• Citizens of Earth...
• Dreaming of 666...
• A toast to the Messiah...
• Steam to the rescue...
• Poison to stun and to kill...
• No one can escape...
  

AV8 Harrier II maneuvers around the flight deck of the USS Nassau LHA4. Nassau is underway with other elements of the Nassau Amphibious Ready Group and embarked 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit for a certification excercise. www.navy.mil

History Keeps Repeating

I'm afraid its true but history keeps repeating itself. Not because God makes it so but because man is inherently corrupt from birth and in his stupidity continues to make the same mistakes, knowingly and unknowingly, over and over again. The Ft. Hood terror attack in Texas last Friday is the latest manifestation of this existential phenomena. The murderous thug is a Moslem and he wanted to go to "Paradise" in a bang so to speak and so compelled by his Islamic religion which is codified for all to see in the Koran he chose to take the path of human good and evil and kill as many "infidels" as he could before he himself was brought down by armed force.

How many times must this equation be acted out in the malls, schools, offices, airliners and military installations in our country before we decide we no longer will put up with it? Must we endure another 9/11 type of Islamic terror attack in the future? Apparently so. The gospel of Diversity has consumed all common sense amongst our most important constituency in America - the Elites! Its one thing if the peasants are morons but quite another when our intelligentsia decide to mentally fade out and drive our nation into the ground by their drunken and doped up actions that only serve to encourage our enemies to attack us. Unfortunately, when the elites get it wrong its the peasants who suffer! Diversity and Multiculturalism is a poison destroying the vitality and martial spirit of this nation one drip at a time. Ft. Hood only occurred because "we" refused to recognize the danger "we" put ourselves in. I fully expect Islamic Terrorists to seize on this opportunity to attack us in the rear but I don't expect our elites to just "look the other way". This attack was completely preventable but the ruling elites in this country have betrayed the people with their collectivist mentality and our beautiful men in arms have paid for it with their lives!

The religion of Islam is completely incompatible with the American way of life and really incompatible with the Western way of life. There are no doctrines in the Bible calling for the murder of innocents to advance our Judeo-Christian religion but not so for the devout Moslem. For him, to kill is to serve his master well. In fact, the murder of others is the highest form of "devotion" even if it means killing their own children! Only a Moslem would consider the murder of their children as "honorable". The Sunni Moslem on Moslem violence is cynically notorious for its primeval viciousness not only towards the Jews in particular but to other religious peoples in general including Shiites amongst themselves.

My friends, this is the great elephant in the room! No amount of ignoring its stench or overlooking its mass can be innocently excused. The War Of Terror will continue until the day we decide enough is enough. Unfortunately, we have not reached that point as yet. Islamic Terrorism is extant today because they wish to return to a Caliphate in the Middle East and they think by murdering the masses that this will be the catalyst of its return. And their devious calculation may yet prove the efficacy of their way.

Behold the clash of civilizations!

Osprey From Marine Tiltrotor Squadron VMM 263 22nd MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) prepares to take off from the Amphibious Assault Ship Bataan LHD5. The aircraft were flown to Camp Bastion Afghanistan where they will be transferred to VMM 261 and used to support the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. This is the first time this type of aircraft will be used in the Afghan Theatre. www.navy.mil

• The Temple must be rebuilt!
• Agenda 21 - prepare for assimilation.
• Falling to pieces...
• Turkey's future not anchored in the West...
• How do we know Barack Obama is a Gemini? Because he is exactly like Jimmy Carter!

2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner

The Islamic Anti-Christ?

As you may well know I have a keen interest in biblical prophecy. I believe that prophecy in the Bible is part of the proof that there is a God. In fact, if there were no prophecy then there could be no hope for the believer both Jew and Gentile alike and we could not verify if the claims being made by the Lord, before or after he came in the flesh, were in fact true or false. Bible prophecy is the great identifier of friend or foe as far a Jews and Christians are concerned and in the book of Revelation, the grand central station of Bible prophecy, John even tells us that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy".

Lately, I have read a promotional artical on World Net Daily regarding the up and coming future anti-Christ. The author believes unlike most Christians that the future anti-Christ will not be West European but actually be Islamic and perhaps even Arabic. The author states that the prophecy in Daniel regarding the great empires that rise and fall and ulitimately lead to the anti-Christ will not culminate with a "revived Roman Empire" but instead will produce a ressurected Caliphate based in the Middle East. The critical break being that its the city of Babylon that is the key to unlocking this great "mystery" regarding the future anti-Christ.

Let me rebut these points in detail and let the reader come to his own conclusion.

1) Daniels prophecy of the statue & four beasts- Israel's enslavement to the great empires for her sins. In Daniel 2 and 7 we see from God that 4 great empires would arise to punish Israel for her sins against God. They don't arise to conquer Babylon but to conquer Jerusalem. God has allowed them to rise to power for this purpose to purify the soul of the jew not the Chaldeans who were the first to take Israel's sovereignty away.

Babylon, the ancient seat of the Chaldeans, was not the focus of God in Daniel but merely the first gentile nation to rule over Jerusalem. She would not be the last. The Persians came second and allowed the Jew to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. Then came the Greeks as the third overlord of Jerusalem beginning with Alexander the Great and giving birth to Greek rule over the entire Middle East including Israel. Finally, the Romans took over where the Greeks left off and Israel become a vassal state to the Roman Empire just before Christ is born.

Eventually, it would be the Romans, the fourth great empire, that would trampel over Jerusalem in 70 AD and destroy the Temple the second time on exactly the 9th Day of Av of the Jewish calendar when the first great empire of the Chaldeans destroyed the first Jewish Temple over 500 years before on the same day. Christ says in Luke 24 that Jerusalem (not Babylon) shall be trodden down by the gentiles until the times of the gentiles be fulfilled.

All of these events preceded the rise of Islam in the late 7th Century. In fact, Islam claims Jerusalem and Israel as Jewish entities have never existed and certainly did not exist when they conquered Jerusalem in their own time (circular reasoning par excellence). Per Christ then the Moslems are simply another gentile power currently treading on Jewish property and as part of the great gentile masses will continue to do so until the Second Advent of Christ which ends gentile rule over JERUSALEM sometime in the future.

2) The Church Age - The Great Parenthesis. When it comes to prophecy it has to be recognized that the Church Age is a very unique time period and that it was completely invisible to the Old Testament Saints including the prophets such as Daniel himself. In Daniel 9, When Daniel is praying an Angel comes to him and explains that God has decreed 70 "sevens" upon the people of Israel to "finish the transgression, put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up visions and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy" the angel also mentions something very important - there is a break in the 70 weeks of seven years due to the First Advent of Jesus Christ.

"know and undstand this: from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven and sixty-two sevens (69 weeks of seven years). After the sixty-two sevens the anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing".

After 69 weeks of seven years from the time the First Temple is rebuilt to the First Advent of Christ we see that Christ is "cut off" and the resumption of the last week is not fulfilled until "he" confirms a covenant with many for one (last) seven. The Angel speaking to Daniel goes on and says something very significant - the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and sanctuary (of Jeruslaem). We know from this conversation the Angel is not talking about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Chaldeans under Nebachanezzer because by this time that event was past. Here the Angel is speaking about the future second destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and we know this because 70 sevens have been decreed by God as just announced by the Angel to Daniel. And by the 69th seven (483 years later) Christ is born but will be cutoff by the crucifixion. Crucifixion in fact and deed administered by none other than the Roman Empire in 30 AD. Islam you will note is no where to be seen until the 7th century way into the great parenthesis known as the Church Age some 600 years later.

We also know who the origin of the "people of the ruler who will come" that destroys Jerusalem and the Temple a second time because in Rome itself a great arch was commemorated for the conquest of Israel showing none other than the Jewish Menora on a freize as the spoils of war in Rome itself in the heart of Italia! Nope, not in Riyadh or Mecca but in Rome we find these facts. Islam once again is no where to be found.

Between the 69th week and the 70th week that God has decreed for Israel's punishment the "great parenthesis" is inserted now known as the Church Age. The 70th week only resumes when "he" makes a covanent with the "many" for one last "seven". That "he" is the False Prophet of Revelation 13 because here in Revelation we find that it is the False Prophet of Isreal(a Jew) who erects a statue to honor the "god" of the 10-King kingdom(Revived Rome) in the city of Jerusalem and this only occurs by the middle of that last seven year "week" of Daniel's prophecy. The "god" of Revived Rome is known as the "beast" and he sits as the ruler of "the people who will come" that destroyed the second Temple and that my friends was the great Roman Empire not the Arab tribes of arabia or the Islamic Caliphate.

Finally, Daniel was told that all of these things were to occur during the 70 weeks of seven years of Israel's punishment. The great perenthesis or Church Age though it is between the 69th and 70th week is not part of this prophetic equation and thus Islam which arose during the great parenthesis (Church Age from 30AD to present) in the 7th century in the Year of our Lord cannot be the people who return at the 70th Week of Daniel's prophecy in the future as this has been reserved for the empire that ruled over Israel and Jerusalem during the preceding 69 week period which would fall squarely on the Roman Empire domiciled in Western Europe. In other words, its the ROMAN EMPIRE that stradles the 69th and 70th week of Daniel's prophecy. Hence, we call the future 4th gentile kingdom of Daniel 2 & 7 the "revived Roman Empire" and not a revived Caliphate since the Caliphate didn't exist until after the 69th week of Daniel and was only evident during the Church Age which Daniel himself could not see because he was not told of its existence (the Church Age) by the Angel.

3) The Beast - 7 hills and 7 kings. Who is the anti-Christ? I believe it's John of Revelation that tells us exactly where the anti-Christ will hail from and what people he rules over in the future. In Revelation 17 John has been shown the future and he sees a harlot riding a "beast". This beast the Angel explains to John will sometime in the future be completely worshipped and idolized by the unrighteous inhabitants of the earth. This "beast" is at once the revived Roman Emporer of the 69th Week of Daniel when Christ was "cut-off" at his First Advent on earth.

The Angel explains something quite significant- he says the people of earth will be astonished by his "ressurection" because "he once was" (in the 69th week of Daniel as the first Roman Caesar), "now is not" (during the great parenthesis or Church Age when John wrote Revelation), "and yet will come" (in the 70th week of Daniel as the last Roman Caesar). Here the Angel is connecting the future "beast" with the Roman Empire as it was when the Roman Empire cut off the Anointed One at the 69th Week of Daniel when Christ was crucified at Golgotha by the Roman Empire. No doubt Satan had used the Roman Caesar as his proxy and justification to have Christ executed for "slandering" Caesar and actually establishing himself as the Lord of Lords over the King of the West which of course during this time was heresy (civil not religous) and treason to the Roman Empire which Israel now belonged as a vassal state.

When the people of the world see the beast again in the future at the 70th week of Daniel they connect these two leaders as one - the Roman Caesar of Western Europe! Thus they are astonished and amazed by the appearance of the "beast" one last time in history when the Angel describes the beast as "once was, now is not, and yet will come". The beast is evident during the 69th Week (once was) disappears during the great parenthesis of the Church Age(now is not) and reappears at the 70th week of Daniel(yet to come).

The Angel further tells John about the future anti-Christ known as the beast - "This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while".

I believe we can pinpoint quite accurately the seven kings. First, the harlot is the future ecumenical religion (religious babylon) that sits on seven hills. Clearly the Vatican with the Roman Catholic Church is the mother of all religions today (more ecumenical then Christian orthodox) and the Vatican is seated at Rome and this city has seven very famous hills (Aventine, Caelian, Capitoline, Esquiline, Palatine, Quirinal, Viminal) which makes Rome the site of the seven hills. Furthermore, the Angel tells John that the seven hills are also seven kings. If the seven hills are in Rome (which I'm convinced they are) then the seven kings by logic must be Roman as well. The Angel goes on and says "five kings have fallen, one is and the other has not yet come; but when he does come he must remain for a little while".

Here we can triangulate if you will to get a precise picture of the seven kings. When John was exiled to the Island of Patmos the "king that is" was none other than the Roman Ceaser Domition! By 96 AD Domition had imprisoned John on Patmos and if we count backwards we can trace the "five" kings that had previously fallen.

Before Domition there was the Ceasar Titus (5th King) then before him was Vespasian (4th King) before him was Vitellius (3rd King) and before him was Otho (2nd King) and finally before him was Galba (1st king). What is fascinating is that the first four kings all vied for the position of Emporer in what is now known as the Year of the Four Emporers. That is not without significance I believe because that year was characterized by a succession attempt by these four would-be emporers for the Roman Empire during the exact time period that Israel was being sacked by Rome when she revolted against her in 68 AD. By December 69 AD, Vespasian takes over as Emporer and just 7 short months later Israel would fall to Titus and his legions and the Second Jewish Temple would be destroyed.

Later, Vespasian (4th King) dies and Titus (5th king) takes over as Roman Caesar. Once again, Titus is significant because he was present with the Legions when the Second Jewish Temple was razed by the Romans in 70 AD on the 9th Day of Av according to the Jewish calendar. Later, Domition takes over as Caesar and he is identified by the Angel in Revelation as the "king that is" since it was he who exiled John to the isle of Patmos.

What is also significant about the 5 kings is that all of them are related or connected to events occuring in Israel at that time namely her destruction by the legions of Rome. Vespasian emerges victorious over the succession struggle in the Year of the 4 Emporers and it was he who was initially in Isreal when the revolt over Roman suzerainty erupted between the Jews and the Romans in 68 AD.

Also interesting is that the entire succession struggle occured in the first place because Emporer Nero was declared an "enemy" of the state by the Roman Senate in 68 AD. He later committed suicide to avoid certain torture and death by his executors and it was Nero who had the greatest Apostle of the Church Age, Saul of Tarsus or Paul as we now know him from the Bible executed in 68 AD in Rome! Additionally, Domition himself like Nero, would find himself dead the exact same year he had John exiled to Patmos in 96 AD after ruling for 15 years as Caesar. Invisible hand of God? Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord? Most certainly.

All of these kings are Roman. And the Angel tells John that the "other has not yet come" meaning the 7th Roman Caesar or King of the 70th Week of Daniel is yet future. The Angel goes further and states the beast "who once was" (in the 69th week) "and now is not" (evident during the great perenthesis or Church Age) "is an eighth king". This last phrase bifurcates the last week of Daniel or the 70th Week as we know it because the Emporer of Rome emerges at the begining of the 70th week (Tribulation) thus astonishing the world and by the middle of the 70th week (Great Tribluation) the Emporer of Rome becomes the anti-Christ when he is fully possessed by Satan. Hence, the "8th King" is part of the seventh at the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel (human - Emporer of Europe) and by the time we reach the middle of the last 70th week of Daniel (3 1/2 years) becomes the anti-Christ (Satan possessed human - Emporer of the World). You will note in Revelation that the anti-Christ is captured alive by the victorious armies of Christ at the Second Advent and thrown bodily into the Lake of Fire - hence the 8th king "goeth to his destruction" once and for all.

Once again, the Moslems are not part of this equation and cannot be. The world will not be astonished and hopeful over a revived Caliphate but they most certainly will over a Revived Roman Empire. Once again, history comes full circle. Caesar in fact will be destroyed by Jesus Christ and Israel restored to sovereignty.

All Hail the Lord of Lords and King of Kings! All Hail Christ our Lord!

The Wild, Wild East

Afghanistan is apparently on the front burner of leftwing politics judging by the networks and newspaper coverage of this rather unknown and benign "war" in the eastern most part of the Middle East. As you very well know, Afghanistan was the first country we attacked after that vicious and unprovoked attack on New York City and Pentagon by Islamic Terrorists in the service of their Al Qaida masters on September 11th, 2001. As you also already know, terrorism operates chiefly unmolested by Islamic states in the Middle East and in most cases is clandestinely funded by Islamic states for the furtherance of their own national objectives such as Pakistan in Afghanistan and Syria & Iran in Iraq.

Terrorists are the pawns of nations in this part of the world with Islam being the fuel that burns the fires of terrorism. Both terrorist and Middle Eastern nation are using each other to achieve their objective(s) and as try as we might the West is unable to break this "cycle of violence" that is the hallmark of the Middle East. The Middle East really is at a breaking point in terms of Islamic culture and really we could say that the entire world is at a breaking point due to the advance of the West in terms of its economic, political, cultural and military clout that it imposes both passively and aggressively upon the nations of the world. The Middle East is feeling the vice being squeezed upon them and there simply is no way out other than through the tried and true method of political violence.

Oil has made the Middle East wealthy beyond its dreams but it also is a curse. Collectively, the Middle East has a GDP equivalent to that of Spain and we know how pathetic Spain is to the world today. The Middle East is the proverbial sick man of the world. Oil has made it possible for the Middle East to exercise some room for movement on the geopolitical plane however time is running out for them. The Middle East nations understand that the world is being sown together in a patchwork of nationalist entities to form a unified global government with the West as the cockpit of this international entity. The terrorist and the Middle East nations see the ever encroaching power of the West hence their predisposition to terrorism to effect an outcome that either will preserve them in the Middle East or allow them to separate altogether (they will still sell oil to us) from this new global hegemony. The income from oil keeps the nations of the Middle East in power and the fanaticism of religion fuels the Islamic terrorist that keeps him going in the face of an obstinate Middle Eastern dictator that runs these nations. Oil and religious fanaticism is a deadly concoction that prevents a stable Middle East from overcoming their "cycle of violence" amongst each other and of course with their neighbors.

Now, Afghanistan is before us. What shall we do and why? The networks and newspapers keep on calling our occupation of this nation as well as Iraq a "war". Just because our military is being utilized to occupy a piece of territory doesn't necessarily mean we are "at war". Yes, we do sustain casualties here and there with Islamic rebels occasionally planting an IED in the pathway of our patrols. Yes, we do get into "gunfights" with them but this is in no way similar to a "war" in which millions of rounds of ammo, millions of gallons of fuel, tons of supplies being shipped to the front and military objectives demanding sweeping movements to capture targets, towns, cities and capitols of the enemy as it was in most wars the United States has been involved in. Actually, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were both characterized by the aforementioned requirements of "war" but since then (2001 for Afghanistan and 2003 for Iraq) our military basically has been displacing the enemy by occupation of captured ground rather than continuing with the tempo and pace of actual combat. The casualties we have sustained in occupation are truly minuscule compared to the actual combat in the opening days of Afghanistan and Iraq that statistically makes the death of our Soldiers and Marines relatively "acceptable". Really, we should compare the occupation of the Middle East to the American-Indian Wars after the Civil War when we put down the Indian nations in the Western most part of the United States. Occasionally, we suffered death and injury on the battlefield (not to mention Custer's Last Stand) but overall this period of American military operations was more "occupation and pacification" than classical war. Very few soldiers actually participated in this military operation much like today versus the total number soldiers that participated in the earlier Civil War (A million Yankee men were under arms when General Grant took over for the North as Supreme Commander in 1864).

I know that may sound nuanced and insensitive but its critically important to understand where we are today in the ex post facto War On Terror. We have already won the war in Afghanistan and Iraq but we have not yet pacified this part of the world. Pacification can only successfully occur if we as the United States are willing to go on the offensive in Pakistan, Syria and Iran in which these Islamic rebels are operating from with the in explicit blessing of their host nations. This is the truth that cannot be denied. These Islamic rebels operate from bases within these nations and attack our allies in Baghdad and Kabul at will. All the troops in the world cannot change this fact. No amount of defensive posturing no matter how clever we are can change this strategic advantage that now lies with the rebels.

Ironically, the Russians seemed to understand this dynamic after their invasion of Afghanistan in 1978 when after 10 years of occupation they decided to pull out when they could not and would not muster the military and political muscle to invade Pakistan from whence the Mujaheddin so successfully operated, rested and regrouped after any military engagement with the Russians. The Russians never lost a battle with the Islamic rebels during this time however, the strategic advantage was with the rebels and not with the Russians and by 1988 they fully understood this and left Afghanistan to its communist fate - The emergence and consolidation of the Pakistan inspired Taliban.

Will this be America's fate in Afghanistan and Iraq as well? Sadly, it appears to be so. Hence all this discussion of late about the lack of support for the "war" in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American people refused to support the War On Terror when in 2006 the pacifist Democrats swept to power in the American mid-term elections thus handing then President George W. Bush the option of holding what was achieved or pulling out in an orderly fashion. The white anger of 9/11 now has appeared to cool off and it is only a matter of time before we, like the Russians before us in 1988, decide to pull up roots and remove ourselves from the wild wild East.

Our retreat from these lands will only serve to add fuel to the fire of both Islamic terrorist and Islamic terror supporting nation in the Middle East. To what ends will this move the Middle East towards tuning out of the West and extricating itself from the global governance that is fast approaching is anyone's guess. However, I suspect that our retreat will be the catalyst of a recalcitrant anti-Western (not to mention anti-Israel) collective that will range from Mauritania across the North African Arabic plane to Iraq and the Mesopatamian region with Egypt as the base of this new religious totalitarian order. Egypt will be the political base and Saudi Arabia the religious base. If the Moslem Brotherhood has been as influential as everyone says they have been then indeed I believe this will probably be the outcome in the not too distant future.

Haven't Forgotten

He restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil,for you are with me; your rod and your staff,they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.

Psalm 23:3-5

• Kings of the East...
• The American Century again...
• Alpha and Omega of German History...
• 70 years ago when the Polish War became World War II...
• Russia is a great power...
• Andropov's friend in Washington...
  

Have You Seen This Man?

The Natives Are Restless

American Natives that is. Not Native Americans but all true Americans who love liberty and the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution which on second thought could include Native Americans as well.

Well, I for one am glad Americans are standing up for their rights regarding socialized medicine, er, uh, I meant Universal Government Healthinsurance. Mind you, we already have universal health coverage in the form of obtaining insurance through such websites as Ehealthinsurance.com or any other health insurance company located in any one of the 50 United States that you may reside in. We also have the fact that way back in 1968 the federal government mandated that all hospitals provide healthcare regardless of one's financial status. Today, everyone is accessing the ER room for all kinds of things without due deference to their own ability to pay for their visits especially illegal aliens. I don't necessarily blame "them" because if we are going to pay for their emergency visits then certainly If I were from some third world hell-hole I would want access to the best damned healthcare in the world as well.

Let's face it Obamacare is "Solient Green". There is simply no getting around the fact that the Left loves death. They are the ones pushing for abortion at every turn. They are the ones pushing for euthanasia. They are the ones embracing the end of life concept of "death with dignity" for the elderly and infirm. They supported the death by judicial fiat of Terri Shiavo, a precursor of things to come. They support and endorse "population control" and all the implications that go along with that worldview. Naturally, they don't want to be the first "to go" but insist nevertheless that the death of mankind is completely vital and necessary for "sustainable" development and evolution. And now, "they" control your government. The Left may not want to control the border and may not want to control crime but "they" certainly want to control your health!

Oh the web we weave. Is this why the Left wants to ban the Second Amendment? Should the American people lose everything then will they not take up arms? The possibility always exists and presents a clear and present danger for the Left whenever they revolutionize and conform the American way of life to more of a European modus vivendi. The Left only "loves" what America could be. They despise what America was and certainly hate what America is. Certainly the Left must know that America is an armed camp and should their plans fail and expose them as the hypocrites and dictators for what they are then certainly a new wave of patriotism could sweep them from power. Only time will tell. In the meantime let us dry our powder and clean our rifles as we "cling to our religion" and concentrate on the Word Of God:

Awaken O'Sleepers, arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.

A French Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft conducts touch and go landings aboard the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) during a coalition training exercise. The Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group is operating in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of responsibility after a scheduled five month deployment in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility supporting Operation Enduring Freedom and maritime security operations. www.navy.mil

Assumptions And Consequences

A lot of hash has been made lately regarding certain expectations in the economy, politics, world events etc. that I feel compelled to expose some of these fallacies of public opinion. Many people have a rather shall I say ignorant and perhaps even an arrogant certitude that certain things will repeat themselves "in a positive way" as if politics or human interactions have a "four-seasons" cycle to them. Though I tend to agree that history often repeats itself it never follows the same course as its predecessor. In other words, there will always be slight variations in the current moment so that we don't "repeat" history exactly one hundred percent of the time but return to it at a later date and then go forward on a slightly different trajectory not riding on the same historical line but slightly off course, if you will. So with out further ado lets go over the list of assumptions that so many are convinced will occur on schedule:

1) Economic Assumption: "the economy will bounce back in a year or two". People are so convinced that the economy runs without due deference to which political party controls Congress however history has indeed shown that in fact it does matter which political party is at the helm and what policies are being followed that determines when the economy comes humming back to life from a period of a moribund economic cycle. Simply put, the economy is a responder to what is demanded by those in political power. Politics drives the economy not the other way around. If policies are being pursued that hurts big, medium and small business with excessive taxation, fees, duties and harmful legislation like "cap and trade" then businesses of all sizes will simply spend more time holding on to what they do have instead of research and development and expansion which is so critical to the economy.

FDR is a prime example of politics leading the way towards attacking businesses rather then helping them become stronger. The crash of 1929 did not happen on FDR's watch however the Democrat President was inculcated with anti-commercial tendencies that his policies completely choked off any incentive for business to expand during the 1930's. In fact, his policies brought back the depressionary levels of unemployment, low stock market numbers, and heavy taxation in 1937-38 that the depression appeared to have no end in sight. FDR's "solutions" always involved excessive federal government spending and high taxation and it wasn't till the advent of the Second World War that halted these lousy policies from Washington D.C. (FDR had no choice- either attack American businesses or attack America's enemies) that we see a turn in the economy. However, the war itself did not stop the flatlining of the economy for even after the war was won we see the return to high unemployment and very little economic activity that was the hallmark of the FDR era. Only with the advent of the Republican President Eisenhower and Republican congress in 1952 do we see a reversal of these anti-commercial policies and the concomitant rise in the economy. The depression was a 24-year curse (1929 - 1953) of low economic activity, high taxation, and excessive government spending and expansion at the expense of the private sector due to Democrat inspired legislation in Congress and in the Presidency itself that the bad times kept on going and going and going until it hit a brick wall that was the Republican administration of Eisenhower after the Korean War. Let's see, depression, World War II and the Korean War was the era of Roosevelt/Truman and this is the era we want to return to under Obama?

The advent of Ronald Reagan also had the same effect when the economy was suffering under the Carter era policies that returned to FDR inspired programs of high taxation and government expansion that resulted in high interest rates that stifled nearly every business model from manufacturing and financials to small business and start-ups . Bad foreign policy decisions also contributed to the bad economic picture when the United States cut off funding to our South Vietnam ally in 1974 (by a democrat led congress) resulting in her capitulation to the communists of North Vietnam by 1975. This in turn brought about a tidal wave of unrest (coincidentally only against our allies) from Iran to Nicaragua and Afghanistan in particular to Africa in general. On top of all this was the Arab-Oil Embargo of 1973 that the United States was still suffering from when Carter came to power in January of 1977. I have a feeling on this last point that Jimmy Carter would not find fault with the Arabs and thus blame the United States for this embargo since we decided to belatedly support on only true ally in the Middle East, Israel, during the Yom Kippur War started by Egypt herself.

Could the Carter Era have been another 24-year recessionary/depressionary curse as it had been under FDR/Truman? Most certainly it would have been had it not been for the business friendly Republican in the man that we know as Ronald Reagan that ended the Carter/Mondale era in 1980. Nevertheless, Reagan still had a bad economy on his hands and though Carters' critics did blame him for what Reagan inherited from the Carter malaise, the policies that Reagan put into place under the tutelage of a business friendly congress helped turn around a very ugly economic situation and instead of a 24-year economic curse we actually created a 25-year mother lode of economic expansion and growth not seen since the golden years of industrial expansion of the early 20th century.

Today, the Obama Administration blames GW Bush for what "they inherited" however, let it be known that Senator Obama voted for nearly all the policies while in Congress during his tenure there that have contributed to the situation we are in today! Obama objected to President Bush's "deficit" spending and yet after only being in the Oval Office a few months Obama has outdone the previous President's spending by four-fold!

There are no guarantee's that the economy will come back to the heady days of Reagan/Bush. Just because the economy rebounded after Reagan came to power does not mean that it will do so under Obama. The attitude and tenor of both Obama and his Democrat controlled House of Representatives and Senate will ensure that an "anti-commercial" environment will reign supreme so long as Democrats retain power in Washington D.C. and thus we are more likely to see a repeat of history along the lines of a 24-year depression of an FDR Era rather than a 25-year bonanza of a Ronald Reagan Era.

2) Political Assumption: "Republicans will take control of Congress in 2010". Once again, I know there are a lot of pundits that believe the "pendulum" theory of American politics, however, though political power may switch hands in Washington, what we see in fact that policies don't waver as much and in many ways remain the same in spite of the pendulum swings in domestic politics. More often than not it really doesn't make much difference politically if both parties are espousing the same thing domestically as was the case during the 30's and in the 60's and consequently even now in the late 2000's.

Once again, even though the past has shown that Republicans can retake the house two years after a major Democrat takeover, I don't see this possibility repeating itself anytime soon. The trend line shows that once Democrats take over they usually retain their power for 10 years or more with 1994 being an off year for Democrat "success" at the ballot box. The Republicans must stake out a difference between themselves and their democrat opponents, however, today Republicans are not sounding that much different in terms of social spending and taxation. Thus, strategically, Republicans are still showing anti-business tendencies themselves and are contributing to a fractured message that only serves to confuse voters and allow the Democrats to retain their power.

Republican leadership is also lacking and I cannot see any person that can actually use the full force of his intellect and oratory to turn the government socialist ideal that is now so pervasive in Republican ranks as well as in the country among the voters. Is this the revenge of the "Rockefeller republican" for the rise and advent of Ronald Reagan that occurred in 1976? Perhaps. Revenge and envy are a path to the dark side and I'm afraid the Republican Party is still suffering from internecine fighting that has not spent itself in spite of the fall of prominent moderate Republicans such as Specter (switched to democrat), Ensign (fornicator) and Sanford (adulterer) and the complete gutting of the party from old timers that have decided to not run for re-election. It doesn't look good for a Republican return to power in 2010 nor in 2012 I'm afraid.

3) Foreign Policy Assumption: "Obama will bring change to the world!". Is there anything Obama has done that G.W. Bush hasn't already done in the arena of foreign policy? I mean really, we have already "talked" to Iran and North Korea to death and nothing has come of it except their continued malfeseance towards the United States and that was before Obama and company came onto the scene last January. The so called elections in Iran brought about a near total revolt but certainly no "revolution" but this should have not been countenanced since only an outside force, like the United States military, could actually bring "change" in both spirit and letter to the Persian people.

Obama's arrogance only barely outstrips his naivety towards our allies as well as our enemies. Just because he thinks he is the "anti-Bush" doesn't automatically make him friends with Russia, Europe, Al-Arabia, China, Japan and even Africa. These regimes understand only one thing: power! Military power, political power and economic power. This is what GW was able to deliver in his tenure as President. GW didn't speak well but then again when you have the most powerful military excercising their assigned duties in Iraq and Afghanistan then your GPS guided munitions and blood thirsty Marines will do just fine, thank you. Obama on the other has eschewed the military option other than a few missles lobbed here and there under the watchful eyes of our predator drones. If Obama had been President after 9/11 then I could most surely guarantee you that Saddam Hussein Al Tikriti would still be in power today. Not to mention I'm quite certain we would not be in Afghanistan today and the Taliban would still be in power in Kabul.

Barack Hussein Obama is a complete woose and nothing more. Only our enemies will be glad that someone like Obama is in power because he is a complete buffoon and will surrender American hedgemony to the third world like some Manchurian Candidate who secretly abhors the power and prestige that is the United States of America.

The world has not changed however the American administration certainly has changed hands to a more docile, incompetent, naive and just plain stupid man being supported by a pacficist party hell bent on bringing America down to third world parity so as not to "offend" anyone. The last time we were there was under a moron named Jimmy Carter.

4) Foreign Policy Assumption: "Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake in the history of America!". There is no more naive assumption in foreign policy than this one. In light of that deceitful attack on the United States on 9/11/01, the time it took to get our forces in place for the invasion of Iraq was over 2 years in the making! So there was plenty of time to think of the ramifications of this invasion and no it was not a cowboy "kneejerk" GW Bush reaction to 9/11. The first Gulf War was a direct result of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the resultant destruction and complete route of the Iraqi military before the massive AMERICAN force made the United States the prime target of any retaliation by Iraq. When we consider as well that Saddam tried to have President G. H. Bush assassinated while he visited Kuwait in 1992, as well as the first attack on the World Trade Center (remember those buildings?) in 1993, as well as the destruction of the F Murray Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 on the very day that Iraq's Baath Party celebrates their ascension to the throne under Saddam and the fact that we know very well that these types of attacks are the modus operandi of all Arab/Islamic regimes in the Middle East alone points the arrow to the only perpetrator WILLING to align himself with Islamic terror groups (who would have no problem killing the likes of a Saddam if they could) to strike at the United States and recoup any loss of prestige suffered in 1991 in Kuwait, makes the Iraqi Invasion after 9/11 the most logical outcome for America's response to this terror hit in the heart of New York City and Pentagon on the morning of September 11th, 2001.

Iraqi forces were constantly firing their SAM anti-aircraft missiles at AMERICAN aircraft flying over the "No Fly Zone" over Iraq established after the First Gulf War. This cat and mouse game played by Baghdad was unacceptable after 9/11 and any attempt to fire on an ENRAGED AND ANGRY America thus brought the whole might and power of the greatest military force in the world as well as history upon your head! Now that was the greatest and dumbest mistake in foreign policy ever assumed by a sitting head of state: Saddam Hussein the moron. Consider as well, that whatever the reasons were for the invasion (and there were many not just the 'WMD' location) these pale in comparison to the fact that we, the United States of America, had to establish a PRECEDENT that you don't attack us in the wee hours on a morning of a cloudless sky and GET AWAY WITH IT!!! Facts are facts and Saddam clearly had a history of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons programs and was WILLING to use them not only against his own people (Kurds) but certainly against his neighbors (Iran). Of course, in the Gulf War Saddam Hussien of Iraq fired SCUD missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel (hmmm, the arch enemies of Al Qaida as well) then certainly we see a mad tyrant that should have and did suffer the demise of all tyrants who dare raise their hand against America: death and destruction to yourself, your regime and your country.

The regime fell within a matter of weeks after our glorious armed forces invaded and yes it was indeed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The War On Terror SHOULD HAVE continued into the hell holes called Iran and Syria and because we didn't do this is the reason why the OCCUPATION of Iraq became mired in a pathetic attempt by Moslems of every stripe and country within AL ARABIA to terrorize America into leaving Iraq. In spite of the losses we suffered (greater than the invasion itself) we came out on top (as expected by me) and gloriously succeeded without necessarily having to rely on the so called "surge" that followed in 2006 to effect an outcome that was already there but not yet came to fruition that year: namely the standing up of the reconstituted army of Iraq.

The Left in America and Europe despises Iraq for all the SUCCESSES that have come to light due to President Bush and the AMERICAN military that began in March 2003: the fall of the Saddam Hussien Regime; death of his heirs ensuring the regime doesn't rise again; the capture, conviction and execution of the Ace of Spades himself, Saddam Hussien Al Tikriti; the elections that followed in which all of Iraq could participate in the future of their own country; the DEFEAT of Al Qaida in Iraq; and the successful implementation of the "surge"; Lybia's Mohmmar Guadaffi surrendering his nuclear program and the Syrian army retreat from Lebanon all point to great successes that only Democrats could possibly dream of had it occurred under their watch. But most of all, the fact the United States of America triumphed over her enemies in such a magnificent way has shamed the Left in America and Europe into a bitter reactionary and deliberate worldview in which they despise America and its commercial, Christian, and constitutional way of life have become anathema to their very political core.

This assumption by the Left specifically will be their undoing in the coming years as their response to Iraq will be DRAMATICALLY different to the point that all of the gains made by the USA since 2003 will be pissed away by a vengeful and ungrateful leftwing that will be happier seeing America lose in Iraq than give any credit to a domestic political foe (GW Bush) and capitalizing on our past success. The question will be then: Which Democrat will "lose" Iraq like we lost China, Iran, Southeast Asia, and Cuba?

The Great Debate

Which is it, America? Are we going to be a superpower in foreign policy or are we going to be a superpower in domestic policy? You can't have it both ways because we can't afford to pay trillions of dollars in power projection, foreign aid and wars in far away places and continue to increase the domestic programs for nationalized healthcare, social security and industry bailouts that is now running into the multiple trillions. Is it GW's fault? He is but one among a long line of Presidents, statesmen, Senators and Representatives that have embraced the government-industrial complex that we have come to enjoy in the form of medicare, social security, CAFE standards, EPA, OSHA and a plethora of other federal agencies and policies too numerous to mention here that affect and effect our daily lives. Barack Hussein Obama is but the latest incantation of the government-industrial complex to grace our presence and he may in fact be the apex of this "change" in direction from a foreign policy superpower to a domestic policy superpower.

History has shown what becomes of a nation when this "change" sets in and grabs hold of the populace. Behold the once great nation that was Great Britain. She too was a global superpower who alone stood at the top of the mountain with her overseas commitments to her colonies from South Africa to India to Hong Kong and from Australia to Canada to her Caribbean island jewels. She was the "policeman" of the world keeping would be dictators at bay from Europe to Africa to Asia. But then two world wars and hundreds of billions of dollars later finally made Britain turn inward and reject the role she had played in foreign policy for nearly 300 years. Instead of spending money on soldiers and ships she spent money on the National Health Service and more domestic government spending than she had previously embraced in all of her time as a foreign policy "superpower". Now, after only 60 years or so she too is now bankrupt and can barely afford the services she provides to her people without having to raise more taxes at the expense of her national wealth or what's left of it. Now, her only option in "paying" for these domestic programs is to allow foreigners to work and stay in Great Britain who have no intention of embracing her culture, language and laws. She is now more like Babylon the Great instead of Great Britain.

Is this America's future as well? Have we spent ourselves into oblivion only to have to sacrifice the world role we play as policeman in order to have the domestic goodies that Europe "enjoys"? Is Obama's "change" simply more of the same spending policies of his predecessor but more spending and more borrowing than before? At what price do we pay for this "domestic" course correction in foreign affairs? Obama and the democrats did agree to INCREASE defense spending by 4% from last year however there is much agitation in the media regarding which military programs are going to be axed, scaled down or continued in the wake of the War On Terror...excuse me, the War On Extremism. Apparently, the word "sacrifice" does not apply to the government-industrial complex and as such it continues to grow ever more powerful every day. However, the law of diminishing returns will burst forth at the expense of the fantasies of socialists in Washington in regards to how to pay for their Utopian ideals. If they increase taxation then the economy will shrink thus tax revenue will fall short and borrowing will have to take up the slack. If they cut spending (which they will never do) then all the jobs and businesses that are connected to government (government-industrial complex) such as medical, military, education, social security etc, will suffer thus causing an economic contraction that will precipitate lower tax revenue thus borrowing will have to take up the slack. However, behind both propositions, we can no longer borrow! We have so borrowed ourselves into oblivion that there will come a time where the interest itself let alone the principal will become too great to bare financially and something will have to give.

That something is foreign policy, I predict. If Americans and her politicians have to make a choice and push comes to shove I can almost guarantee that the United States of America will decrease her presence overseas and with her foreign entanglements ie NATO, SEATO, and defense postures with Iraq, Afghanistan, Poland, Central and South America and perhaps even go so far as absolving our responsibility as the policeman of the world becoming more of a Sweden than a Great Britain as we are today. Some will see this as good thing as they believe the United States is singularly too powerful as it is and should be made weaker and more subservient to international organizations and her madcap demands. However, the result of foreign policy contraction will be the rise of dictatorships around the world that will ultimately defy the West as well as the loss of our Allies to enemy insurrection such as was experienced during the whole of the 1970's when America retreated, looked the other way and just plain gave up before the evil and ungodly forces of Communist China, Vietnam and Russia. The domestic narcissim of the 1960's gave way to the foreign policy debacle of the 1970's. Thank you liberals! It may not be communist nations today that rise up in our absence but certainly they will in the language of Barack Obama be "extreme" if I may be so bold in the form of a nativist Russia or an Islamic Caliphate.

Behold, the future.