Iran is now backing off from their previous statements about supporting SOFA? Why on Earth wold they support that Plan now that the weakling Czarbie is set to steal the White House? Isn’t it just like a terrorist to act like a democrat and “change their mind” when politically expedient to do so? Democrats and terrorists…same-same.

Oh. And expect the usual “illegal war” crap to come up again. Naturally, thee isn’t any evidence to support that BS but that won’t stop the pathological liars on the left, will it? Then again, when they are clueless about the Iraq War, why should anyone really give them the attention they lust after?

As our Troops have won in Iraq and are winning in Afghanistan, NATO not withstanding, the Confederate Yankee tells us to brace for a total loss in the future. It is what the Democrats are all about. Then again, when the terrorists declare war on Pakistan, one has to wonder where all of this is going. Obama and the terrorists want to bomb Pakistan…

Whereas the treatment of President Bush has been off the charts and psychotic, at times I think he may have deserved it. He never seemed to take the libtards seriously. I do and don’t blame him for it but when it put our troops in danger, he should have at least came out and shamed the libtards out in the open and in public.

Some are saying that Afghanistan is barely winnable and I think that is primarily a NATO result. I have been a long supporter of disbanding NATO due to its ties to the UN. But, that is for another post for a different day.

Chet Bowen