So, Israel firster Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucus? Go figure. Do you think this statement had anything to do with it?:

"I will travel to Israel on my first foreign trip. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel's existence as a Jewish state. I want the world to know that the bonds between Israel and the United States are unshakable."

Or how about this one:

"I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region. I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination. And I will again reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable."

I could showcase a few more examples of where Romney's allegiances truly lie…but what's the point?

I guess we should count our blessings. Though Ron Paul came in third, it's still an impressive victory when you consider that Iowa is an evangelical stronghold, whose voter support for the state of Israel takes precedence over any concern they might have for their own country.

Without a doubt, Paul performed better than any other candidate. He definitely made the case that he was the best suited to deliver this nation from the unsound fiscal policies of the Treasury Department and the privately owned Federal Reserve. But that was obviously a secondary concern for the voters in Iowa. Paul had to be defeated because he stuck true to his principals, and made it clear that he would not send more of our children to die in yet another Jewish war of survival.

How else would you explain why Rick Santorum came in second? He wasn't going anywhere until he revealed on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would demand that Iran's nuclear sites be dismantled, and then launch an attack against them after they inevitably refused.

Of course Michelle Bachman and Newt Gingrich are even more devoted to Israel. So why did they finish behind Paul? The voters apparently had what alcoholics call a "moment of clarity," and realized that neither of them stood a chance of defeating Obama. Bachman is a blithering idiot who can barely spell America (let alone serve its best interests), and the serial adulterer/hypocrite Gingrich has way too much baggage.

Speaking of Newt, didn't he just get through weeping over his long dead mother? Poor guy…now he has something new to cry about. And I would wager that these tears are a lot more genuine. That's right, Newt! You ain't foolin' anybody. We know the only thing you have an emotional attachment to is your political career and the Zionist masters who fund it.

Remember last June, when Newt urged the Jewish Republican Coalition in Beverly Hills to "never underestimate the hold that Israel has on the American heart."

Speak for yourself, Newt. So far as America is concerned: while I agree that Israel certainly does have a hold on one of our organs, I would argue that it resides a bit further south. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu certainly has his fingers clenched around that organ, and uses it as a steering mechanism to further his criminal agenda. Don't take my word for it. Back in 2001, he bragged that, "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction."

Nothing has changed, and the Iowa caucus proves it. It's not just media manipulation and vote fraud that guides that vote. Iowa is a microcosm of the 70 million Christian Zionists, evangelicals and other dispensationalists who represent the most coveted voting block in America.

These psychotics believe that their unwavering support for the state of Israel is the "golden ticket" they need to gain access through the pearly gates. They're counting on a catastrophic war in the Middle East to hasten the return of Jesus Christ, who will then descend from the clouds and gather them up in one fel swoop. Once deposited safely in heaven, Christ can then go about his business wiping out the rest of his creation.

For decades, false prophets like Jerry Falwell; Hal Lindsey; Pat Robertson; Tim Lehay and John Hagee have all promised that the return of Christ is just around the corner. But since none of these prophecies ever come to pass, Christian Zionists have grown tired of waiting and believe it's time to take matters into their own hands. They figure if they can stoke the flames of Armageddon themselves, it just might send up the right smoke signal to get the good Lord's ass in gear.

That's why the war rhetoric and saber rattling against Iran by all of these GOP hopefuls is so appealing to them. Who else would be attracted to a presidential candidate who promises to take their nation to war if elected? To the rest of us, the thought of heading into yet another hot conflict is nothing less than horrific. But the Christian Zionists don't care because they're confident that they won't be around to see it. By the time the feces hits the oscillating wind generator, they'll be watching the action from a ringside seat in heaven while toasting marshmallows and singing "Kumbaya."

And what is to become of all the Jewish people that these evangelical nut jobs claim to love so dearly? Let's not kid ourselves. These people are certainly no friends of the Jews. Their doctrine is ultimately hostile to Judaism, and requires that all Jews must convert to Christianity or perish along with the rest of us. So why do we often find collaboration between Christian Zionists, and some segments of the Jewish community, who might otherwise find this kind of "convert or die" theology offensive?

Another quote that is commonly attributed to Netanyahu is, "My opinion of Christian Zionists? They're scum. But don't tell them that. We need all the useful idiots we can get right now."

While I have a hard time believing that Netanyahu would be so careless as to say something like that in public, it can't be far from how some Jews feel, particularly those who rely on the billions of American dollars we send Israel each year, along with the weapons and manpower required to continue these wars that are being waged on their behalf.

Yes…Christian Zionists are the useful idiots who facilitate Israel's criminal activity, and they're also the one's who are taking this nation into another war. They'll get the mushroom clouds they want, but they won't be watching them from heaven. Discounting their dispensationalist fantasy of an end-times scenario, what does war with Iran really mean? Forget about $500 per barrel oil. That's the least of our worries. War with Iran means war with Russia and China. War with Iran means World War III.

The Russian Ministry of Defense recently issued a bulletin to PM Putin and President Medvedev stating that China's President Hu has now agreed "in principal" that the only way to stop US led western aggression is through "direct and immediate military action" and that Hu has ordered his Naval Forces to "prepare for warfare."

That dovetails with a statement from Major General Zhao Zhangzhong of the Chinese National Defense University, who said that China "would not hesitate to protect Iran" even if it led to a third World War, and that not hesitating to fight a third World War would be entirely for domestic political needs. China currently buys large quantities of oil from Iran and is their third largest trading partner.

As for Russia? On December 18, 2011, Russian Centre for Socio-Political Studies Director Vladimir Yevseyev insisted that Russia would stop any military attack against Iran, adding that that "a military attack against Tehran will be a serious problem for Russia, because Caucasus and Central Asia are strategic regions for Russia."

He's not the only Russian sounding the alarm. According to Press TV, "Last week, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin vehemently criticized any plans of attacking Iran, describing the measure as "a very dangerous scenario" which could lead to a "regional catastrophe."

Regional my ass! We're talking about WWIII, folks—brought to you by the same people who brought us the last two World Wars! So much for the claim that "Israel is a strategic ally of the US."

Don't you just love clichés? The hardcore supporters of the criminal Israeli state certainly do. How many times have you heard these one-liners recited ad nouseum?

"Israel is the only democracy is the Middle East."

"You can't trade land for peace."

"We have to prevent another Holocaust."

And then there's my favorite: "Israel has a right to exist." Does it? "No country has a right to exist," proclaimed former CIA heavyweight Michael Scheuer during a 2010 C-SPAN interview. "The United States doesn't have a right to exist. Britain doesn't have a right to exist. Bolivia doesn't have a right to exist! Countries exist if they can get along with their neighbors, if they have a thriving economy and a social system which is equitable. If countries have a right to exist, we would be resurrecting the Soviet Union, the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and every other country that has gone down the tubes."

That's one way to put it. But I would argue that not only does Israel have no right to exist…it doesn't exist. At least not according to International law. Why? Because although the UN General Assembly recommended the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine back in 1947, it was never ratified in the Security Council. Israel, therefore, is an illegitimate nation.

Furthermore, "when we think of Israel's right to exist, we often think of the 1967 borders as though somehow it is written that when you discuss two states, the 1967 borders are what we are to discuss," says human rights attorney Lamis Deek of Al-Awda New York. "Nowhere is that written. It is an arbitrary date picked on the date of another occupation. It could have been ‘48 or ‘47 or 2001. There's nowhere that it says that we have to stick to the green line or the 1967 borders."

Of course these are all legal arguments. Would I be forced to change my tune if Israel did obtain formal recognition by the UN? Certainly not. No outside entity has the moral authority to govern the indigenous population. Only the Palestinians have the right to control land that their ancestors have inhabited for thousands of years.

Anyway, back to clichés. It seems like every year or so, the Israeli Hasbara machine introduces a new phrase that is then picked up and recited by journalists and politicians. One of the more recent ones is that "President Obama threw Israel under the bus" when he recommended that Israel resume peace talks based upon 1967 borders. That really got the Israeli loyalists up in arms.

Of course Obama later backpedaled and proved to be the biggest obstacle to Palestinian statehood. "Peace is hard work," Obama declared to the UN General Assembly last September. "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations. If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now."

As if that weren't bad enough, he had to get down on his knees and grovel before his Zionist masters. "America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakable," said Obama. "Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring."

Obama certainly has not thrown Israel under the bus…but he should. As a matter of fact, Israel should be thrown from a moving train. After all, Israel is the engineer behind the controls of this runaway locomotive, and our politicians are the ones shoveling coal into the boiler.

Isn't it high time we got our asses out of the caboose, jumped a few freight cars, and took control of this thing before it jumps the tracks?

ALL ABOARD! Next stop: New Hampshire!