Thursday, November 09, 2006

NOR Right on Just War

The So-Called War on Terror

November 2006

We received a letter from Joe Furka of High Bridge, New Jersey: "You've done yeoman's work putting forth the argument that the war in Iraq is unjust. I hate you for it. As an ardent supporter of the war when it started, you've brought me kicking and screaming to see it in a light I never imagined -- and it sickens me. I'm left with one question: Can you offer your readers insights into how you think this ‘war on terror' could be fought justly?"

Yes, we'd be happy to. There would be no need for any U.S. "war on terror" if the U.S. had an evenhanded policy in the Middle East.

Before 9/11, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda had grievances against Israel for its presence in Jerusalem and its treatment of Palestinians. Listen to the 2004 9/11 Commission Report: The "mastermind of the 9/11 attacks" was Khalid Sheik Muhammed, and his "animus toward the United States stemmed…from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." And listen to Osama bin Laden's videotape of October 29, 2004, explaining the reasons for the 9/11 attack: "Our patience ran out and we saw the unjustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon [prior to the war in the summer of 2006]…. Contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom, let him explain to us why we don't strike, for example, Sweden?"

Because the U.S. has not been a neutral and honest broker in the Mid-East and has overwhelmingly sided with Israel, radical Muslims have resorted to terror. And there are many imitators of Osama, and terror has spread far and wide. This is not good for America or the world. Both the Republican and Democratic parties -- in their majorities -- are stridently pro-Israel, and neither has an evenhanded policy in the Mid-East. All the U.S. would have to do is have a fair-minded policy in the Mid-East. Why is that so hard to do?

One answer, given by two academics of the realist conservative school of foreign policy, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, is that the Israel Lobby -- particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) -- has a stranglehold on U.S. policy in the Mid-East (The London Review of Books, March 23, 2006). Of course, Mearsheimer and Walt were smeared as "anti-Semites." But they're said to be Jewish; however, we can't confirm that. Over the past thirty years, Israel has taken 33 percent of U.S. foreign aid.

The NOR condemns terror, because it is objectively murder. Why can there not be nonviolent resistance? Why is there no Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., or Lech Walesa when we need them? Unfortunately, many groups have resorted to terrorism, even the Zionists when they were trying to establish the state of Israel. And the U.S. resorted to terrorism on a massive scale. The U.S. deliberately and intentionally murdered innocent civilians toward the end of World War II. At a time when Germany and Japan were essentially defeated, the U.S. firebombed Dresden and other German cities, and used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At that time, General Curtis LeMay said, "There are no innocent civilians," and that's what Osama says. America's hands are definitely not clean.

The Muslims resent the U.S. for its cultural decadence -- its music, films, pornography, feminism, homosexualism, etc. -- that's been foisted on their Islamic culture. Who can blame them? That's their problem, and we hope they can overcome it. But they shouldn't resort to terrorism because of that.

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- by the way, the democratically elected President -- said that "Israel must be wiped off the map." There is no way Iran could wipe Israel off the map. Israel has nuclear weapons (an estimated 200 nuclear warheads). At this point, Iran has none.

What has seldom been reported is that Ahmadinejad said the Zionist state should be moved to Europe or North America. Before World War I, among the sites under consideration for a Jewish homeland were Argentina and British East Africa -- so this is not such an outrageous idea. Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post (July 18 and 25), referring to the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war, says he supports the Israeli's "disproportionate military response" in Lebanon, saying, "You slap me, I will punch out your lights." Nevertheless, Cohen says, "Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, [Israel's] most formidable" enemies. Cohen says, "Israel is, as I have often said, unfortunately located…[in] a pretty bad neighborhood."

Nevertheless, the NOR has no objection to the Zionist state being where it is right now, if that's where the Zionist state wants to be.

However, David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding father and the first Prime Minister of Israel, said, "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel…. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that [the Arabs'] fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country" (Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox). You can understand why Ahmadinejad said the Zionist state should be moved to Europe or North America. Certainly, the Israelis would live in peace there. Moreover, the ultra-orthodox Jews oppose the state of Israel, saying the restoration of Israel can only be accomplished by the expected Messiah. And the overwhelming majority of Israelis are secular Jews, so they don't believe the state of Israel is "God's Promised Land."

Nevertheless, Israel is an established fact in the Mid-East, and some Arab countries have made peace with Israel. If the U.S. had an evenhanded policy in the Mid-East, we think that the Israelis and Muslims could live in peace.

Because of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (on Iran's eastern border) and Iraq (on Iran's western border), and because of the U.S.'s relentless hostility to Iran, the Iranians are said to want nuclear weapons. Why? Because no nation with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked by another nation. It's called deterrence.

If the U.S. could live with 30,000 Soviet nuclear weapons and missiles, the U.S. and Israel can easily live with a smattering of Iranian nuclear weapons. The NOR believes all nuclear weapons should be done away with. The Nonproliferation Treaty was signed in 1970 and committed member states to impending nuclear disarmament. It was led by the U.S. However, Israel did not sign the Nonproliferation Treaty.

There are worries that if the Iranians intend to get nuclear weapons, they could pass some of their nuclear weapons to terrorists. If Iran were to do that -- and it's extremely unlikely -- the U.S. would no doubt bomb the Iranians back into the Stone Age. And the Iranians know it. Much more likely is that terrorists would get nuclear weapons from the still-unsecured ex-Soviet nuclear sites.

As for the U.S. "war on terror," the U.S. is bogged down in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is making a comeback and Osama has not been caught, and in Iraq, where the principal winners are the Shia fundamentalists, who are close allies of Iran. (Moreover, the U.S. knocked off Saddam, Iran's arch-enemy.)

The U.S. is creating more terrorists than it is eliminating. But don't take it from us: A leaked classified National Intelligence Estimate ("Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States") reported that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has triggered a new generation of Islamic radicalism without any direct connection to al-Qaeda, that overall terrorism has increased since the 9/11 attacks, and that Muslim terrorism has spread across the world. All this because of our invasion of Iraq. The National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents in the intelligence community, and they are approved by John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence (The New York Times, Sept. 24).

This "war on terror" makes no sense. As H.L. Mencken said, "The American public…detest more violently…those who try to tell them the truth."

Senator Ernest Hollings wrote an op-ed in the Charleston Post and Courier (May 7, 2004): "With Iraq no threat [to the U.S.], why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel." Sen. Hollings said this right after announcing his retirement from the Senate. Nothing to lose. Of course, he was branded an anti-Semite by the neocon Weekly Standard and the Anti-Defamation League. This was intended to choke off debate. And it usually works. We have received many letters criticizing Israel, but most of their authors insist on withholding their names, because they fear being slurred as anti-Semitic (some letters are anti-Semitic, but most are not).

To automatically brand anyone who criticizes Israel as anti-Semitic is the last refuge of a scoundrel. It's just diversionary name-calling. Or, as the Catechism says, it would be "rash judgment" and "calumny" (#2477).

When Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently expressed some support for Hezbollah, Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, blasted him as anti-Semitic. How would he know? We do believe Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic -- in vino veritas (one speaks freely under the influence of alcohol) -- and that takes nothing away from his magnificent Passion of the Christ. But how would Dean know whether al-Maliki is anti-Semitic?

To criticize Israel is seldom anti-Semitic. As Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, said in a lecture on February 28, 2002, "We are wrong to see all criticism of the State of Israel as anti-Zionism, let alone anti-Semitism. No nation is perfect. No nation is above criticism."

Nevertheless, to this day one dare not criticize Israel or the Jews, but you can dump on the Arabs and Muslims all you want. There is such a thing as anti-Semitism, but can there be no such thing as anti-Islamicism? (Hey, we think we just made up a new word!) Insult Israel or the Jews and you're cast into the outer darkness, but insult the Arabs and Muslims and you'll be praised and lionized.

In a story in the Washington Post (Aug. 16, 2002), titled "Israel Urges U.S. to Attack," it was reported that "Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein." Michael Kinsley, an American Jewish columnist, said at Slate magazine (www.slate.com) on October 24, 2002, that Israel's primary role in the upcoming war on Iraq is "the proverbial elephant in the room. Everybody sees it, no one mentions it." Kinsley noted that it was the fear of being tarred as an "anti-Semite." Kinsley is an honest man, but maybe only Jews can point to Israel as the major factor in the Iraq war, but even they do so at their own risk (being called Jew-hating Jews).

In the Washington Post (Nov. 27, 2002), it was reported that American political consultants who had advised Israeli politicians had drafted a memo to Israeli and Jewish leaders on the best way to frame the war on Iraq: "If your goal is regime change…. you do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel [but] rather…to protect America."

And remember that both the Republican and Democratic parties -- in their majorities -- supported the invasion of Iraq. Only when the invasion and occupation of Iraq wasn't going so well did the Dems (in part) object to it, but not to the so-called war on terror.

When Israel bombarded Lebanon in the summer of 2006, virtually all of the Democrats and Republicans supported Israel. Never mind that Israel's was an incredibly disproportionate response: One of the criteria for a just war is that "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" (Catechism, #2309).

Oddly, Saddam Hussein protected Christians in Iraq (mostly Catholics), and they thrived. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, half of all Iraqi Christians have fled Iraq. Apparently, the U.S. doesn't care about Iraqi Christians, and their exodus is certainly downplayed by the media.

Israel would be happy to have the U.S. fight its wars -- and who wouldn't? The U.S. is Israel's sugar daddy. The pro-Israeli neocons have a dominating influence on Bush's foreign-policy establishment; however, these neocons do not reflect the Jewish community in America. Poll after poll shows that America's Jews are more opposed to the war on Iraq than the overall American population. The perennial Jewish question is: "Is it good for the Jews?" The invasion of Iraq is not good for the Jews. It has inflamed the Muslims and Arabs. After there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq, Bush tried to justify his war on the grounds that it would bring democracy to the Mid-East. But that too is backfiring. Through democratic elections, Hamas has come to power in Gaza and the West Bank, Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran, Iraq is now dominated by pro-Iranian Shia fundamentalists, Hezbollah has a dozen seats in the Lebanese Parliament, and in Egypt the radical Muslim Brotherhood has been strengthened. All this because of democratic elections.

There are more terrorists than ever before. Iran is the winner in the Iraq war. Israel is too small a country to subjugate the Muslims and Arabs -- it will never work. So don't blame the Jews; blame it on the lunatic neocon domination of U.S. foreign policy. Why do we call them lunatics? Because U.S. policy in the Mid-East is not working, and the U.S. is losing in Iraq. But don't take our word for it: "Israel's top military historian, Martin van Creveld of Tel Aviv University, whose book The Transformation of War is required reading for all U.S. military officers, has called the U.S. invasion of Iraq the biggest military blunder since Augustus Caesar invaded Germany 2,000 years ago. Writing for the Jewish weekly, The Forward, November 25 [2005], van Creveld declared that…the United States has lost" (The Wanderer, Dec. 8, 2005). More cautious is neocon Max Boot, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. An ardent supporter of the war in Iraq, Boot now says the U.S. is "losing" (San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 27, 2006). And Newt Gingrich, a Republican who supports the war in Iraq, said, "this campaign to create a free and stable Iraq is clearly failing" (National Review, Sept. 11, 2006).

The U.S. can live with North Korean nuclear weapons; the U.S. can live with Chinese nuclear weapons; but Israel cannot live with one Iranian nuclear weapon (which would take three to ten years to develop). Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear warheads, with more in the works. Regarding Iran, Bush said in March 2006 that "we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel." Both the Republican and Democratic parties -- in their majorities -- will use military might to protect Israel. Again, it's all about Israel.

And the so-called war on terror goes right back to Israel. The Muslim terrorists say so themselves. On CBS's Face the Nation (Sept. 3), Howard Dean said the Dems are as committed to the war on terror as the Republicans, but the Dems will fight it more effectively. It doesn't matter who will fight it more effectively. There will be no relief from terrorism in the world until the U.S. has an evenhanded policy in the Mid-East. Why can't the U.S. figure that out? If the U.S. doesn't figure that out, the so-called war on terror will go on and on and on, ad infinitum.

The Christian Zionists do want war in the Mid-East, nuclear war, especially nuclear war with Iran. There are about 25 to 30 million Christian Zionists in America. They are represented by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and many others who support Israel to the hilt. These Christian Zionists are right about abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc. but they are wrong about the Mid-East. The Christian Zionist eschatology is basically dispensational premillenialism, therefore the more turmoil and terrorism there is in the Mid-East, the sooner the battle of Armageddon, the rapture, and the Second Coming of Christ will occur. This is heresy for Catholics. Moreover, many Christian Zionists support Israel's interests over American interests.

If there is a war with Iran, the same Just War principles that applied to the war on Iraq will apply to Iran. Preventive wars, which the war on Iraq was and any war on Iran would be (barring the extremely unlikely event of Iran attacking the U.S. first), are automatically immoral and unjust and wars of aggression, according to Catholic Just War doctrine.

If there is war with Iran, you can expect neocon Catholics to champion the American Empire (for the benefit of Israel) and spurn Catholic Just War doctrine. On his website, the former Editor of The Catholic World Report, the neocon Domenico Bettinelli Jr., has an advertisement for T-shirts that say "NUKE IRAN." On Ave Maria Radio, filling in for Catholic Al Kresta was Catholic Michael Coren, who said the U.S. should strike Iran with nuclear weapons (Sept. 6, 2006). And they call themselves Catholics? If the U.S. used tactical nuclear weapons on Iran's nuclear facilities, the Defense Department estimates that it would kill (actually, murder) up to a million or more people -- that is, indiscriminately. That makes 9/11 look like child's play. As the Catechism says: "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation" (#2314).

An Editorial in The Forward (April 14), an American Jewish weekly, said that an attack on Iran "fought for Israel's benefit is a delusion," because it would have "disastrous consequences," and quoting Jack Straw (the Foreign Minister of Britain, our most reliable ally) said it would be "completely nuts." Iran could hardly fight back against a U.S. attack, but it would unleash massive terrorism, primarily on Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah, and secondarily on U.S. soldiers in Iraq via the Iraqi Shia militias. Perhaps most ominous of all, on Iran's eastern border and Afghanistan's southern border is Pakistan, whose wobbly dictator is a U.S. ally. He would surely be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists with close ties to Osama. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.

No, an attack on Iran would not be good for the Jews. Nor would it be good for Catholics. We commend the National Catholic Register (May 21-27) for printing a letter from Michelle Coldiron: "I believe that Islamic fundamentalism is a ruse, thrown at us by the devil in order to confound us and allow a victory on his part. The real enemy in this world war is secularism. And what is secularism? It is ourselves." We couldn't have said it better.

On 9/11 there were 3,000 murders. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion has murdered 50,000,000 babies -- that's five times the number of people murdered in Hitler's death camps. It's so much easier to fight wars -- rally 'round the flag, shock and awe, we'll punch your lights out -- than to confront abortion. You can see why Satan wants to take our eyes off the Abortion Holocaust.

The war on terror is a delusion.

DOSSIER: Iraq & the Just War

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Patriotism and Criticism-not enemies






Patriotism and Criticism: Allies, not Enemies by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

In recent months, a number of people — a few traditionalists included, sad to say — have accused right-wing critics of American foreign policy of "anti-Americanism" or of "blaming America" for the attacks of September 11. I cannot really believe that an intelligent person could make such an inane remark in all sincerity, so I have to think that this is simply a clever rhetorical trick intended to win some cheap debating points.

I count myself among these conservative critics of American foreign policy. That does not mean that I believe "America" is evil; most Americans know next to nothing about the history of their leaders' foreign policies. It means that the regime under which they live has followed foolishly risky policies that have put the American people into a great deal of unnecessary danger. Why is this simple point so difficult for some people to grasp? How could anyone in his right mind describe it as "unpatriotic"?

Once again, explaining an event is something altogether distinct from excusing an event. Historians explain events all the time without thereby justifying them. Does pointing out that Franklin Roosevelt had put Japan into an economic vise by 1941 excuse the attack on Pearl Harbor, and make the killing of American servicemen and civilians somehow just?

The point that our critics are trying to evade is that our own government's policies have indeed squandered a great deal of previously existing international good will toward America and have thereby contributed to the terrorist problem. Think all the way back to the early twentieth century. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, the various states of the Middle East were temporarily transferred to Britain (Iraq and Palestine) and France (Syria and Lebanon) under the auspices of the League of Nations. They were to be governed as League of Nations mandates until they were deemed to be ready for full independence. What is frequently overlooked is that these Arab nations had overwhelmingly favored being governed as League of Nations mandates by the United States! Anyone arguing that Arab hatred of the United States is simply inevitable has to explain how such overwhelming good will could at one time have existed in the Arab world toward the U.S., and what happened to that good will.
There can be no denying that the U.S. forfeited a great deal of its international prestige by its role in the creation of the state of Israel, which I described in detail last year in a series of four articles in The Remnant. In 1945, Loy Henderson, director of the State Department's Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs, advised the new Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes (a man with relatively little experience in foreign affairs) that the situation in Palestine was a very sensitive one, and that "in our considered opinion the active support by the Government of the United States of a policy favoring the setting up of a Jewish State in Palestine would be contrary to the policy which the United States has always followed of respecting the wishes of a large majority of the local inhabitants with respect to their form of government. Furthermore, it would have a strongly adverse effect upon American interests throughout the Near and Middle East... At the present time the United States has a moral prestige in the Near and Middle East unequaled by that of any other great power. We would lose that prestige and would be likely for many years to be considered as a betrayer of the high principles which we ourselves have enunciated during the period of the war." [emphasis added]

Mark Ethridge, an American who served on the UN's Conciliation Commission for Palestine, cabled President Harry Truman in early 1949 to warn that the United States' international image would suffer a terrible blow as a result of its inevitable association with Israeli brutalities. "Since we gave Israel birth," he wrote, "we are blamed for her belligerence and her arrogance and for [the] cold-bloodedness of her attitude toward refugees." Truman replied that he, too, was "disgusted" by the way the Jews were handling the Arab refugee problem.

Evan Wilson, who worked in the State Department at the time, later observed in his 1979 book Decision on Palestine: "It is no exaggeration to say that our relations with the entire Arab world have never recovered from the events of 1947-48, when we sided with the Jews against the Arabs and advocated a solution in Palestine which went contrary to self-determination as far as the majority population of the country was concerned."

The Christian Science Monitor, whose Middle East coverage is among the best, spoke to a large group of ordinary Saudi Arabian citizens last year about terrorism and anti-Americanism. According to the Monitor, the people they interviewed "say that anti-U.S. attacks since the mid-1990s — from bombings in this desert kingdom in the mid-1990s to the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen — were a deliberate chain of events leading up to Sept. 11. They had one message for America: these sources say: Stop your blind support of Israel, and withdraw your forces from Saudi Arabia." As a Saudi veteran of the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s put it, "These attacks are going to continue against the U.S. again and again, until America wakes up to the problem of siding with Israel."

As Scott McConnell points out in The American Conservative, "[S]upport for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians, whose lands the Israeli Right covets, does nothing but generate hatred for the United States. In the aftermath of 9/11, some neoconservatives (and others who are simply gullible) have touted the line that the United States is hated 'because of its freedom.' This slogan fit for small children contradicts what virtually any American with business, diplomatic, or military experience in the Middle East will say."

Again, I am going to assume that my readers do not need me to explain that U.S. policy can never justify terrorist activity against innocent people. But the 1993 World Trade Center bomber claimed that his attack was intended as retribution for the U.S.-led sanctions on Iraq. (Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would later say that the resulting deaths of half a million Iraqi children were "worth it.") It defies the purpose of terrorism for the perpetrators to lie about their motivations. That bombing does not in itself mean that the United States should have abandoned the sanctions, of course, but it does remind us that policies like that are going to have consequences. A genuinely conservative statesman, unlike the juvenile jingoists of neoconservatism, takes such factors into account.

My point is simply that, when possible, it is probably wise to avoid giving gratuitous offense to crazy people.

What, then, about our great ally in the Middle East? What shall become of her without American support? I shall leave aside the question of what kind of "ally" bombs a major American ship (the USS Liberty), spies on us, gives our military secrets to Communist China, and steadfastly ignores American demands that they cease illegal settlement activity in the West Bank.
The United States played a key role in the creation of Israel in 1947-48, and since the 1960s has supplied that country with military and economic aid. To the Israel Firsters out there, I ask: is this how the creation of Israel was supposed to work? Jews would create a state through intimidation and force at the expense of the original inhabitants, who were never allowed to return. Then the United States would be expected to aid Israel against the inevitable blowback from such aggression, inevitably acquiring all of Israel's enemies in the process. Is this supposed to go on forever? When did we agree to this? Israel possesses overwhelming military capability as well as a nuclear arsenal. What on earth else does she still need, 55 years after her creation? Shouldn't someone have thought of this problem 55 years ago?

It is usually at about this point that I am reminded of what Hilaire Belloc said about Islam and its resurgence. I am further told that "these people" will "hate us anyway." That statement is doubtless true in some cases. But it simply defies recent history to claim that no connection exists between U.S. Middle East policy and Arab anger. They are over here because we are over there, as Pat Buchanan (no softie, he) has put it.

People who take the position that nothing America does has any effect on encouraging terrorism — most of them neoconservatives, though they have managed to persuade even a few traditionalists — expect us to believe that terrorism is in no way connected to Israeli policies since their displacement of Arabs in 1948-49 and their defiance of the world over the occupied territories since 1967. American aid to Israel (used to terrorize and humiliate residents of the occupied territories), the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia, the sanctions against Iraq, Bill Clinton's bombing of the "chemical weapons factory" in Sudan that turned out to be an ordinary pharmaceutical plant — none of this has any real consequences that we need worry about, the neocons tell us.

This line of argument neglects an exceedingly obvious point: if it were true that terrorist activity had no connection to current events and was simply a manifestation of Islamic hatred for Christendom, then why does al Qaeda make recruitment tapes? Why does it attempt to recruit men by showing them Israeli atrocities funded by American aid? Obviously, therefore, there is a connection, and the more reckless and provocative our position in the Middle East, the more such recruits Osama bin Laden can expect to attract. If there is anyone within Catholic traditionalism who welcomes such a confrontation and the potentially catastrophic outcome it could well have — in short, if any traditionalists out there are yearning for Armageddon — all I can say is that there are plenty of evangelical rapturists ready to welcome you with open arms.
The President apparently believes that once Saddam Hussein is gone, the U.S. will be able to put pressure on the Israelis to come to a final peace settlement with their neighbors and with the Palestinians. He believes that Israel will at that point feel secure enough to restart negotiation. Let us hope he is right. The historical record, however, is not promising. Following the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the American administration believed that giving Israel an overwhelming military advantage would make the Israelis feel secure enough to reach a final settlement. But as even Henry Kissinger observed, the more secure Israel felt, the less her leaders felt any compulsion to reach such a settlement. Such an outcome could easily be repeated today.
Furthermore, the Israeli government knows very well that the United States, despite holding all the cards in this relationship, will make no serious effort to pressure them to do anything. The first George Bush attempted to make $10 billion in loan guarantees conditional upon the cessation of Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories. Within weeks, he had capitulated. This is how it has worked since 1949, when the U.S. government complained about Israeli treatment of Arab refugees. In that year, the U.S. consul in Jerusalem observed: "Israel is convinced of its ability to 'induce' the United States abandon its present insistence on repatriation of refugees and territorial changes... [O]fficials state confidently, 'you will change your mind.'" Things sure don't change, do they?

Terrorism and Iraq


I cannot close without making reference to a disturbing development on the traditionalist right. One prominent traditionalist, who should be ashamed of himself, has posted two photographs on his website: one of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, and one of Baghdad burning, taken in March of this year. His caption indicates that the latter photograph depicts America's just retribution for the World Trade Center attack.

In the months leading up to the present war, one American intelligence official after another described the Iraq-al Qaeda connection as non-existent, and said the same about any alleged Iraqi role in the events of September 11. Some even suggested that the administration was pressuring them to "cook the books" (to quote one anonymous intelligence agent) to come up with a connection that simply wasn't there.

Yet this point seems to matter not at all to this person and his followers. The argument appears to be: Islam attacked us, so we have a right to retaliate against any Muslims anywhere, regardless of their involvement or lack thereof. Where does our religion permit us to act like this? I confess myself unable to find anything in Catholicism that allows Catholics to behave like Islamic extremists. And even if such a policy were not obscenely immoral, it would inevitably be self-defeating, since a long string of military adventures, of the kind the neocons desperately want, will almost certainly lead to unimaginable catastrophe in the Middle East, and a growth in terrorist activity beyond our present ability to imagine.

This is not conservatism — neither the above traditionalist's policy of indiscriminate retaliation nor the policy of endless warfare advocated by Norman Podhoretz and the neoconservatives (and demolished by Pat Buchanan's outstanding article in The American Conservative, "Whose War?"). This is inexcusably juvenile thinking and behavior, with no consideration of consequences or even simple morality, and which has no relation whatever to conservative thought and practice as it has developed since Edmund Burke.

It is not in spite of my conservatism but because of it that I speak out against the current regime's Middle East policy. And it is not because I hate America but because I love it that I speak out when I believe the recklessness and hubris of her rulers are placing her people in danger.
***



Thomas E. Woods, Jr., holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is associate editor of The Latin Mass magazine and co-author of The Great Façade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church. His next book, Ever Ancient, Ever New: Catholic Intellectuals and the Progressive Era, will be published later this year by Columbia University Press

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Israel, Good PR and Lies about Occupation

I cannot support Islam, but do support self determination of life:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&q=peace+propaganda&hl=en

1949-2000 US aid to Israel that is known= 100 billion $$$

No longer any difference between Israeli policy and USA. Who controls then USA??? Rabid Zionists and Protestant fundamentalists.

++++UPDATE 8/22/06++++++

(from SciptureCatholic.com)


Zionism is a movement that seeks a spiritual and national restoration of Israel, the land of the Jewish people. Specifically, Zionists believe that the Jews have a divine right to the real estate it formerly possessed during the reign of King Solomon, based on the promises that God made to Abraham in the book of Genesis:

“On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphra'tes, the land of the Ken'ites, the Ken'izzites, the Kad'monites, the Hittites, the Per'izzites, the Reph'aim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Gir'gashites and the Jeb'usites.” (Gen. 15:18-21).

Zionism is part of a greater eschatological worldview that sees the restoration of Israel as a sign of the end-times (this is often called “Dispensational pre-millennialism”). Christian Zionists believe that, once Israel’s land is restored and its ancient borders are secured, Christ will come again to rule with the Jews in Israel for a millennium. They base their beliefs on the “1,000 years” of Apoc. 20:2-6 (even though this apocalyptic language is only symbolic). During His reign, Christ will appoint 144,000 Jewish leaders to rule with Him over the Gentiles until the end of the world (Apoc. 7:4; 14:1,3).

However, prior to Christ’s earthly reign from Jerusalem, Zionists believe that Gentile Christians who are still living at this time will be secretly taken up into heaven. This will pave the way for the Jews to rule with Jesus for the millennial period. They call this secret taking of Christians up to heaven “The Rapture,” and base this belief on Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians:

“For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:15-17).

The “rapture” (a word that is not used in Scripture) will supposedly occur in connection with a period of tribulation for the Church (based in part on Dan. 9:27). Some Zionists believe the rapture will occur before the tribulation, and are thus called “pre-tribulation” rapturists. Some believe the rapture will occur during the tribulation (“mid-tribulation” rapturists), and some believe the rapture will take place at the end of the tribulation (“post-tribulation” rapturists).This schema of events can be summarized as follows:

Tribulation (7 years) Christ’s 1,000 year reign The end_____________________________________________________

Pre mid post

(Rapture)

After the period of tribulation and rapture, Christ and the Jews will rule the Gentiles through an earthly kingdom for 1,000 years. During Christ’s millennial reign, most Zionists believe that there will be a mass conversion of the Jews to Christianity. They base this on Paul’s letter to the Romans, where Paul says “and so all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26; we exegete this passage below). At the end of the millennial period, Christ will bring an end to the world and judge the living and the dead.

Proponents of Zionism view the war in Iraq as fulfilling biblical prophecy. Israel will have an easier time removing Christians and Muslims from Palestine (the land Israel believes is theirs by divine right) if Islamic military forces are weakened or eliminated. The United States military (which happens to be led and advised by many Fundamentalist / Evangelical Christians) is helping to make that happen. A weaker Muslim world means a stronger Israel, and that will help the Israelis secure the land it believes God has promised them (even if they secure it through violence and human slaughter). This, Christian Zionists believe, will usher in the return of Jesus Christ.

Zionism is based on a distorted and erroneous reading of Scripture, and began with the English preacher John Nelson Darby. Zionism was perpetuated in America by Cyrus Scofield during the early 20th century, who published the popular Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. Zionist eschatology is held by most Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and Evangelical Protestant sects, and is one of the biggest falsehoods ever fabricated about the end times. We will briefly address some of the most obvious problems with Zionism from a biblical perspective below.

1. God does not owe the Jews any land or protection.

Zionism is based on the faulty assumption that God still owes the Jews the land He promised to give to Abraham’s descendants. Scripture, however, teaches that God has already fulfilled His promises to the Jews. For example, regarding the land in question, God says through Joshua:

“Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they settled there” (Jos. 21:43).

God also declares through Solomon that all his promises to Israel have been fulfilled:

"Blessed be the LORD who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised; not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he uttered by Moses his servant” (1 Kings 8:56).

God further says through the prophet Nehemiah that His promise to grant the land to Abraham’s descendants has been fulfilled:

“Thou art the LORD, the God who didst choose Abram and bring him forth out of Ur of the Chalde'ans and give him the name Abraham; and thou didst find his heart faithful before thee, and didst make with him the covenant to give to his descendants the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Per'izzite, the Jeb'usite, and the Gir'gashite; and thou hast fulfilled thy promise, for thou art righteous” (Neh. 9:7-8).

Thus, those who believe that God still owes the Jews land and protection by divine decree deny the plain meaning of Scripture and make God a liar.

In fact, the loss of Israel’s ancient holdings is a sign of God’s divine judgment against the Jews for rejecting His Son, Jesus Christ, their Messiah. God warned Israel in the Old Testament Scriptures:

“But if you turn aside from following me, you or your children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them; and the house which I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight; and Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples. And this house will become a heap of ruins; everyone passing by it will be astonished, and will hiss; and they will say, `Why has the LORD done thus to this land and to this house?' Then they will say, `Because they forsook the LORD their God who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshiped them and served them; therefore the LORD has brought all this evil upon them.’” (1 Kings 9:6-9).

Scripture is clear that God owes the Jews nothing more, and suggests that the Jews are suffering the ramifications of rejecting Jesus Christ. They have been “broken off” of the root of Christ “because of their unbelief” (Rom. 11:19-20).

However, Paul says that the Jews can be grafted in again, “if they do not persist in their unbelief,” for God has the power to do so (Rom. 11:23).

We should also note that the Old Covenant that God entered into with the Jews has been superseded by the New Covenant of Christ (the Church calls this doctrine “supercessionism”). This happened the moment that God tore the curtain of the Jewish Temple in two (Matt. 27:51). When we speak of the “Old Covenant,” we are referring to the “Mosaic covenant,” that is, the law that God gave the Jews through Moses (see 2 Cor. 3:14). We are not referring to the Abrahamic covenant which, because it was based on grace through faith, was incorporated into the New Covenant of Christ. This is why Paul says that Abraham is the father of the children of the New Covenant (see Rom. 4:16; 9:7; Gal. 3:29; James 2:21; see also Gal. 3:9,14,16,18).

The only place where the phrase “Old Covenant” is used in the New Testament is in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, and Paul says that “through Christ it is taken away” (see 2 Cor. 3:14). Referring to the abrogation of the Old Covenant, Paul tells the Hebrews that “a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness” (Heb. 7:18). The phrase “set aside” (from the Greek aphetesis) means to annul. Again, referring to the Old Covenant, Paul says “He abolishes the first in order to establish the second” (Heb. 10:9). The word “abolish” (from the Greek anaireo) means to abrogate or destroy. Paul uses very specific language to teach that the Old Covenant has been rendered null and void by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (see also Heb. 8:7).

This means that the Jews are no longer in a saving covenant with God until they renounce Judaism and are baptized into Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church has affirmed this fact throughout her history (e.g., the Council of Florence; the Council of Trent; Second Vatican Council, Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis). Thus, even though the Second Vatican Council affirmed a person’s civil (but not moral) right to religious liberty, it taught that the Church must preach the gospel to the Jews, as she does to everyone else (Nostra Aetate, 23).

2. The Rapture is not a secret event.

Zionists believe that Christians who are living right before Christ comes to rule for the 1,000 year period will be secretly taken up into heaven (although they differ on whether this will happen before, during or after the tribulation period that precedes the millennium). Because Zionists believe the rapture will be secret, it will be accompanied by confusion since unbelievers won’t understand what is going on.

However, the very Scripture passages that Protestants use to advance the “rapture” theory say something quite different about the phenomenon. It says that the rapture will be no secret event, but will be accompanied by the Lords own “cry of command” from heaven, with the “archangel’s call,” and with “the sound of the trumpet of God” (1 Thess. 4:16).

These cries, calls and trumpet blasts will be no secret to anyone, living or dead. In fact, these events will literally “wake the dead,” for they will inaugurate the consummation of the world and the resurrection of all people at the end of time. For Protestants to argue that the rapture will be a secret event is plainly refuted by Scripture.

3. The Rapture occurs after the Resurrection on the last day.

Recall that Zionists believe that the rapture will occur before the millennial reign of Christ (either before, during or after the seven-year tribulation). After the rapture, Christ will rule from Jerusalem for 1,000 years. Thus, Zionists separate the rapture from the end of the world by 1,000 to 1,007 years. The end of the world will immediately follow the millennial period, at which time Jesus will raise the living and the dead.

The Scriptures, however, say that the rapture occurs coincident with the end of the world, not a millennium before the end of the world. Again, turning to the “rapture” passage in 1 Thessalonians, Paul says: “For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep” (v.15). In other words, those Christians living at the time of the “rapture” are not taken first.

Instead, “the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (vv.16-17). These passages clearly teach that the resurrection of the dead precedes the rapture. Therefore, to know when the rapture occurs, we must first know when the resurrection of the dead occurs.

Scripture teaches that the resurrection of the dead occurs on the “last day” of the world (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). Because the resurrection of the dead occurs on the “last day” of the world, and the rapture follows the resurrection, this means that the rapture also occurs on the “last day” (there can be no day after the “last day”). Since the rapture occurs on the “last day,” it cannot occur on any other day (that is, there is no “pre-millennial” rapture).

4. The Rapture is the raising of the righteous and the unrighteous at the same time.

As we have seen, the Zionist / Rapture eschatology holds that believing Gentile Christians will be taken up into heaven before the millennial reign of Christ to clear the way for the Jews. Christ will then choose 144,000 Jewish evangelists to rule with Him from an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem for 1,000 years. This reign will bring about a mass conversion of the Jews by the end of the millennium period.

But we have already seen that the “rapture” occurs on the “last day” (John 6), and immediately follows the resurrection of the dead (1 Thess. 4:16-17). This necessarily means that the righteous and the unrighteous will be raised at the same time, because there is no day that can follow the “last day” where the unrighteous could be raised.

Scripture, of course, confirms this conclusion. In John 5:28-29, the Lord Jesus says:“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”

Jesus says that the resurrection will occur at “the hour” (v.28). This is the same as saying the resurrection will occur on the “last day” because an hour is part of one day, and that is the “last day” per John 6, 11 and 12. Jesus also says that “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice” (v.28). This follows Paul’s teaching on the resurrection/rapture event when he says that the Lord will descend from heaven with “a cry of command,” and the “dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16).

Finally, Jesus is clear that at this “hour” both those who have done good and those who have done evil will rise at the same time. The good will be raised to life, and the evil will be raised to judgment. There is simply no exegetical basis for inserting a millennial period between the resurrection of the just and the resurrection of the unjust. Jesus says that the resurrection happens at “the hour,” when “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth.” Thus, Scripture teaches that the rapture of the living occurs coincident with the resurrection of all of the dead, both the good and the evil, at the same time, on the last day of the world.

5. The Zionist / Rapturist eschatology requires “three comings of Christ.”

The Protestant scheme of a rapture preceding the millennium and final coming requires “three” comings of Christ. First, Christ came at the Incarnation. Second, Christ would come at the “rapture.” Third, Christ will come at the end of the world.

This scheme is absolutely false and contradicts the perennial teachings of the Church. It is also refuted by Sacred Scripture. For example, Paul says in his letter to the Hebrews:

“And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (Heb. 9:27-28).

Paul says that Christ will “appear a second time.” This second appearance of Christ is nothing short of His second and final appearance at the end of the world, when He will judge the living and the dead. Paul draws a parallel between our death and Christ’s death, and our judgment and Christ’s second appearance. Following the literary parallel, Christ’s second appearance is the very moment of our “judgment,” for Christ is the “lawgiver and judge” (James 4:2; 5:9).

Because this Second Coming of Christ refers to the end of the world, Christ will no longer “deal with sin” because He will have already rendered His judgments upon the wicked. In other words, at Christ’s second and final coming, the fate of all humanity will be sealed. For those who have done evil, it will be too late to repent.

The Scriptures are clear: When Christ comes again, it will be His second and final coming at the end of the world. On this “last day” and at this “hour,” Christ will judge the living and the dead. The righteous will be raised to eternal life, and the unrighteous will be raised to judgment and eternal punishment.

6. Scripture does not teach a “future mass conversion of the Jews.”

Because Christian Zionists believe that Christ will set up an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem and reign with the Jews for 1,000 years, they believe that this will bring about a mass conversion of the Jewish people to Christ before the end of the world. They base this belief primarily on Paul’s letter to the Romans, where Paul says “all Israel will be saved.”

Here are the relevant passages in full:

“I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob" "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins” (Rom. 11:25-27).

There are obvious problems with the Zionistic interpretation of Paul’s statements.First, Paul is not speaking about a future millennial reign of Christ from Jerusalem that precedes the end of the world. No such thing is mentioned either in Romans 11 or any where else in Scripture. Paul is also not speaking about a future conversion of the Jews. Instead, he is speaking about the present conversion of the Jews. How do we know this?

Because Paul is focused solely on the Jews’ present (not future) condition in Romans 11, specifically, their current hardness of heart. Paul tells them that they were the natural branches that were broken off because of their unbelief, but they can be grafted back in again if they do not persist in their unbelief (v.17-23). In other words, Paul is saying that if the Jews change their present condition (hardness of heart and unbelief), then this will result in their present conversion (not a future, en masse conversion of yet-to-be-born descendants).

The Jews needed to hear Paul’s message because they began to think that God had forsaken them (after all, God tore their Temple curtain in two, and Paul was now telling them that their Jewish works of law could only condemn them, not save them). Paul explains that, even though God has abrogated the Old Covenant, He has not rejected the Jewish people. Paul says in verses 1-2, “Has God rejected His people? By no means!...God has not rejected His people whom he foreknew.”

Thus, Paul’s whole point in Romans 11 is to teach the Jews that they have salvation, here and now, not in the Old Covenant of works, but in the New Covenant of grace (v.6). Paul even says that the purpose of his mission to the Romans was to “make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them” (v.14). Paul is talking about saving the Jews of his day, and never refers to some fuzzy event in the distant future when God will suddenly effect a miraculous, universal conversion of their offspring. What good would that do for the Jews who lived during the Church age? God doesn’t work that way. God wants to save the Jews now.

Zionists read Romans 11:25-27 with futuristic glasses to make the passages conform to their pre-millennial eschatology, but nothing in the text warrants such a reading. Many read into the text a sequential ordering of conversions based on Paul’s presentation of: (1) a hardening has come upon Israel; (2) “until” the full number of the Gentiles comes in; (3) and “so” all Israel will be saved. Based on the words “until” (regarding the Gentiles’ conversion), and “so,” often translated as “then” (regarding the Jews’ conversion), Zionists see the Jews’ conversion coming after all the Gentiles are saved, which will be at the end of time.

But Paul is not speaking about the timing of the conversions; he is speaking about the manner of the conversions. When Paul says “and so all Israel will be saved,” the Greek word for “so” (houtos) is an adverb which means “in the same manner,” and modifies the verb “will be saved.” Thus, houtos describes how Israel will be saved, not when Israel will be saved. In certain Protestant translations, “so” is erroneously translated as “then,” which contributes to the confusion and Zionist bias of a future conversion.

Paul explains the manner in which God will save the Jews: “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace” (Rom. 11:5). That is, Paul says that a “remnant” of Jews will be saved by “grace.” Paul calls this a “mystery” (v.25) because, even though the Jews appear entirely cut off from God, God is still saving a remnant of them by grace. Why does Paul emphasize the manner in which God is saving the Jews (via remnant and grace)? Paul does this for a couple of important reasons.

First, the Jews had wrongly believed that they were saved by the Mosaic “works of law.” In Romans 11:6 and elsewhere, Paul teaches them that they are saved by grace and not works of law. In using the word houtos, Paul connects the manner in which the Jews are saved in verse 26 to the manner in which the Gentiles are saved in verse 25. Paul does this to show that, as the Gentiles are saved through the grace of the New Covenant, “so” (in the same manner) the Jews are saved as well. This would have been especially striking to devout Jews, since the Gentiles were being saved but were never under the Mosaic law. Paul is teaching that both Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same manner (by grace, not works of law), as they are now one in the New Covenant (see Gal. 3:28-29).

Second, Paul is emphasizing that the Jews had a bad track record with God, which is why God is saving only a “remnant” of them. This is why Paul mentions that in Elijah’s time only 7,000 of out of ten million Jews didn’t bend the knee to Baal (v.4). In emphasizing the “remnant,” Paul is urging the Jews to repentance. He wants to change the course of events. Paul says that “if they do not persist in their unbelief, they will be grafted back in” (v.23). Since Paul says “if” they don’t persist in unbelieving, the Jews’ conversion is not a given; for Paul, it is still an open question. Because God is saving a “remnant” of the Jews, Paul says he is trying to “save some of them” (v. 14). Paul’s teaching is consistent with Isaiah’s prophecy: “For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return” (Isaiah 10:22; see Rom. 9:27).

Why will only a remnant return? Because Israel will persevere in their rejection of the Messiah throughout history. When Paul says “until” the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, the Greek for “until” (achri hou) in Romans 11:26 generally continues the action of the main verb (here, the hardening of Israel; see, for example, 1 Cor. 15:25; Apoc. 2:25). That being the case, the Jews will be hardened until the full number of the Gentiles comes in, which is at the end of time. This would mean that the Jews will be hardened until the end of time. In fact, when Christ comes at the end of the world, John says that the “tribes of the earth will wail on account of him whom they pierced” (Apoc. 1:7). This is the wailing of fear and judgment, not mass conversion. As Isaiah says, “only a remnant of them will return” (Isaiah 10:22).

We dare not prognosticate about how many Jews (or Gentiles) will be saved versus lost, for this is in our Lord’s hands. But there is nothing in Romans 11 or elsewhere about a “mass” conversion of Jews (Paul and Isaiah say only a “remnant”). There is also nothing about a “future” conversion of Jews (Paul is speaking only of the Jews of the “present time”). We can only conclude that the cumulative total of Jews chosen by grace as a remnant constitutes the “all Israel” that will be saved. As such, “all Israel” would be the elect of the Jews. Alternatively, “all Israel” could also be viewed as the sum total of both Jews and Gentiles who will be saved. This is an equally plausible interpretation, since the Church is the new “Israel of God” (cf. Gal. 6:16; Lumen Gentium 2,9; Ad Gentes 1,5; this view was also advanced by Augustine and Theodoret).

Even if, as some argue, the Greek “until” (achri hou) in Romans 11:26 does not continue the action of the main verb regarding Israel’s hardening (which is possible; see Gal. 4:19-20; Apoc. 7:2-3), this would not demonstrate that there will be a mass conversion of the Jews in the future. It would just mean that the hardening upon Israel will cease to the extent that a remnant of the Jews can be saved.

Some Zionists also try to push the conversion of the Jews into the future because Paul says that “Israel will be saved” in connection with the “Deliverer coming from Zion” (v. 26). Paul says that this Deliverer will “banish ungodliness from Jacob,” establish his “covenant,” and “take away their sins” (v.27). Zionists view the Deliverer as Jesus Christ who comes a second time to reign with the Jews during the millennium. Once again, this is a complete distortion of Scripture.

In Romans 11:26, Paul is quoting from Isaiah 59:20, which says nothing about a millennial reign of the Messiah at the end of time, and certainly nothing about a future national and spiritual restoration of Israel. Isaiah is writing about God’s anger against Israel for their sins, and how He is going to send the Deliverer to forgive their sins if they repent. Isaiah goes on to mention that the Deliverer will establish “my covenant with them” (v.21).

God establishes His New Covenant at the First Coming of Christ, not the Second Coming. As we have seen with Hebrews 9:27-28, when Christ comes the second and final time, He will not come to establish a covenant or forgive sin. He will come to judge sin according to the covenant He has already established at His First Coming.

Thus, Romans 11:25-27 must be read in the context of Christ’s First Coming, not a future, pre-millennial, second appearance before the end of the world. Jesus is the Deliverer who comes from Zion to establish the New Covenant with His Incarnation. Just as Isaiah said that the Deliverer will “banish ungodliness from Jacob,” so Gabriel tells Mary at the Annunciation that Christ would “reign over the house of Jacob” (Luke 1:33). Just as Isaiah said the Deliverer will “take away sins,” so Zechariah says that Jesus would grant “the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 1:77). Just as Jeremiah (who Paul quotes in Romans 11:27) said that God will establish his “covenant” with the Jews, Zechariah says that God has remembered “his holy covenant” in Christ (Luke 1:72). All these parallels, and many more, are only understood in the context of the First Coming of Christ.

Out of the 100 or so prominent Church Fathers, I have discovered less than a dozen who actually wrote about a conversion of the Jews at the end of time (Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Gregory the Great, John Chrysostom, and John Damascene; there are also some brief remarks from Thomas Aquinas and Robert Bellarmine). There may be more, but it is safe to say that there is no patristic consensus on the question of a future conversion. Moreover, none of the Church Fathers ever wrote about a national or spiritual restoration of Israel.

The few Fathers who addressed the issue of a future conversion of the Jews often equivocated about whether there would be large-scale conversion beyond the normal quota that God is saving through a remnant. The Fathers who touched upon this subject do not provide any in-depth exegesis of Romans 11:25-27 (of course, the Church has never given an official interpretation either). There is no compelling patristic evidence that supports an extraordinary, en masse conversion of the Jewish people at the end of time, and certainly nothing to support the belief that this would occur during or after some earthly, millennial reign of Christ before His final coming.

Indeed, if there were a consensus of the Fathers on the interpretation of Romans 11:25-27, we would be bound to follow it (Council of Trent, Vatican I). This is because a consensus indicates the teaching has apostolic origins. However, where there is not a consensus, the Church teaches us to follow the literal and obvious sense of the Scriptures (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus). Therefore, a future conversion of the Jewish people is, at best, an open question. It certainly could happen, but this can’t be demonstrated from Scripture. It is more consistent with Scripture to believe that God is saving the Jews currently, who accept Jesus Christ, “in the same manner” as the Gentiles, that is, through the grace of the New Covenant.

The Church has condemned pre-millennial eschatology which was previously known as Chiliasm. Although Chiliasm was discredited by the early Church during the first few centuries of her existence, pre-millennialism came back in the 19th and 20th centuries with the wave of Protestant evangelicalism. As a result, the Holy Office, on July 21, 1944 under Pope Pius XII, decreed:

“In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely” (Denzinger 2296).

The traditional Catholic view is that the millennium of Apocalypse 20 began with the First Coming of Christ. This view holds that the “rapture” occurs at the Second Coming of Christ, which is the end of the world. At this time, both the living and the dead, will be resurrected – the righteous to eternal life, and the unrighteous to eternal punishment. Because there is no millennial period between the Church age and the end of the world, the Catholic and Scriptural view is often called the “amillennial” view. This view was held by Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Rufinus, Venerable Bede, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Theodoret and Aquinas.

Zionism’s belief in a restoration of Temple worship and sacrifice in Jerusalem during the millennium is not only anti-Scriptural, it is anti-Christian. Paul repeatedly condemned the observance of Jewish rituals throughout his epistles (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians). The Church has also declared that any observance of the Jewish law is “alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation” (Council of Florence).

In fact, the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia stated that the future Antichrist would be “of Jewish extraction, from the tribe of Dan,” and the 1936 edition stated that he would “rebuild Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple, in which he will set himself up as God.” Paul warned us of this very event when he said “the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess. 2:3-4.

In summary, Zionism is an anti-Catholic movement that attempts to remove the Church as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, and the only authoritative voice for interpreting these prophecies. By turning Scripture into a wax nose for their own political and religious fantasies, Zionists make the Jews and Israel, and not the New Testament Church, the focus of God’s divine plan. Zionism is blatantly false and has no basis in Sacred Scripture or Tradition.




UPADATE 8/25/06+++++++++


John Lofton on Zionism-

Cal Thomas, America, Israel And "Terrorism"
Bush/Republican Party cheerleader columnist Cal Thomas says, in "USA Today (8/24/06), that the alleged London-based plot to blow up several airplanes proves that "the war on terror is a global affair" and this alleged plot should put to rest any doubts that there is such a global war. Really? So, at any time, in any place in the world, when some people try to blow something up, this proves "the war on terror is a global affair?" If so, then this "global war on terror" has been going on since the beginning of history because there have always been people trying to blow things up! And we are among these people because twice we dropped atomic bombs on open Japanese cities.Thomas also says: "The terrorist mission is as clear as can be. What's not is the best way to stop them." Well, yes, since "terrorism" is a tactic, and has been used by various groups forever, it will never be defeated once and for all.But, what, exactly, is “terrorism?” Was it “terrorism” when we, twice, dropped atomic bombs on open Japanese cities? I say yes.And Thomas’ beloved Israel was founded by “terrorists” who, among other things, on July 22, 1946, blew up the King David Hotel. An outrageous statement? Not at all. Read, please, the book “By Blood And Fire: The Attack On The King David Hotel” (Hutchinson, 1981) by Thurston Clarke. Clarke was educated at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, at Columbia University and at Yale where he specialized in Middle East studies and international business.On the dust cover of this book the French author Dominique Lapierre says of it: “It is a stunning and breathtaking re-creation of what probably is the first massive terrorist political action in modern history.”

As Clarke tells it, in September of 1945 three Jewish underground groups joined in a rebellion against British rule. They were the Haganah, the LEHI (also known as the Stern Gang) and the Irgun Zvai Leumi commanded by Menahem Begin who, decades later, would become the leader of Israel and a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. These groups “sabotaged railway lines, police stations and the radar and police launches used to trap boatloads of illegal immigrants smuggled out of Europe by the Haganah.”“Jewish terrorists” of the Stern Gang also “murdered Lord Moyne (British Minister Of State) as he sat in his official car outside his Cairo residence. They made six attempts to kill High Commissioner MacMichael as he motored around Palestine....The Sternists had shot Tom Wilkin, a Hebrew-speaking Palestine police inspector...He died 200 yards from police headquarters.”In his eulogy to Moyne delivered in the House Of Commons, Winston Churchill said: “A shameful crime has shocked the world and affected none more strongly than those like myself who, in the past, have been consistent friends of the Jews and constant architects of their future. If our dream for Zionism should be dissolved in the smoke of revolvers of assassins and if our efforts for its future should provoke a new wave of banditry worthy of the Nazi Germans, many persons like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so firmly for such a long time.”

Chaim Weizmann, chairman of the British Zionist Federation, also saw violence as moral decay, a Jewish death wish. He believed it made a lie of his promise that, “Palestine must be built without violating the legitimate interests of the Arabs. Not a hair on their heads shall be touched. The Zionist Congress...has to learn the truth that [the 600,000 Arabs who live in Palestine] have exactly the same right to their homes in Palestine as we have to our national home.” Clarke adds: “In 1938 most Palestinian Jews shared Weizmann’s hatred of terrorism and his vision of a peaceful, human Zionism.”In June of 1946, Weizmann wrote a letter in which he said, in part: “In the eyes of all men of good-will, our movement is sinking to the level of gangsterism. Our only force is moral force...a policy of destruction can rebound only on ourselves, and it is we who, in the end, will be part destroyed.”The King David Hotel was the British Mandate’s equivalent of our Pentagon and Congress. On February 1, 1944, Begin issued a proclamation of war against Great Britain whose rule he likened to being handed over to Hitler. Invoking, incredibly, “the God of Israel, the Lord of Hosts,” vowing to fight to the end, no retreat, “freedom or death.” The previously mentioned LEHI, never more than 300 members, “believed in and practiced personal terror, the assassination of important Britons and the random murder of British soldiers, policemen and civilians.”

So, were the British like Hitler, like the Nazis? Were they, as Irgun posters described them, “Nazis-British Enslavers” and “the British Gestapo”? No, they were not. Says Clarke: “Responsible world public opinion had never equated the British regime in Palestine with the Nazi occupation of Europe. The British Mandate was sometimes repressive, undeniably undemocratic, and capable of being cruel and arbitrary, but it was not a regime of terror. During the Mandate’s 30 years, fewer than a dozen Jewish underground fighters had been executed. No Jewish villages were blown up or ploughed under and most Jews convicted of political crimes under the harsh defense emergency regulations were accorded ‘special treatment’ by British judges and segregated in prison from common criminals and Arabs.”Now, the bombing of the King David Hotel. The bombs were seven large milk cans each weighing over 50 kilos and packed with gelignite and TNT, fitted with Yale locks on their lids and holes drilled in their sides. A copper pin stuck out half an inch from each hole. This 350 kilos of TNT became, as it exploded, 250,000 litres of hot gas expanding, at its center, to a velocity of 160,000 mph, heating the air to over 3000 degrees C. and exerting a pressure of 500,000 pounds per square inch, 34,000 times normal atmospheric pressure. This pressure subsequently burst the hearts, lungs, and livers of the clerks working on the floor above. This blast was the equivalent in force to a direct hit from a 500 kilogram aerial bomb.Clarke writes: “The roof shot into the air and plummeted to earth like an elevator out of control, pitching sunbathing women (on the roof) into the garden and crushing those on whom it landed....The suction ripped off clothes, tore rings from fingers and watches from wrists. [One man] looked up and saw ‘bodies falling down...and winging through the air….The King David was turned into a gigantic cannon....Large concrete blocks flew into the air at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour....Women’s stockings burst open at their seams.”

Among those murdered in this blast were: An American Jew who wrote many articles on Palestinian life for Hebrew newspapers; a noted Hebrew scholar; one of the highest ranking younger Jews in the civil service; a young Jewess who answered a switchboard; the 17-year-old son of the main doorkeeper; a man who served tea in the canteen; a female typist for the British Army.In one sickening description Clarke tells what happened to Postmaster General Gerald Kennedy and a Jewish typist: “The blast tossed him into the air, blew him 150 yards across the street and smacked him against the wall of the YMCA. His body slid to the pavement, leaving behind a bloody silhouette. His head stuck to the wall, too high off the ground and too far from a window to be easily removed....The face of a Jewish typist was ripped from her skull, blown out of a window, and smeared onto the pavement below. Miraculously it was recognizable, a two-foot-long distorted death mask topped with tufts of hair.”Coroners determined that victims had died of snapped spinal cords, crushed or fractured skulls, internal or external bleeding, and nervous shock. Practically all had multiple contusions and lacerations; many were so mutilated and decomposed as to be unrecognizable. Clarke says: “The Government Information Office immediately denied that any warnings had been received by anyone in a position of authority.”Two days after this murderous act of terrorism, the Irgun’s “Voice Of Fighting Zion” broadcast a communique which said it was a “distortion” to say that the Irgun had mourned the high number of victims. No, said the Irgun, what they mourned was the “Jewish victims....Therefore we leave the mourning for the British victims to the British themselves. We shall mourn for our victims, the Jewish victims....And the God of truth will be at our side.”Clarke notes: “The broadcast failed to mention that the majority of the victims were...Arab. For the Irgun, the Arabs were invisible....The authorized Jewish leadership did nothing beyond publishing verbal attacks on the Irgun.” They did nothing to cooperate in tracking down the murderers who did the bombing.

The final death toll: 91 dead, 46 injured. Among the dead: 21 first rank British government officials; 13 soldiers; three policemen; and five members of the public. The remaining 49 were: second rank clerks; typists and messengers; junior members of the Secretariat; employees of the Hotel; canteen workers. By nationality: two Armenians dead; one Russian; a Greek; an Egyptian; 28 Britons; 41 Arabs; 17 Jews


ANother good site:
http://www.fisheaters.com/shahak5.html


Israel Targets Christians
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080400307_pf.html


+++UPDATE 10/10/06+++

Jewish Historian critical of US/Jewish lobby banned from Poland by Jewish mob

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800817.html

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Sungenis on NWO, Zionism and the End



Neo-Conservatism and the Evangelical/Protestant Connection


George F. Will, an original Neo-con promoter of bringing American democracy to the Middle East by fomenting war with Iraq, admitted that there is concern among the inside-the-Beltway crowd that there are too many “U.S. messianic instincts” controlling the decisions in Washington. Case in point: Elliott Abrams, a top aid to Condoleezza Rice’s former position at the National Security Council, was compelled to hold a meeting at the White House with 45 Pentecostal ministers in order to convince them that a proposed granting of land in the Gaza Strip back to the Palestinians would not impede the steps needed to initiate the return of Christ. As Rick Perlstein of The Village Voice stated it:


“...Apparently, we’re not supposed to know the National Security Council’s top Middle east aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios....The e-mailed meeting summary reveals NSC Near East and North African Affairs director Elliott Abrams sitting down with the Apostolic Congress [of Pentecostal ministers] and massaging their theological concerns. Claiming to be ‘the Christian Voice in the Nation’s Capital,’ the members vociferously oppose the idea of a Palestinian state. They fear an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza might enable just that, and they object on the grounds that all of Old Testament Israel belongs to the Jews. Until Israel is intact and Solomon’s temple rebuilt, they believe, Christ won’t come back to earth.”


As we noted in the two previous articles, the Neo-con war machine seeks both American Evangelicals and Catholics to be convinced that the traditional ‘Just War’ doctrine needs to be tweaked a little so that the phrase “pre-emptive war” can be included. By playing the “anti-Semite” card against any opposition, as well as exciting American church-goers into an apocalyptic frenzy, the Neo-con ideologues have done well in advancing American financial interests and Zionist control over the Middle East (all, of course, under the guise of promoting “democracy”). Cow-towing to Evangelicalism by giving their pastors press-briefings and reassurances is standard fare. In other words, the false religion of fanatical Pentecostalism and their fallacious interpretations of Scripture are putting pressure on the White House to keep in lock-step regarding an aggressive Middle East policy. Biographer Michael Lind believes George Bush follows the same religious ideology: “There is little doubt that the bonding between George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon was based on conviction, not expedience. Like the Christian Zionist base of the Republican Party, George W. Bush was a devout Southern fundamentalist” (Made in Texas, 2003, p. 157). No wonder the Bush re-election campaign attempted to seek the names of America’s Evangelical church lists for campaign donations. The piper was asking to be paid for his services.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, a member of the Pentecostal religion who harbors a fear of calico cats because they are “tools of the devil,” is also involved in promoting the Zionist eschatology. Tevi Troy – an Orthodox Jew who, in public, once referred to his non-Jewish opponents as “goyim” (a severe and vulgar epithet), wrote in The New Republic (1-29-01) that Ashcroft “knew more about Judaism than half the Jewish members of the senate.” Ashcroft also knew about reports regarding peculiar activity among Israeli intelligence operatives on the day of the 9-11 attacks, but he refused to investigate due to the fact that he regarded them as “urban legends.” As Ashcroft helps lead the way in the Neo-Con agenda, former CIA analysts Bill and Kathleen Christison see the writing on the wall:


“The dual loyalists in the Bush administration have given added impetus to the growth of a messianic strain of Christian fundamentalism that has allied itself with Israel in preparation for the so-called End of Days. These crazed fundamentalists see Israel’s dominance over all of Palestine as a necessary step toward fulfillment of the biblical Millennium, consider any Israeli relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a sacrilege, and view warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude to Armageddon. These right-wing Christian extremists have a profound influence on Bush and his administration...The Armageddon that Christian Zionists seem to be actively promoting and that Israeli loyalists...have tacitly allied themselves with raises the horrifying but very real prospect of an apocalyptic Christian-Islamic war....These two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a president and vice president heavily invested in oil” (Counterpunch, 12-13-2002).


Investigative reporters Ken Silverstein and Michael Scherer note the same agenda:
“Christian conservatives provide Israel...with its most important political support in the United States...They oppose Israel ceding land to the Palestinians and are pressuring the Bush administration to close Palestinian offices in the United States. They also have close ties to GOP congressional leaders and to a group of high-ranking hawks in the Pentagon – led by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz – that some DC insiders call the ‘Kosher Nostra.’ They work to support Israel, ironically, because they believe it will lead to the ultimate triumph of Christianity. For them, the ongoing crisis in the Mideast has been prophesied in the Bible: After Jews reclaim the Holy Land, nonbelievers – including Jews and Muslims – will perish in Armageddon, and Jesus will return as the Messiah to lead his followers to Heaven. Indeed, thanks to the top-level connections and grassroots activism of evangelical Christians, U.S. policy in the Middle East has never been so closely aligned with Israel as it is under the administration of George W. Bush...” (“Born Again Zionists,” in Mother Jones, Sept./Oct. 2002).


Since these Protestant millennialists have the lion’s share of religious broadcasting, William Kristol takes full advantage of this fact. As the Evangelicals anticipate “Armageddon” to fulfill biblical prophecy (Apocalypse 16:13-16), Kristol speaks with almost fanatical glee over the prospects of expanding the war in Iraq to the rest of the Middle East. In the Rupert Murdoch owned Weekly Standard, Kristol and Robert Kagan prophecy that the war in Iraq
“...is going to spread and engulf a number of countries...It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone had hoped to avoid...It is possible that the demise of some ‘moderate” Arab regimes may be just around the corner.”


These outlandish statements, of course, make Kagan and Kristol certified couch-cases, yet these are the very people who are filling Bush’s ear with their apocalyptic rhetoric. Norman Podhoretz (CFR member) goes one step further. In his American Jewish Committee magazine, Commentary, he writes that it is Bush’s job “to fight World War IV – the war against militant Islam.” He is borrowing the phrase “World War IV” from the book written by Zionist Eliot Cohen, the very book the press reported George W. Bush had read in 2003. No wonder Colin Powell resigned after the Bush re-election. Podhoretz called him the “incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell,” and subsequently told Bush to “find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated” Islamic world. Obviously, these tin-gods have no intention of having a peaceful co-existence with the Muslims. They would like nothing better than to wipe the Arab world off the face of the Middle East, all under the guise of “democracy” through “pre-emptive war.” Michael Saba knows this quite well. Having, by pure chance, to see and overhear Stephen J. Bryen (high-ranking congressional staffer) passing classified U.S. defense secrets to Israeli operatives, Saba wrote about the incident in the aptly titled book: The Road to Armageddon, for that is precisely what the new Tri-lateral commission, if you will (the Neo-cons, the Evangelicals and the Jewish Zionists) are planning for the near future.


Bush made further ties with these religious groups by introducing the government sponsored “faith-based initiatives.” So far the Bush administration has given away $25 million, one notable recipient being Pat Robertson, a major Pentecostal apocalyptic voice promoting the Iraq war. Robertson, who has been a ubiquitous presence in the Evangelical/Pentecostal television market as the long-time host of the 700 Club, claims to receive a “word of knowledge” direct from God on a regular basis concerning how America should be proceeding with the takeover of the Middle East. To help raise money, Robertson used his “philanthropic” outreach program Operation Blessing as a front for his diamond mining interests in Zaire with President Mobuto, which in turn gave money back to Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network (Time, February 1995; and “Pat Robertson Counts His Federal Blessings,” by Bill Berkowitz). Regarding the “faith-based initiative” grant Robertson received from the Bush administration, Berkowitz adds: “Interestingly enough, the grant was announced less than two weeks before Robertson’s Christian Coalition is scheduled to hold its ‘Road to Victory’ conference in Washington – its annual gathering of Religious Right leaders and conservative politicos.” Portraying himself as a moral beacon, Robertson still insists today in interviews that he was “married to his wife on the day she conceived their son,” not on their subsequent wedding day.

Paul Crouch, owner and regular host of the Pentecostal-based Trinity Broadcasting Company, who recently was accused of having a homosexual affair in the 1990s and has since built a $5 million palatial estate for himself in California, regularly features the top names in Zionist eschatology, including Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, Tim LaHaye and many others. Lindsey, famous for his book “The Late Great Planet Earth” which predicted the end of the world in the late 1980s, and which was followed by LaHaye’s “Left Behind” book series, are the encyclopedias of modern end-time fever. LaHaye was heavily pushed by Time magazine in a July 1, 2002 cover-story titled: “The Bible and the Apocalypse – Why More Americans are Reading and Talking about the End of the World,” with a 13-page splash complete with charts, graphs and pictorials. Incidentally, Time magazine, which is owned by AOL-Time Warner, is one of the Edgar Bronfman’s family-dominated media outlets, and Edgar is head of the World Jewish Congress and a man who became a billionaire as a whiskey baron.


Benny Hinn, who was recently exposed for his financial misdealings by NBC’s Dateline in March 2005, on one occasion declared: “This is not a war between Jews and Arabs. It is a war between God and the Devil.”


Joyce Meyer, regularly seen on PAX television waving her Pentecostal Bible, went so far in her support for Israel that in an October 11, 2002 address to the Christian Coalition’s national conference she stated that the American people were victims of the 9-11 attacks as a judgment from God for failing to stand firmly on the side of Israel in these last days, concluding with: “If we don’t obey God, God’s protection is lifted” (Made in Texas, p. 153). This fanatical interpretation of current events is common among such self-authorized divine spokesmen. But Meyer is merely regurgitating the views she heard from Republican Senators Sam Brownback (Kansas) and James Inhofe (Okalahoma). In a March 4, 2002 speech to the entire Senate, Inhofe stated that God allowed the 9-11 attack to punish America for being too hard on Israel: “One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States...is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them” (Congressional Record, 3-4-2002). Inhofe and his colleagues believe Israel has a divine right to the whole land of Palestine, and even more, based on the so-called “unfulfilled promises” in Genesis 12-22. We will see later that Inhofe’s interpretation of Scripture is totally incorrect.


Just these four organizations probably hold over 85% of the market in Protestant religious television, all from Pentecostal background, and who are constantly seeking to dictate American foreign policy in favor of Israel to fulfill their hopes of accelerating Christ’s return to earth and their insidious desire for a future millennium in the land of Palestine.


Richard Land, affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, “has the ear of the Bush administration through weekly teleconferences with the president’s aides; and leaders of both parties routinely consult him as they shape policies and issues,” reports Holly Edwards of The Tennessean (March 2005). Land gives no hesitation to his ideology: “Supporting Israel is a matter of being obedient to God.” He crassly concludes: “war is just...there are some people that you just have to kill if you want to live in a civilized society...This is a battle between civilization and barbarism.” Referring specifically to the Arabs, Land surmises: “God has blessed them and he will continue to bless them everywhere but Palestine, because God gave Palestine to the descendants of Isaac forever.” As Silverstein and Scherer note, people in Land’s camp believe “that Arabs and Muslims can be traced back to Ishmael, the unfavored son of Abraham, who was promised by God vast land and resources but who would never be satisfied with what he had. No matter how much good fortune Arabs receive...they will never know spiritual peace” (op. cit.). These things are believed in the face of Jews in Israel today who are no closer to accepting Christianity than they were in the first century AD when Jesus promised them that the Romans would come and take away their homeland due to their obstinate disbelief.


Jerry Falwell, chancellor of Liberty University, is one of the most influential Christian-Zionists today. After the Likud party came into power in 1977, Falwell, according to Jewish historian Benjamin Ginsberg, was the chief signer in a letter to President Reagan urging him to give his full support to Israel, based on a “religious, moral and strategic perspective.” Falwell, was so popular with the Israeli government that Menachem Begin gave Falwell the Zabotinsky Award for outstanding service to Israel, with a Learjet to visit Israel whenever he desired. Why wouldn’t he? Falwell has thoroughly supported the Israeli annexation of the occupied Palestinian territories, stating early on that: “There is no question that Judea and Samaria should be part of Israel...I believe that the Golan Heights should be annexed as an integral part of the state of Israel” (The Fatal Embrace: Jews and The State, 1993, p. 211). As Bush biographer Michael Lind writes: “The fervent support of Israel by Protestant fundamentalists...has been manipulated for a quarter of a century by right-wing Israeli politicians and their neo-conservative allies” (Made in Texas, p. 148).


Ralph Reed, former executive director of Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition along with Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein (founder of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews) have formed “Stand for Israel,” determined to secure Palestine for Israel and push the Arabs into the remote recesses of the Middle East.


Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, is one of today’s most prominent Evangelicals through his work with the American Research Council. He has made his unswerving allegiance to Christian Zionism a basic platform for both his political views and his push for “family values,” implying that one cannot be a good Christian and an anti-Zionist at the same time. Bauer has close ties with Irving and William Kristol, the latter with whom he shares an interest in a vacation condominium. Critics contend that Bauer’s and Alan Keyes’ ‘no-chance’ runs for the presidency in 2000 were engineered by Kristol in hopes of pulling away votes from Pat Buchanan (a critic of Zionism). Incidentally, Alan Keyes was Kristol’s college roommate. With Keyes being the only exception, Howard Dean was probably right when he recently said that Washington was controlled by a “bunch of White Christians.” White, yes, but they are anything but Christian. They merely use Christ’s name to further their own political and religious fantasies.


Why would these Protestant millennialists desire to speed up the annihilation of the world if this means drawing down “tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be” (Mt 24:21)? Because these Henny-Pennys have a secret door from which they can escape all these terrible portents. It is called “The Rapture.” They believe, based on their idiosyncratic interpretations of Scripture, that before the so-called war of “Armageddon,” and prior to Jesus appearing in physical form to rule in Jerusalem, he is going to come back secretly, seven years earlier, and snatch up all Christians from the earth just before the bombs start falling. This doctrine is taught in almost all the Protestant Fundamental, Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, seminaries and secondary schools across America. This convenient escape hatch is developed from their reading of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:


“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”


The passage certainly speaks of a rapture of Christians, but it is certainly not a “secret” one. This is none other than the Second Coming and the end of the world, as the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years. As St. Paul describes it, Christ’s descent from heaven is globally broadcasted by shouting, voices and trumpets. As the old saying goes, it’s enough to wake the dead, for that is precisely what St. Paul says will happen: “the dead in Christ shall rise first.” All jest aside, the raising of the dead is very significant, because it gives the time-clue as to when the Rapture occurs, for the verse clearly states that the Rapture immediately follows the resurrection. A biblical exegete worth his salt would first have to determine when the resurrection occurs in order to know the timing of the Rapture.


Although millennial seekers routinely ignore the passages, Scripture is clear that the dead will rise at one time, and one time only, and that is on the “Last day” of this world’s existence. There are six eschatological references to the “Last day” in Scripture (Gospel of John: John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). Each passage tells us that the dead will be raised on the “Last day.” Logically, if there is a day that comes afterward, then the previous day was not the last day. As such, there can only be one “Last day.”


Furthermore, Scripture is clear that the resurrection of Christians and non-Christians will occur at the same time (John 5:28-29). Hence, when we combine the facts concerning the resurrection in John’s Gospel with the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, it is quite evident that the Rapture cannot occur prior to the Last day of this world’s existence. Thus any eschatological scheme that seeks to posit a “secret” Rapture prior to the end of the world is automatically false.
In political terms, the pre-tribulation Rapture is nothing more than a Protestant/Zionist attempt to eliminate the Catholic Church as the prophetic fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy; and to replace it with a national and spiritual restoration of Israel. In order to do so, millennialists regard the Church Age as only a “parentheses” in the plan of God, a mere blip on the prophetic radar screen. God’s real aim is to bide time until He can reestablish Israel back in their homeland as the singular focus of the divine plan. Hence, instead of interpreting the millennial reign of Christ (Apocalypse 20:1-6) as a symbolic period of time that begins when He established the Church at His first coming (an eschatology taught in the Fathers, through Augustine, and endorsed officially by the Council of Ephesus in 431), Zionist eschatology postpones the millennium until the second coming of Christ and reinterprets the 1000 years as a literal period of time (in opposition to the symbolic language of the Apocalypse). Just prior to Christ’s second coming, the Church is conveniently removed by the secret “rapture,” and thus Israel can take her place of reign, which then leads to the choosing of 144,000 Jewish evangelists who will rule with Christ over the Gentiles during the 1000 year period.


Suffice it to say, this schema of end-time events is one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on mankind. Millennial eschatology, historically known as Chiliasm, was officially rejected by the Catholic Church as a dubious interpretation of Scripture. Since it was zealously being promoted by Protestant and Jewish Zionists beginning at the turn of the 20th century, the question of its validity again came to the attention of the Holy Office under Pius XII. On July 21, 1944 it decreed:


In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely. (Denzinger 2296)
In fact, not only has Catholic tradition denied the Chiliast/Zionist interpretations of Scripture, it has unofficially declared that the future Antichrist will be of Jewish extraction. As late as 1911 the Catholic Encyclopedia stated it quite plainly:


“The individual person of Antichrist will not be a demon, as some of the ancient writers believed, nor will he be the person of the devil incarnated in the human nature of Antichrist. He will be a human person, perhaps of Jewish extraction, if the explanation of Gen 49:17, together with that of Dan’s omission in the catalogue of the tribes, as found in the Apocalypse, be correct [Ap 7:4-8]. St. Hippolytus...wrote a treatise on Christ and Antichrist in which he says: ‘As Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan. And that the case stands thus, we see also from the words of Jacob: ‘Let Dan be a serpent, lying upon the ground, biting the horse’s heels” [Gn 49:17]” (On the Antichrist, 6, 14, PG X, 736, 738).


The whole Zionist/Evangelical/Neo-con campaign is based on one big falsehood – that God still owes the Jewish people land and protection in its ancient borders. This Zionist eschatology began under the auspices of English preacher John Nelson Darby and was perpetuated in America beginning in the 20th century by Cyrus I. Scofield, who in 1909 published the still very popular Scofield Reference Bible. Among other things of note, Scofield interpreted the divine promises to Abraham (Genesis 12-22) as applying, in the final analysis, to a future national and spiritual restoration of Israel. Jewish Zionists were also involved in this special pleading of the Old Testament, and its force was felt when late in the 1940s they refused to accept the United Nations charter to reestablish the Jewish people in Uganda, claiming that the land of Palestine was theirs by “divine right.” It was precisely Scofield’s biblical notes that caused thinking to turn in this direction. Other Evangelicals have taken up the mantle, such as John MacArthur and his MacArthur Study Bible, reiterating Scofield’s notes in more sophisticated fashion and inciting a whole new generation of millennium seekers. The price we are paying today for this misapplication of Sacred Scripture is a world on the brink of World War III because one people has dared claim divine privilege in their political machinations.


Genesis and the Jewish Connection, Part I


They come in all colors, sizes and shapes: Communists, Capitalists, Facists, Socialists, Nazis, Freemasons, Bilderbergs, Rothschilds, Skull and Bones, CIA, Mafia, Illuminati, Zionists, Trilateral Commission, Bolsheviks, Neo-cons, International bankers, etc, etc. They all have two things in common: one that unites them, and one that divides them. United they stand against Christianity; divided they are against each other, since each wants to be the sole ruler of the world. Having only this world as their pride and glory, they are driven to acquire world domination, for they realize that if they don’t keep trying, someone greater will dominate them.


The competition they have against one another, however, is what makes the world livable for us. As they fight amongst themselves, no one group is able to dominate the world. If one group ever gets close to the top, it will be brief, for some rival is always waiting in the wings to topple them. The wealth they fought over always finds its way into the populace. This is how God, in his infinite wisdom, keeps the world in check and feeds its people.


But on they march. Following the paradigm set thousands of years ago at the Tower of Babel, the above mentioned groups will someday figure out that the only way they can rule the world and overcome Christianity is by banding together. It took thousands of years of beating up on each other to arrive at this realization – a house divided against itself will surely fall. The quest to bring it all together under one political-financial-militaristic roof is known today as The New World Order. It is all implemented, of course, under the guise of “world peace.” Whether this is the time of its prophesied success we don’t know for sure, nevertheless, it is their singular design to overcome the Christian World Order, and more specifically, the Catholic Church.


Here are just a few of the prominent names working toward such ends (all sources on file): Churchill: “The creation of an authoritative world order is the ultimate aim towards which we must strive”; DeGaulle: “Nations must unite in a world government or perish”; Talbott (Clinton’s Sec. of State): “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all States will recognize a single global authority”; R. Muller (Asst. Sec. Gen. of the UN): “We must move as quickly as possible to a one world government; a one world religion; under a one world leader”; R. Kennedy: “All of us will ultimately be judged on the effort we have contributed to building a new world order”; Nixon: “The developing coherence…to the evolution of a new world order”; 1976 “Declaration of Interdependence” signed by 32 US Senators and 92 US Representatives: “Two centuries ago, our forefathers brought forth a new nation. Now, we must join with others to bring forth a new world order”; Kissinger: “So we say to all peoples and governments; let us fashion together a new world order”; R. Gephardt: “We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order”; H. Mubarak: “The renewal of nonproliferation treaty was…important for the welfare of the whole world and the new world order”; Castro: “We must establish a new world order based on justice, on equity and on peace”; Gorbachev: “We are moving toward a new world order”; Einstein: “There is no salvation for civilization or even the human race, other than the creation of a world government”; Nehru: “the only way peace can be achieved is through world government”; M. Adler: “World peace is impossible without world government”; T. Blair stated, “We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of International community”; A. Schlesinger: “We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood as well as words and money”; J. Warburg: “We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest”; G. H. W. Bush: (Sept. 11, 1990): “Out of these troubled times, a New World Order can emerge”; G. H. W. Bush: (Sept. 11, 1991): “A New World Order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind. Peace and security, freedom and the rule of law”; Toynbee: “We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world”; H. G. Wells: “Countless people will hate the New World Order and will die protesting against it.” N. Mandela: “The New World Order that is in the making must focus on the creation of a world of democracy”; Disraeli: “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined; by those who are behind the scenes”
And don’t forget the Rockefellers:


N. Rockefeller: “I will work toward international creation of a new world order”; D. Rockefeller (founder of Trilateral Commission): “We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries”; L. McDonald (Congressman): “The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one world government, combining super-capitalism and communism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent”; J. F. Kennedy: (Nov. 15, 1963): “There exists in this country a plot to enslave every man woman and child. Before I leave this high and noble office, I intend to expose this plot”


And finally, P. H. Speak (Sec. Gen. NATO): “What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of the people and to lift us out of the economic morass into which we are sinking… Send us such a man and be he God or the Devil, we will receive him.”


Fortunately for us, by the time they have finally implemented this grand new scheme, God, who had been using them as pawns all along, will be ready to end the world, for his elect will have been saved and there will be no more reason to continue this sin-cursed Earth. Before it all ends, however, God will give Satan and his minions a very brief time of reign, what John calls the “little season” (Apoc 20:3). But such vast control does God possess that he allows their antics only for the purpose of magnifying their evil so that it can be used against them at Judgment Day. God is gathering them together for the battle of Armageddon, which, contrary to popular opinion, is not a war in the Middle East, but Judgment Day itself, the end of the world, when they will all be cast into Hell.


Before that final day comes, the Church, in large part, will be infiltrated by the Beast and the “whore of Babylon” (Apoc 13, 17-18). So bad will it be that John sees the holy city become as “Sodom and Egypt” (Apoc 11:8-9). The apostates and the world will be as one. During Satan’s “little season” they will “come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth” (Apoc 20:8) and all peoples will be under their absolute dominion.


Among the major forces in the assent of the New World Order are the Jews, Judaism and the land of Israel. For almost the entire 20th century, and now beginning in the 21st, the Jews’ occupation of Israel has been the vortex of politics, religion, wealth and the clash of culture. No other region of the world draws such concentrated attention. As we have noted in previous articles, it is no secret to the well-informed that it is the goal of world politics and finance, which is run in large part by wealthy Jews behind the scenes, to secure the Middle East for Israel. Unfortunately, not too many people speak openly about these things, mainly for fear of being called “anti-Semitic,” the one label that will stop even the most outspoken politician dead in his tracks, especially since Jews in America own and operate much of the print and audio/video media. The new book by Michael Collins Piper, The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America, reveals much of the details that have long been hidden from the public.


For those who know better, the charge of “anti-Semitism” is nothing but a clever ploy. As the consummate Zionist, Albert Einstein, finally recognized after dealing with his own people:
“Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world…the root cause is their use of enemies they create to keep solidarity” (Albert Einstein, Collier’s Magazine, November 26, 1938).


Presently, Iraq is the testing ground to see how the ultimate goal of securing the Middle East for the Zionists can be implemented. Iran is next, and then the other Arab nations surrounding Israel. Of course, if the Arabs had their wishes, Israel would, indeed, be pushed off into the Mediterranean sea. Ezek. 35:5 had long ago prophesied this perpetual hatred we still see today. The problem, however, is exacerbated by Israel’s quest to restore their former biblical geography, which invariably impinges on the Arabs already occupying that land.


As Pat Buchanan has noted in his columns, the Arab-Moslem peoples who have been singled out for eventual destruction are: “Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and ‘militant Islam’” (The American Conservative, “Whose War?” March 2003). These particular countries are strikingly similar to the regions targeted in 1948 by the first Israeli premier, David Ben Gurion, in his opening address to the Knesset. A speech that produced a standing ovation, Ben Gurion insisted that his fellow Jews set their sights on retrieving the original land occupied by Israel in the time of Solomon. This land acquisition would include the following: In the South it would include the whole Sinai peninsula and northern Egypt; to the East it would include Jordan, Kuwait, and travel up the Euphrates river to Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Lebanon, all the land from the Nile River to the Euphrates River. Obviously, this land grab would necessitate either the removal of the Arabs presently occupying that land, or their total subjugation to Israeli rule. The conquest, as we have seen in Iraq, has already started. Four hundred Israeli Mossad agents have since been stationed in Iraq to see that the initial steps go smoothly.


To justify its incursion into these ancient lands, the Zionists and those in their camp (e.g., Neo-cons, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Neo-Catholics, Messianic Jews, etc) have played the “religion” card. They began by persuading the world that the Jews’ reentrance into Palestine in 1948 was by divine right, and they claim it is God’s further plan for Israel to reassume the borders of Solomon, or what the Neo-con demographers are now calling “Greater Israel” (See Michael Collins Piper: Grand Etat D’Israel, Du Nil Jusqu’ À L’Euphrate [translated: “Greater Israel: From the Nile to the Euphrates,”] in “The High Priests of War,” American Free Press, 2004, p. 109).


How entrenched are the Zionists in America, and even in the heart of Catholicism today? One personal example may suffice to illustrate the point. In a previous article I mentioned how Catholic priest Fr. Richard Neuhaus has been commandeered by the Neo-con political agenda. As we noted, Neuhaus’ magazine, First Things, sports a cadre of Neo-con supporters, while Neuhaus himself has been giving lectures at the American Enterprise Institute, specializing in globalization of American political interests. But this only scratches the surface. The deeper truth is that, Fr. Neuhaus did not start First Things by his own sweat and blood. It was bankrolled by wealthy Jews, the foremost being Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter, two of the most prominent Zionist Jews in America today. As noted previously, Podhoretz and Decter are members of the Project for the New American Century, which is the Neo-con think tank established to implement militaristic means to take over the Middle East. Podhoretz is on the Council of Foreign Relations as well as the editor emeritus of Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee, which frequently accuses its anti-Iraq war critics of “anti-Semitism.” (Irving Kristol, one of many Jewish “New York intellectuals,” and father of Weekly Standard editor, William Kristol, was Commentary’s first editor from 1947-1952). Podhoretz was one of forty Neo-con signers in a Sept. 20, 2001 letter to George Bush pressuring him to attack Iraq, using 9/11 as the rationale for the reprisal. Of course, if the public knew that two Zionist Jews had started an ecumenical Catholic magazine, the magazine would go nowhere. Podhoretz thus asked Fr. Neuhaus to be the front man for the magazine. What did they see in Neuhaus? A Zionist sympathizer who could do their bidding while maintaining the façade of Catholic ecumenism.


These connections were brought to my attention by a series of coincidental events. In the April 2005 issue of First Things, Gary A. Anderson, professor of Old Testament at Notre Dame University, penned the provocative article: “How to Think About Zionism.” Obviously, the mere title shows he is trying to mold our thinking about Israel’s political aspirations. In the article, Anderson proposes one of the most preposterous views I have ever seen in modern biblical scholarship. In brief, he argues that today’s Jews have a divine right to the land of Israel because, as the ancient Jews read the Bible, only the Pentateuch was their canon of Scripture; and since Deuteronomy ends without Israel receiving the land that God promised to Abraham in Genesis, then as far as the Jews are concerned, they have never received the land. Anderson then reinforces this bit of exegetical chicanery by concluding that the promise of land to the Jews is “irrevocable and unfulfilled” and “the Bible would seem to allow only one answer: the return to Zion is the beginning of the messianic era.” He then adds: “we must insist that the promises of Scripture are indeed inviolable and that Israel’s attachment to this land is underwritten by God’s providential decree,” and he ends with: “Is the return to Zion part of God’s providential design and eternal promise to His people Israel? I believe that it is.”


Never mind that in the very next book of the Old Testament, Joshua, it is made crystal clear that God fulfilled all his promises to Abraham concerning Israel’s land acquisition down to the last detail (See Joshua 21:43-45), and which divine fulfillment is repeated to the Jews for the next one thousand years (cf., 1 Kings 8:56 and Nehemiah 9:7-8). But, of course, Anderson and company already know this, for this is the very reason they want to excise these Scriptures from the Jewish canon. Anderson and his Zionist cohorts at First Things are on a mission, and they will stoop to adding to and subtracting from the divine word in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the ignorant.
After reading Anderson’s article, I immediately sent off a critique to the editor of First Things. In a reply to me, John Rose, the “editorial assistant,” said the editors read my critique “with interest,” but they had no intentions of publishing it. I sent a letter back to them asking why, but they never responded. A week later, I received a call from a traditional Catholic who once had a long conversation with one of the writers for First Things. The writer was a Jewish man who, by his own admission, was hired by Podhoretz and Decter to slant First Things toward the Zionist agenda. Now we know why Neuhaus would feature an article with the title “How to Think About Zionism.” He is simply dancing to the tune of his Zionist puppeteers. My Catholic source further revealed: “When I related my suspicion that the impending Iraq invasion was really to secure Israel, the writer merely smiled and nodded.”


To be fair to Neuhaus, however, he asserts to his critics that he is merely following what high-placed prelates in the Catholic Church have advocated. Neuhaus is partially correct. After Vatican II there was an unofficial movement in the prelature to treat Judaism as a viable religion in itself. Certain cardinals, and an unofficial statement from John Paul II in 1980, seemed to advocate the theological position that the ‘Old Covenant was never revoked,’ with the corollary that Jews could be saved in their own religion and need not be “targeted” with Christian evangelization.


These newfangled notions came to a head two years ago when William Cardinal Keeler and the USCCB, along with prominent Jewish religious leaders, co-authored the 2003 document titled Reflections on Covenant and Mission. One of the more alarming assertions of the document was: “...while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God.” If there was ever a statement that had the ring of heresy, this was it.


Cardinal Kasper, a thorough-going liberal, had set the pace when he stated to the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in New York on May 1, 2001:


“The old theory of substitution [i.e., that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant] is gone since the Second Vatican Council. For us Christians today the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality....Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises....Thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the true and one God. Therefore – and this is characteristic – there does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews. There is dialogue with Jews; no mission in this proper sense of the word towards them.”


Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, as printed by Catholic New World, March 19, 2000, said: “...the Church has also sinned against the Jewish people, first of all, in teaching that God’s covenant with Israel is no longer valid for them.” The late Cardinal John O’Connor told Ted Koppel on the show Nightline that a young man who recently left the Catholic faith for Judaism was doing the right thing. He stated: “He doesn’t need it, but he has my blessing, if we’re going to call it such, because I believe that’s what the Church teaches...Christ came into the world as a Jew. We believe He was the Son of God. But He came for everybody.”


By 1992, Cardinal Willebrands was fully taken in by the prevailing view dictated by the French Jewish historian, Jules Isaac, whose 1971 book, Jesus and Israel, claimed that the Catholic Church’s understanding of the Jews for the last two thousand years had been prejudicial and distorted, and that, in reality, the Jews were not under the judgment of God. The Diaspora was merely the result of “Roman imperialism,” not a loss of faith among the Jews. Willebrands then wrote his own book, The Church and the Jewish People, which embellished Isaac’s viewpoint. John Paul II then appointed Willebrands as head of the Council for Christian Unity, stating: “Your work for Jewish-Christian harmony is most important.”


As for Willebrands’ complete advocacy against converting the Jews, he was asked “how it can be possible that the Church no longer advocates conversion of the Jews after centuries of the opposite doctrine and numerous efforts during various periods at forced conversions, he draws himself up with visible exasperation and vehemently states, ‘To proselytize is not an attitude of love, nor is it one of knowledge!....As for the Jews, God made a promise to them, and God does not go back on his promises’” (Darcy O’Brien, The Hidden Pope, p. 310).


In November 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) issued a 210-page report titled: “The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” which, among other troublesome things, stated: “…the Jewish messianic wait is not in vain.” It further opined that Jews and Christians share their wait for the Messiah, as Jews are waiting for the first coming and Christians for the second. It added an apology to the Jewish people for ‘anti-Semitic passages’ contained in the New Testament, and also stressed the continuing importance of the Torah for Christians. That the PBC thinks it has to apologize for Scripture should come as no surprise to those who have been following their liberal scholarship for the past 40 years. Ever since the 1964 commission study on Scripture, the PBC has been promoting the idea that many of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ sayings recorded in the New Testament are not inspired by the Holy Spirit.


So Neuhaus is partially correct. He is right in line with liberal Zionist Catholic prelates, and Norman Podhoretz has taken full advantage of this fact in starting a Catholic political magazine permeated with Neo-con Zionism and a Catholic priest at the helm.


Unfortunately for Neuhaus, official Catholic teaching does not support his contentions. In official documents, John Paul II, as conciliatory as he was toward the Jewish people, had stated quite clearly that the Old Covenant was completely fulfilled in the New Covenant, and that the New Covenant is the only covenant that is “eternal and irrevocable” (Mulieris Dignitatem, 5, 11; Redemptoris Custos, 9; 11; 32; Dominicae Cenae, 9; The Church and Racism, 3, 20; Evangelium Vitae, 25).


Paul VI said the same in Gaudette in Domino, II, as did Vatican II in Nostra Aetate, Relation to Non-Christian Religions, 4; and Lumen Gentium, 1, 6; 2, 9. Vatican II also stated that the Church was the “New Israel” (Ad Gentes 1, 5; Lumen Gentium 2, 9). Even the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) contradicts what Kasper, Keeler and the Pontifical Biblical Commission teach. In Instruction on Liberation Theology, 4 and Libertatis Conscentia, 49 the CDF states that the Old Covenant is defunct and that Jews are invited into the New Covenant in order to receive salvation.


Needless to say, we have been getting mixed signals from the hierarchy, but traditional Catholicism is all about listening to the right voice and separating it out from the cacophony of error, personal opinion, and outright deception permeating much of the prelature today.
Following Neuhaus, other Catholic organizations are also becoming fronts for Zionism. Catholic Answers in San Diego and the Eternal World Television Network seem to be the two mainstays. They are enamored with Jewish converts, but do very little to censor the erroneous theology being propagated by them. Among the more popular names featured are David and Rosalind Moss, Roy Schoeman and Marty Barrack. Roy Schoeman, for example, although he comes across as a sincere Catholic convert, his book, Salvation is from the Jews: The Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming (Ignatius Press, 2003) is one of the most audacious attempts at promoting the Zionist agenda ever written.


It is Schoeman’s belief that, on various issues, the Catholic Church has been wrong for “two-thousand years,” since her teaching that the New Covenant superseded the Old Covenant is in error, with Schoeman’s “alternative” theology holding that the Old Covenant will be used to fulfill the New Covenant (pp. 352-353). He also believes that the Jewish occupation of Israel is the result of God’s promised favor upon the Jews; that their entrance into Palestine in 1948 and their six-day war in 1967 against the Arabs was specifically predicted and sanctioned by Old Testament prophecy (pp. 306-313); that the Temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem under God’s direction for the purposes of practicing Judaism (pp. 314-315); and that anyone who opposes these events is part of a “diabolical attempt to prevent the Second Coming” (p. 316), and all despite the fact that there are less Christians in Israel today, per capita, then in the time of Jesus.


David Moss endorses Schoeman’s book with a blurb on the back cover. He and his sister, Rosalind Moss, believe that Rabbinic Judaism, rather than being an anti-Christian cult, is a “temporary provision allowed by God to preserve the Jewish people.” Moss also teaches that, rather than Christians being ingrafted into Christ, they are grafted into Israel, since in his idiosyncratic exegesis of Romans 11:17 he sees Israel as the “root,” not Christ. Moss has no qualms about telling Catholics to “go to a local synagogue and watch what they do and listen to it. You can take part in a Seder” (EWTN, March 7, 2005). Echoing Cardinals Kasper, Keeler and Willebrands, he insists that Vatican II “ceased from targeting peoples for conversion....we no longer have a program of direct evangelization.” Rosalind Moss adds: “I could not agree more. Nor should attempts to ‘target” any people be the mode of operation in our missionary endeavors.” Marty Barrack, author of Second Exodus, also follows the Zionist theology of Schoeman and Moss, although I was forbidden to reveal what he wrote to me because he insisted on “copyright privileges” for all his emails.


EWTN continues to further the Neo-con/Zionist agenda. On July 8, 2005, Sean Hannity was the featured guest of Raymond Arroyo’s The World Over. Arroyo promoted Hannity’s book, Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism, a book which is a typical example of the mixture of selective moralism and Neo-con politics in order to convince the public that the only solution for the world’s troubles is an American “pre-emptive” military strategy in the Middle East. As Publisher’s Weekly said about Hannity’s book: “And so Hannity joins the ‘neocon’ chorus, positing that totalitarian regimes, such as Hussein’s in Iraq…serve as breeding grounds for evil, thus justifying President Bush’s policy of pre-emptive action against countries that could threaten American interests.”


Sometimes these organizations feature the Neo-con/Zionist agenda with people who are not even Catholics. Case in point is Catholic Answers’ upcoming “Apologetics Cruise” scheduled for November 2005 to the Mexican Riviera. One of the guest speakers who has received top billing for the cruise is the popular commentator, Michael Medved – a Jewish man who practices and advocates Judaism. That Keating would stoop this low to draw in the dollars and headliners shows the direction Catholic Answers is headed. The ad on the Catholic Answers website (www.catholic.com) touts Medved as: “a film critic, best-selling author, and nationally syndicated radio talk show host. His daily three-hour program emphasizes the intersection of politics and pop culture and reaches over two million listeners,” but that tells you very little about the identity behind the persona. Since the Catholic Answers ad also says: “For more information on Mr. Medved’s radio show, please visit his website: www.michaelmedved.com,” a search of the site reveals a man who is one of the most extreme Zionist political voices in the media today.


After reading a few of Medved’s fever-pitched Zionist opinions on the website, it comes as little surprise to find in his article titled: “War Films, Hollywood and Popular Culture” (May 19, 2005) that he shows not the slightest compunction in coining the word “Islamo-facism” to refer to the religion of Islam. Obviously, not being Catholic, Medved never read Catholic Answers’ citations of paragraph 841 of the Catholic Catechism.


Medved is regular contributor to The American Enterprise magazine, a collection of Neo-con political warmongers, including Dick Cheney, William Bennett, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Novak, Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, William F. Buckley, and whose editor, Karl Zinsmeister writes books with such titles as “Dawn Over Baghdad: How the U.S. Military is Using Bullets and Ballots to Remake Iraq” (June 2005); as well as articles with the title “How America’s SWAT Team Helped Swat Saddam” (June 2003), which are advertised in bold four-color ink. But to convince his readers that their brand of political imperialism has divine sanction, Zinsmeister also co-authored an article titled: “Things Go Better With God” (Oct./Nov. 2003). How touching.


Medved’s further connection to the Neo-con political machine, his personal desire for American imperialism, and his utter hatred for Muslims and their religion is boldly displayed in the aforementioned article. He writes:


“Here we are with our country engaged in what Norman Podhoretz has rightly called World War IV (World War III being the Cold War), with Americans serving not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but all over the world, trying to keep us safe here in the U.S. And our enemies do, after all, have a name and address: They are Islamic and facist and they aim at our annihilation.”
Sparing no demagoguery against his arch-religious rivals, Medved then compares Islam to Hitler. Notice also his appeal to “violence” as the cure:


“What solved Hitler was violence. And what will solve the problem of Islamo-facist terrorism, I’m sorry to say, is not understanding, negotiation, conferences, social workers, daisies, or anything other than the heroic violence of brave men and woman with guns, fighting selflessly for their country, this greatest nation on God’s green earth?”


According to Medved, we can forget about evangelism or even a peaceful co-existence. He is on a witch hunt and will not be deterred. And what is the source for Medved’s wisdom? When it comes to touting his Judaism, Medved is not at a loss for words. In an interview posted on the American Enterprise Online website, Medved states:


“Resh Lakish was a former thief and a lowlife who became one of the great rabbis of the Talmud. An amazing number of scholars and figures in the Torah are people who are converts to Judaism, who had no religious commitment at all, who turned their lives around.”
“Judaism believes in changing the heart by changing your actions. Christianity tends to emphasize changing your actions by changing your heart. In this sense, serious Judaism sets you up very well to reject the liberal scam that we are wonderful and nice people not because we actually help anyone, but because we want to help.”


So in Medved’s view, Judaism has a better way to truth, sincerity and action than Christianity; and, to him, converts to Judaism have proven such to be the case. Did Mr. Keating read Mr. Medved’s bio before he invited him to the cruise? The frightening thing is, he probably did. Perhaps in the middle of Medved’s talk on the last day of the Catholic Answers cruise Mr. Keating should ask the $64,000 question: “So, Michael, what do you think of Jesus Christ?” I would like to be there for that one. Rest assured, Mr. Keating would never be so forward with Mr. Medved. Perish the thought. After all, we are in the age of ecumenism (at least with the Isaac-side of Abraham’s sons)!

PART II


Ariel Sharon has pulled his Jewish settlers out of the Gaza Strip. He is to be commended for his decision, especially in the face of objections from hard-liner Benjamin Netanyahu. Sharon’s pull out tells us, however, that Israel is finally admitting it should have never confiscated the land originally. It was seized in the “six-day” war in 1967 based on Israel’s claims it was being attacked by the Arabs. In actuality, there was no attack.


Nevertheless, the pull out from Gaza seems out of character for Sharon. In 1971, the 43-year old Sharon, knowing that Gaza was filled with Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war, brought in dozens of bulldozers to smash 2,000 houses to the ground, uprooting 16,000 people (London Independent, 1971). Stunned by what it was discovering about Sharon, the Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, did an investigation. It reported that beginning in 1953 Sharon was part of Unit 101, a special squad organized to attack Arabs. Ha’aretz writes: “Unit 101's purpose was that of instilling terror by the infliction of discriminate, murderous violence not only on able-bodied fighters but on the young, the old, the helpless.” In August 1953 Sharon attacked the innocent refuge camp of El-Bureig, south of Gaza, where 50 refugees were killed, mercilessly. Sharon would trap the people in houses with machine gun fire and then throw incendiary devices through the windows to blow them up. Two months later, Sharon attacked Qibya on the West Bank where 60 Jordanians were slaughtered by the same tactics. Even Moshe Sharett, Israel’s foreign minister, said Sharon’s attacks were a “stain that would stick to us and not be washed away for many years.” Avi Shlaim, Israeli historian, called Sharon’s actions a “war crime.” Finally, the U.S. State Department demanded that those responsible “should be brought to account.” Sharon tried to cover his tracks by claiming that he thought the houses were empty. In 1969 Sharon was reassigned to Israel’s Defense Force where he continued to bring terror on Palestinians.


In 1973, Sharon decided to capture control of the Suez Canal. Upon questioning from the Israeli military tribunal, Sharon was found to have violated strict orders. He was soon dismissed from the military altogether. Sharon then managed to find his way back as an advisor for Yitshak Rabin and later as an agricultural minister under Menachem Begin. Here Sharon used his newly acquired political muscle to establish Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip, causing further agitation in the region. In 1982, against U.S. demands, Israel invaded Lebanon and attacked West Beirut. Here Sharon massacred 3000 refugees over 62 hours in the camps of Sabra and Shatilla. Mind you, these were defenseless civilians, as were all refugees. Not only were they killed, but Ha’aretz reported that they were “mutilated or disemboweled before or after they were killed.” So outrageously demonic were these attacks that a special commission was formed to investigate the incident, headed by Yitzhak Kahan, president of Israel’s Supreme Court. Siding with Sharon, they whitewashed his crime by saying he was only “indirectly” responsible for the massacre because he “hired” the Phalange militia who did the actual killing. The United Nations General Assembly, although very cautious about criticizing Israel, stated that the attacks on Sabra and Shatilla were “acts of genocide.”


Hence, knowing as we do Sharon’s notorious history in dealing with the Gaza Strip, the impetus to pull out had to have come from great pressure put on him by the United States and Britian. The most likely reason is that both countries simply do not want another suicide bomb exploding in a crowded subway, the latest such explosion occurring in London a couple of months ago. Evidence is already pouring in that both the Oklahoma City bombing and the downing of TWA flight 800 were masterminded by former Iraqi soldiers who had already settled in the United States under the aegis of the Clinton administration. McVeigh and Nichols are said to have been commandeered by these middle-eastern agents (Evening Standard, London, 10-21-02). So clear is the evidence that Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch has filed suit in U.S. district court against the Republic of Iraq on behalf of Oklahoma City victims. News of these things is systematically being kept from the American public, probably for fear of admitting to us how deeply entrenched the terrorists are on our soil (See Dr. Dennis Cuddy’s meticulously documented book: Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth, 2003). In any case, since 1980 it has been evident beyond reasonable doubt that when the U.S. and Israel stop the incursion into Arab territory, the suicide bombings cease. In his article “Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” Robert Pape made a thorough study of the issue (as cited in The American Conservative, 7-18-05). He found that the motivation of the terrorist attacks is not “Islamofacism” (the favorite excuse of the Neo-cons) but…


…to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide terrorist campaign – over 95% of all incidents – has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.


Pape then shows the statistics to prove the case. Prior to the Gulf War…
Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly, with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year since the U.S. invasion, suicide terrorism has doubled….Far from making us safer against terrorism, the operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorists and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life….[when we] withdraw from the homeland of the terrorists, they often stop – and stop on a dime.


As Pat Buchanan has noted of Pape’s discovery: “Pape is saying that President Bush has got is backward: The Iraq war is not eliminating terrorism, it is creating terrorists” (“Why Are They Killing Us,” The Wanderer, 7-21-05). In addition to the U.S. invasions, the Oslo Peace accord that Israel signed in 1993 was supposed to have disallowed Israel from establishing any new settlements, but since that time over 250 settlements have been created, many in the Gaza Strip, while at the same time thousands of Palestinian homes have been destroyed in the region. The recipe is simple. The Arabs and the Muslims don’t want our “democracy” our capitalism our imperialism, our western decadence, and they certainly don’t want us to steal their oil or their land. As long as we ignore this recipe, they will fight to the death to stop us. They only way to win is to totally wipe them out, which, unfortunately, is on the minds of some of these war-lord Neo-cons in Washington.


In order to accomplish their imperialistic fantasy, the Neo-cons are desperately trying to get Catholics on their side, since we seem to be their biggest opponent. In the latest issue of New Oxford Review, editor Dale Vree reveals that, when he started his magazine he was…


…contacted by a neo-con foundation – right out of the blue. The foundation wanted to give us money – “free” money. A fellow flew out from the east coast and asked me to meet him for drinks in a San Francisco restaurant – on him. He told me he would fund us regularly – if we would support corporate capitalism and if we would support a militaristic foreign policy.
So there you have it. They are trying to bribe us with their money coffers. Incidentally, Vree also adds that the Catholic magazines Crisis and First Things were also approached by these neo-con capitalists with the same offer. Not surprisingly, Deal Hudson and Fr. Richard Neuhaus, both accepted. The culprits in Neuhaus’ case were Norman Podheretz and his wife Midge Decter, which in exchange for giving him Jewish financial backing, required him to support the Zionist/Neo-con agenda. As we saw in our last article, Neuhaus has gladly capitulated for the last 15 years. The latest issue of First Things has an article with the title: “How to Think about Zionism,” advancing the ludicrous argument that since the ancient Jews didn’t read past the Pentateuch, then as far as today’s Israelis are concerned, the Promised Land was never received from God and thus have the right to possess it now. Incidentally, records show that since 1990, First Things has received a whopping $8,217,500 from these Neo-con foundations.


Back to Ariel Sharon. For all Sharon’s aggressiveness, history shows that he was merely following the legacy of his predecessors. Previously we noted David ben Gurion’s opening speech to the Knesset in 1948 in which, under a thunderous round of applause, he boasted that it was Israel’s intent to acquire, by military force or clandestine operations, the Solomonic borders of the 10th century BC, a vast land grab that extends to the Euphrates river, the Sinai peninsula and about half of Saudi Arabia. But ben Gurion’s sights were set not only on geographical treasures, but also for Israel to be the supreme religious-political beacon of the world. In the January 16, 1962 issue of Look magazine, ben Gurion is quoted:


All continents will become unified in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more war. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the prophets to serve the federated union of all continents. This will be the seat of the Supreme Court of mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.


Even Jewish authors recognize the global designs and ruthless tactics of the Israeli government since 1948. In the book The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians by Moshe Lieberman, he recounts some of the secret and not-so-secret Israeli incursions and clandestine activity. Here is a short list of them:


On July 2, 1946, 33-year old Menachem Begin organized the bombing of the King David Hotel in which 91 people died. The purpose of the attack was to convince the British to leave Palestine so that Israel could take over.


On April 9, 1948, Begin, with the Irgun assassination gang, led a massacre of 260 Arab civilians at Deir Yassin.


On Sept 17, 1948, 33 year old Yitzhak Shamir and his Stern gang assassinated Swedish peace mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte.


On October 14, 1953, 25-year old Ariel Sharon ordered an attack on the Palestinian settlement, Qibya, destroying 42 homes and 60 civilians.


On July 14, 1954, the Israeli Army intelligence squad known then by the name of Modin, under Prime Minister Moshe Sharett, firebombed a civilian post office in Egypt.


In 1956, the Israeli army under David Ben-Gurion attacked the settlement Kafr Qasim and committed 47 cold-blooded murders.


In 1966, the same army under prime minister Levi Eshkol attacked the settlement village of Sammu and killed 18 people and wounded 100.


In 1967, just prior to the six-day war, the Israeli air force under Levi Eshkol, made an unprovoked attack against the USS Liberty killing 34 soldiers and wounding 170, destroying the ship’s radio towers and lifeboats in hopes that there would be no survivors.


In 1969, the same army bombed a civilian school building named Bahdr al Baker killing 75 and wounding 100 innocent children.


In March 1970, under Golda Meir, the Israeli army invaded Lebanon killing scores of innocent civilians.


On Sept. 8, 1972, the same army arbitrarily decided to bomb Syrian and Lebanese civilians killing hundreds of innocent people.


In 1974, the same army under Yitzhak Rabin attacked civilian aircraft and desecrated Christian shrines including the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and stole the diamond crown of the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary.


From 1975 to 1980, the Israeli secret service, the Mossad, conducted a bloody campaign of murder against Palestinian scientists, journalists and other important people.


In October 1982, the same Mossad bombed the houses, offices and cars of three legitimately elected mayors of the West Bank cities, Nablus, Ramallah and Al Beireh.


In February 1989 Yitzhak Shamir bombed the Beka Valley killing 15 children and an unspecified number of their parents.


On April 14, 1989, the Israeli police and armed Jewish settlers attacked a disarmed Palestinian village, Nahalin, killing 8 and wounding 50.


Through March 6-16, 2002, the Israeli army slaughtered over 200 Palestinians.


On March 30, 2002, Sharon’s army arbitrarily executed five Palestinian bank guards.


On April 8, 2002, Sharon’s army bombed the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.


The next day, April 9, the same army massacred Palestinian civilians living in Jenin, which, incidentally, is the date of the Israeli holiday, Holocaust Remembrance Day.


Yet the Israelis wonder why the Arab/Moslem world has no love loss for them. Unfortunately, the world has been trained by the Anti-Defamation League to put the whole blame on the Muslim “terrorists,” but Israel has shown over and over again that they are just as terror-minded as their Arab counterparts. As Harry Truman once said:


“The Jews have no sense of proportion, nor do they have any judgment on world affairs. The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as Displaced Persons, as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power – physical, financial or political – neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog.” (President Harry S. Truman, unpublished diary entry of July 21, 1947, Washington Post, July 11, 2003, cited by Michael A. Hoffman II).


H. G. Wells once remarked: “There is room for some very serious research into the question why anti-Semitism emerges in every country the Jews reside in” (The Controversy of Zion, G. Wheatcroft, 1996, p. 340). Benjamin Ginsberg, Jewish author of The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, asks the same question: “Why is it that during so many different times and in so many different places, Jews have achieved enormous status, wealth and power only to be cast down, driven out – or worse?” (1993, p. ix). His answer is:


Jews frequently sought the protection of the state. For their own purposes, rulers often were happy to accommodate the Jews in exchange for the services that the latter could provide…As a result of this relationship…Jews sometimes achieved great power. Their relationship with the state, however, also exposed Jews to new hatred and antagonisms. For the Jews, under some circumstances, the embrace of the state proved to be fatal. These considerations…are also central to understanding the past – and potential future – of Jews in America.
To make matters worse, Jews often, secretly or not so secretly, conceive themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to their neighbors…Indeed, Jews are extremely successful outsiders who sometimes have the temerity to rub it in (The Fatal Embrace, p. ix, as cited in Piper’s The New Jerusalem).


In light of Ginsberg’s statement, we find that the history of the Jewish people is one continuing saga of reinvention and revolution. After their first decimation in 70 AD under the hands of the Roman Titus, the remaining Jews continued to harbor thoughts of Messianism, which led to further revolts against the Romans. About 60 years later, Simon bar Kokhba, who had amassed an army of 400,000 Jewish troops and was deemed as Israel’s prophesied “messiah,” became quite a success when he defeated many of the Roman legions assigned to the area. These soldiers, who had bitten off one of their fingers to show their allegiance to Bar Kokhba, were also known to eat the flesh of their defeated foes. But finally the Roman general Hadrian was simply too much for the Jews. After cutting off their food supply by way of the sea, he eventually razed Jerusalem to the ground in 135 AD. Having been ousted for the final time from Jerusalem, many of the remaining Jews migrated to Babylon under the leadership of the Pharisees and remained there for the next 1000 years. There the Pharisees created the Babylonian Talmud, which introduced new laws and customs for the Jews. A semitic proverb was soon coined: ‘what the Torah forbids, the Talmud permits.’

Needless to say, the Talmud was thoroughly anti-Christian, both theologically and morally. The original versions (e.g., the Soncino edition) state that Christ is in hell being punished in boiling excrement (Gitten 56a-57a); that he was “Balaam” and a “false prophet,” that Mary “played the harlot with carpenters” (Gitten 51a; Sanhedrin 106b); and that Jesus was a bastard born of from adultery (Kallah 51a). Gentiles were considered “non-human” and “animals” (Sanhedrin 74b, Yebamoth 98a), and “the best of them should be killed” (Abhodah Zarah 26b). (See Michael A. Hoffman II’s Judaism’s Strange Gods).


After fomenting revolution in Babylon, the Jews were forced to leave. Some of them migrated to Khazaria in southern Russia and converted the king to Judaism. But the Monguls eventually drove the Jews out of Khazaria and so they began to settle in eastern Europe, mainly Poland, and came to be known as Ashkenazi Jews. The Sephardic Jews, which make up the other 20% of Jewry, settled in western Europe. These bloodlines still exist today. For example, Yitshak Shamir and Menachem Begin are Ashkanazi; while Shimon Peres is Sephardic.


While in Europe the Jews became more prominent in society, especially in banking and other financial matters. At this time the religious Jews created the Kabbalah and the Zohar. Full of mysticism and the occult, they were the Jewish version of the Gnostic heresy of the first centuries AD. The Kabbalah taught that God is an unconscious being and unknowable by the world, but that he communicates with the Jews through levels of “sepharim.” It teaches that the Jews would one day rule the world, while the Zohar teaches that non-Jews do not have souls and therefore are not human; and that “redemption will not be complete until Amalek will be exterminated” (Bereshith 47a; 25b, Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing, 1971). (NB: “Amalekites” is the term modern day Israelis often give to their Arab neighbors). The Jewish philosopher, Moses Mimonides, attempted to curb such anti-social behavior by mixing Greek philosophy and Jewish tradition, but he was later excommunicated by his own people. Eventually, these new politico-religious twists in Jewish thinking forced popes Boniface VIII and Eugene IV to clamp down hard, declaring in infallible decrees that only through the Catholic Church could one receive salvation, and that “Jews and heretics” were destined for eternal damnation unless they remained in the bosom of the Church.


By the 1700’s the Jews were well entrenched in Europe and began to see themselves as the movers and shakers of world politics, finance and religion. Moses Mendelssohn’s (d. 1786) writings understand the Jews as the “God-given reformers of society.” The attempt to dominate society was demonstrated no better than when the Jews, under influence of such figures as Moses Hess and Karl Marx (famous for the Communist Manifesto which promotes Hegel’s “master-slave” philosophy), joined the Bolsheviks in Russia in order to topple the Christian Czar, a murder plotted by Jewish lieutenants Jacob Sverdlov and Jacob Yurovsky. On October 1, 1929, Jewish World magazine admitted the influx: “…there is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest teachings of Judaism…” Rabbi J. L. Magnes stated: “Revolutionaries, Socialists, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks… whatever name one assigns to them, all are Jews, and one finds them as the chiefs or the workers in all revolutionary parties” (“Lenin’s Willing Executioners,” Culture Wars, 9-02, p. 32). According to a U.S. State Dept. report published in 1931, Jewish bankers in the United States, England and Germany (e.g., the Rothschilds, Max Warburg, Jacob Schiff, Kuhn-Loeb, et al) financed the Bolshevik revolution since they knew that most of the Bolsheviks were Jewish.


Vladimir Lenin, part Jewish from his mother’s side, chose officers that were predominately Jewish. His Jewish lieutenants included Leon Trotsky (originally Lev Davidovich Bronstein) and Lazar Kagonovich, both of whom were responsible for the unmitigated slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Christians in Russia, which they called “insects.” The Black Marias would come in the night and take families out of their homes to board cattle cars headed for the Gulag. They raped the woman and girls and sodomized the men and boys while other children were sacrificed – all perhaps part of a Kabbalistic/Illuminati ritual for world dominance. The international RNS wire service reported that thousands of clergy were tortured and crucified during the 60 years of communist rule. Tens of thousands of churches were destroyed in the same period. In fact, the concentration camps and genocide instigated by the Jewish communists in Russia against Christians and other groups dwarf those against the Jews in Nazi Germany. Hitler was merely modeling what was already practiced in Russia, a fact ignored by such Jewish authors as Daniel Goldhagen. Contrasted to the dozens of concentration camps in Hilter’s regime, the Russian Jews had thousands of such camps (T. Marrs, “Concentration Camps in America,” 2002), but evidence of these camps have been systematically destroyed and their existence denied by the Jewish controlled media in Russia and the United States (See M. Specter, “Cold Reminder,” N. Y. Times, Dec 3, 1994; and prize-winning Jewish reporter, rabbi Jonathan Sack, An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge against Germans in 1945, March 1995). In fact, Sir Eyre Crowe stated: “What may appear to be outrages against the Jews, may be – in the eyes of the Russians – retaliation against the horrors committed by the Bolsheviks who were organized and directed by the Jews” (“Lenin’s Willing Executioners: Jews and Bolshevism,” Culture Wars, 9-02, p. 20).


The list goes on and on. Even the Encyclopedia Judaica says under the category “Communism”: “The Communist movement and ideology played an important part in Jewish life, particularly in the 1920s and 1930s, and during and after World War II.” As early as 1918 the western powers had come to realize that Communism was run almost entirely by atheistic Jews. 75% of all Russian commissars were Jewish. This is precisely why Pope Pius XII later stated that the Soviet Republic was run by Russian Jews (letter to Cardinal Gasparri), which, not coincidentally, earned him the label “anti-Semite” from John Cornwall in Hitler’s Pope, but which was later discovered to be the result of Cornwall’s twisted translation of Pius XII’s Italian language (“Lenin’s Willing Executioners,” Culture Wars, 9-02, pp. 22-27).


Astute Catholics who know their history can connect the dots rather easily. It was precisely at this time that Our Lady appeared to Sr. Lucia (1917, 1929, 1946) and spoke of the evils of Russia that would spread to the world unless the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was performed. Now we know why. The leadership in Russia was comprised mainly of atheistic, anti-Christian, communist Jews who had a lot of money and power behind them. The Jews had already dethroned the Christian Czar who had ruled in the Romanov dynasty for nearly five centuries, and more ominous threats were on the horizon, indeed, the rest of the world was in their crosshairs. Curiously, Our Lady never mentioned a word about Germany.
Few of these events passed by those who were informed, however. Winston Churchill stated in a speech in 1920:


“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism…by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly a very great one…It may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity had rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of the Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people” (Illustrated Sunday Herald, London, Feb. 18, 1920, cited in “The Other Israel” by T. Pike).


As we have documented earlier, our Catholic saints and doctors have said the same thing. The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia predicts that the anti-Christ will come from Jewry. The 1936 Catholic Encyclopedia followed this by predicting that a Temple would be built for him in Jerusalem:


“Many of the Fathers believe that Antichrist will be of Jewish extraction, of the tribe of Dan, will be circumcised, will rebuild Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple, in which he will set himself up as God. Likewise, he is to begin his work of seduction among the Jews who will accept him as the Messiah. Thus St. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, v. 30, PG VII, 1206) says of Antichrist: ‘Jeremias does not merely point out his sudden coming, but he even indicates the tribe from which he shall come, where he says: We shall hear the voice of his swift horses from Dan; he shall come and devour the earth’ [Jr 8:16].


Not only do the Fathers have much to say on these eventualities, the medievals were just as informed. St. Anselm, in his Details Concerning the Antichrist, will suffice for an example:
“Towards the end of the world Antichrist will draw the hearts of the Jews to him by his great generosity and sympathetic attitude so much so that they will praise him as a demi-god;”....“For, the Temple which Solomon built having been destroyed, in its place he [Antichrist] shall restore it, he shall circumcise himself, and he shall give forth the lie that he is the son of the omnipotent God.”


Even after Joseph Stalin’s purges, Jews remained in Russia in large numbers. Jonathan Brent’s book Stalin’s Last Crime documents that, as Stalin began to move against the Zionists in Russia, he was eventually murdered, Kaganovich’s followers being the prime suspects. Nikita Kruschev complained in 1956 that upwards of 50% of his government officials and staff were Jewish, and obviously communists. Around this time also, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who also had a Jewish ancestry from both his mother and father (which was made public by the Daily Citizen of Tuscon of Feb 29, 1934; the Detroit Jewish Chronicle in 1935; the New York Times of March 14, 1935; The Revelator of Wichita of Oct. 18, 1936), brought in a large number of Jewish socialists into his administration. The Encyclopedia Judaica states that FDR’s liberal-socialist policies “endeared him to the Jewish community which shared with him an overriding commitment to the welfare state.” In 1949, of the 11 members of the Communist politburo who were convicted of espionage, 8 were Jews. In 1951, of 21 arrested for communism, 14 were Jewish. The influx of Jewish communists and socialists into American government eventually fomented the McCarthy era, but little success was made in rooting them out. Richard Nixon once said in 1971: “The only two non-Jews in the communist conspiracy were Chambers and Hiss…Every other one was a Jew and it raised hell with us” (White House tape released by the National Archives in 1999; cited in N.Y. Times, Oct 7, 1999, and Newsweek, Oct 18, 1999, p. 30, cited by Michael A. Hoffman II). Vladimir Putin is now dealing with the remaining Zionists in Russia, which comprises a group of Jewish billionaires known as “the Oligarchs” who are trying to maintain their control over the Russian economy and press.


After World War II, many Jews migrated to America, making Jewry in the United States twice that of Europe. Today, of 14.4 million Jews worldwide, 40% live in the United States, while another 40% live in Israel. As some have discovered, America has become the “New Jerusalem” for the Jews (M. Piper, The New Jerusalem, 2004). In the period of 1950-1980, before the Reagan era, most liberal and communist Jews were found on the left side of the political spectrum. Up until the 1980s, 50% of the Democratic funding came from Jewish gifts; and the Jews had a lot of money to give. Although the Jews comprise less than 3% of the U.S. population, they possess over 50% of its billionaires (B. Ginsburg, The Fatal Embrace, p. 1).


Having virtual control of the U.S. media, the Jews spread their philosophy far and wide. The three major television networks, which started to promote anti-Christian morality beginning around the late 1960s, were begun by Jews (NBC: David Sarnoff; ABC: Leonard Goldenson; CBS: William Paley). Jews own the four largest Hollywood film studios. The Encyclopedia Judaica, under “Motion Pictures,” says that, with the exception of United Artists, “all the large Hollywood companies were founded and controlled by Jews.” The largest of these is MCA, known in the industry as “The Octopus,” which is run by Lou Wasserman, long recognized as the “king of Hollywood.” According to author Neal Gabler, “the Jews invented Hollywood” in order to promote their culture and their dominance over society (An Empire of Their Own, 1988).
The decadent moral philosophy of these Hollywood moguls has been apparent for quite some time. The1983 Lichter-Rothman poll found that of all media executives, 97% were for abortion; 80% said homosexuality was not immoral and 86% favored homosexual teachers; and 57% said adultery was not immoral. A whopping 60% of these executives were “raised in the Jewish religion,” out of an American Jewish population of less than 3%. If you’ve ever wondered why our televisions and movie houses are just bursting with sexual immorality and violence, this is it. Many of these shows now openly promote the homosexual lifestyle, as well as give us a steady diet of soft and not-so-soft pornography. In fact, pornography has become the favored social debilitator. There are few quicker way to bring a society down from the inside. Once obsessed with pornography, the addict has little time for anything else. The Israeli army is noted for dumping reams of pornographic material into Palestinian settlements, which, of course, only proves to the Muslims that Israel has imbibed western decadence.


A telltale sign in the movie industry of the shift in mores was demonstrated no better than in the Walt Disney corporation. Founder Walter Disney was well-known in the 50s and 60s for wholesome family entertainment. Interestingly enough, Walt had a policy of not hiring Jewish people. Once Walt died, things began to change. Eventually, Jewish entrepreneur Michael Eisner got control of the Disney enterprise and Harvey Weinstein grabbed its subsidiary, Miramax. Soon, Disney studios were turning out sex and violence like all the other studios. The Jewish senior editor of The New Republic, Gregg Easterbrook, finally wrote to Eisner warning him that, “Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can’t possibly miss the message – now Disney’s message – that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself” (“Skin and Discourse,” Culture Wars, 12-03, p. 9). Fortunately, the Disney board eventually forced Eisner out, but not before Easterbrook retracted his criticism of Eisner so that he could pounce on the “violence” depicted in The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson.
Not coincidentally, much of the new frontier in Hollywood’s sexual freedom was begun in the late 1960s by Jewish writer Philip Roth. His book Portnoy’s Complaint (Random House, 1969), which is a 270-page monologue of the main character on a psychiatrist’s couch, was given a glowing Life magazine review, which stated: “…in this 5729th year since the creation of the world, they will hail the birth of a new American hero, Alexander Portnoy…an American masterwork in the tradition of Huckleberry Finn” (2-7-69). In the catharsis promoted by his Freudian-like shrink, Portnoy eventually divests himself of all the moral restraints to which his traditional Jewish religion had bound him, especially those regarding sex, while at the same time Portnoy took his belligerent pot shots at Christianity. He tells his shrink that the “dumb goyim really believe that Christ rose from the dead,” and that a relationship with Gentile women was like “having your Goy and Eating One Too.” As E. Michael Jones reads it:


“Portnoy ushered in the Golden Age of Jewish humor and cultural subversion. The age began in 1965 when the Jews wrested cultural control of the movies from the Catholics by releasing The Pawnbroker (a movie not coincidentally about a Holocaust survivor). Portnoy’s Complaint followed four years later. Four years after that…Erica Jong’s Fear of Flying, the female version of Portnoy, and four years after that, in 1977, Woody Allen did Annie Hall, the real film version of Roth’s book. Woody Allen [formerly Allan Konigsberg], more than anyone else, symbolizes the Jewish ‘reshaping’ of American culture. Shortly after the release of Annie Hall, Time magazine [Jewish owned] eulogized Allen as an American Genius (“Mock Messiah: Jewish Humor and Cultural Subversion,” Culture Wars, 1-04, p. 33).


Often the Zionist agenda of Hollywood’s elite subtly but effectively misdirects the public. Stephen Speilberg is one such example. While inoculating movie-goers with fantasy films such as Jurassic Park, E. T., Jaws and War of the Worlds, at the same time Spielberg promotes his own political sympathies, such as the four-hour long Shindler’s List, which, among other things, depicts scenes of Jewish people jammed in cattle cars. Spielberg would never consider making a film of his ancestors from Russia packing millions of Christians and Muslims in the same cattle cars which were sent by Jewish communists to the Gulag, where most were raped, tortured and killed. The “Holocaust” is all we are allowed to see by the Jewish-controlled media. It is drummed into our heads year after year. As E. Michael Jones has noted:


The Holocaust, now the paradigm of Jewish suffering, has long ceased to be a piece of history, and is now treated by religious and secular Jews alike, as a piece of theology – a sacred text almost – and therefore beyond scrutiny….one may question the Armenian genocide; one may freely discuss the Slave Trade, one can say that…the moon is but a piece of green cheese floating in space, but one may not question the Jewish holocaust. Why? Because, like the rest of the Jewish history of suffering, the Holocaust underpins the narrative of Jewish innocence which is used to bewilder and befuddle any attempt to see and to comprehend Jewish power and responsibility in Israel/Palestine and elsewhere in the world (“Fear of the Jews,” Paul Eisen, Culture Wars, 1-05, pp. 12, 17).


Of course, anyone who tries to point out these and many other problematic issues stemming from the Jewish stranglehold over television and movies will be confronted with the Jewish stranglehold over America’s newspapers that will brand the accuser with the stigma of being “anti-Semitic.” The two most influential newspapers in the world, the New York Times and Washington Post, which are owned by Jews (the Sulzberger family and the Meyer-Graham family), make a practice of enforcing the threat. One exception to the rule is columnist Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. He is unabashedly critical of Ariel Sharon and Zionism, but he says, “If I weren’t a Jew, I might be called an anti-Semite.” According to Cohen, there is a difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, the former of which is “hating Jews on account of supposedly inherent characteristics” (Culture Wars, 9-02, p. 20). Paul Eisen illustrates the difference:


This is the problem with Zionism. It expresses Jewish identity but also empowers it. It tells Jews (and many others too) that Jews can do what Jews have always dreamed of doing. It takes the perfectly acceptable religious feelings of Jews, or if you prefer, the perfectly harmless delusions of Jews, and tries to turn them into a terrible reality. Jewish notions of specialness, choseness and even supremacism, are fine for a small wandering people, but, when they are empowered with a state, and army, and F-16s they become a concern for us all. Zionism, as Jewish empowerment in statehood, changes everything…It is a state that both believes, and uses as justification for its own aggression, the notion that its very survival is always at stake, so anything is justified to ensure that survival. Israel is a state that manifestly believes that the rules of both law and humanity, applicable to all other states, do not apply to it (“Fear of the Jews,” ibid., 1-05, p.12).


Jewish critics such as the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen are far outnumbered, however. The number of pro-Israel/pro-Zionist media outlets in America is staggering. The Sulzbergers also own the NY Times News Service, which provides already-written columns to 650 newspaper and magazine customers across the nation, in addition to owning the Boston Globe, the Santa Barbara News-Press and a half-dozen other newspapers, as well as eight radio stations nationwide. In addition to the Washington Post, Meyer-Graham owns Newsweek, the International Herald Tribune, the Los Angeles/Washington Post News Service, three other newspapers and six radio stations across the U.S. The $7 billion Jewish dynasty of Edgar Bronfman, whose father Sam made his millions in liquor-smuggling during Prohibition, owns AOL-Time Warner, which includes America On-Line, Time magazine, Warner Brothers, HBO, CNN and Paramount Pictures. Jewish executive Jeff Bezos runs AOL, while the Jewish group of Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Andreas Bechtolsheim own the Internet phenomenon, Google. Bronfman’s Seagrams company in Canada (alcohol manufacturers) owns Universal Studios. Incidentally, Edgar Bronfman is also the head of the World Jewish Congress, one of the most powerful Zionist groups in the world.


We also know through the exhaustive effort of Michael Collins Piper’s new 738-page book, Final Judgment, how Bronfman is implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The story begins when Kennedy refused to capitulate to Israel’s demand for nuclear weapons, and you can probably guess the rest of the story. Now, of course, everything is different. Sean McDade of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police assigned to the infamous PROMIS case, concluded that: “The Israelis may now possess all the nuclear secrets of the United States.” George Tenet, director of the CIA, adds: “Pollard stole every worthwhile intelligence secret we had. The American public just doesn’t know the full extent of what he did.” As of this day, Israel is the only country “allowed” to have nuclear weapons, and they possess four nuclear facilities and over 200 nuclear warheads, thanks to the BBC’s detailed investigation.


Other high-profile newspapers also have Jewish owners bent on pro-Israel politics. US News and World Report and The New York Daily News are owned by Mortimer Zuckerman. Commentary is owned by the American Jewish Committee, with editor Norman Podheretz who, as we noted earlier, also financed Fr. Richard Neuhouse’s First Things so that it would print pro-Zionist articles. The New Republic is owned by Martin Peretz, et al. The New York Post and the Weekly Standard are owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is part Jewish. Jewish neo-con, Bill Kristol, is the editor of the Weekly Standard. Some are not owned by Jews but are edited by them. The Wall Street Journal is edited by Peter Kann. Even William F. Buckley, editor of National Review, is part Jewish, according to Walter Trohan of the Chicago Tribune (Piper, The New Jerusalem, pp. 121-122; NB: The Chicago Tribune has been accused of “anti-Semitism” since it has been critical of Israel). Perhaps we now know another reason why William Buckley fired Joe Sobran in 1993 after twenty years of service. Sobran wrote one article criticizing Israel as an “albatross for the U.S.,” and was immediately accused of “anti-Semitism” by Buckley’s friend, Norman Podheretz. That was enough for Buckley, but not before he added insult to injury. Sobran writes:


When he fired me, Bill…ascribed it to ‘an incapacitation moral and perhaps medical.’ That was the typical Buckley touch…to insinuate that they have become a little, you know, unbalanced. He himself, of course, represents the golden mean….Bill is always on stage: always acting, posing, making empty gestures. He isn’t concerned about their truth or coherence. That’s why he can talk facilely about prayer while he’s writing for Playboy and Penthouse (How I Was Fired by Bill Buckley, 2004, p. 7).


There are many others. The Newhouse family, which has assets of $7 billion and is known as the “second wealthiest Jewish American family” (S. Birmingham, The Rest of Us, 1984), has a stranglehold on 26 newspapers in 22 cities over 9 states. (Sam Newhouse is also implicated in covering up the truth about Kennedy’s assassination). Newhouse also owns such prestigious magazines as Parade, Allure, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Vogue, The New Yorker, GQ, Mademoiselle and 7 others. Sumner Redstone (formerly “Rothstein”) owns Viacom, a huge global media arm controlling Paramount Studios, Blockbuster Video, Simon and Schuster, Nickelodean and MTV. Prior to this Redstone owned Columbia Pictures and Twentieth Century Fox. Last but not least is Walter Annenberg who owns TV Guide. Needless to say, these media outlets are constantly promoting homosexuality, abortion, pornography, violence and many other forms of anti-social behavior, including political opinions that are slanted against Christianity. Even the pro-Israel and liberal-minded Catholic, Eugene Fisher, who is the director of Catholic-Jewish relations at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated: “The Jewish community is a very literate community, and it has a lot to say. And if you can shape opinion, you can shape events” (J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, 1996, p. 280). As Piper notes in regard to television news broadcasts: “The greatest concentration of Jews, however, is at the producer level – and it is the producers who decide which stories will go on the air, and how long, and in what order they will run” (The New Jerusalem, p. 119). This is true not only for NBC, ABC and CBS but also for “60 Minutes” and “20/20.”


The leading feminists of the women’s liberation movement who made their impact in print and visual media (an influence that has made almost a total wreck of the American family in addition to promoting abortion on demand), was led by Jewish females (e.g., Gloria Steinhem, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Erica Jong). Today we get deviant sexual advice from such Jewish matrons as Dr. Ruth Westheimer, and questionable behavioral advice from Dr. Laura Schlesinger, Ann Landers (formerly Esther Friedman Lederer) and her sister Abigail van Buren (Pauline Esther Friedman Phillips). Helping the feminists were such television producers as Norman Lear, whose presentation of “Archie Bunker” portrayed white males as bigoted, arrogant know-it-alls who enslaved their wives.


Then there are organizations such as the ACLU which, says Jewish author Benjamin Ginsburg, is “an organization whose leadership and membership are predominately Jewish.” As we all know, it was the ACLU that recently obtained a federal court order banning prayer in the schools and nativity scenes in parks and public buildings, among a myriad of other anti-Christian enactments in its long notorious history. Alongside the ACLU are the Jewish political action committees, whose main purpose is to promote the election of pro-Jewish/pro-Zionist candidates. There are over 90 of these Jewish political groups sprawled out over the United States, and many are hid under innocuous names such as “San Franciscans for Good Government” or “Religion and Tolerance Committee.” The Jewish AIPAC lobby is probably the strongest in America.
In regards to the Jewish agenda, there is no more powerful organization than the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) of B’nai B’rith. Although many people think of the latter as a philanthropic organization, in reality the ADL is one of the most ruthless and invasive organizations in existence. Their sole purpose is to create laws to force the public to accept the Zionist cause and the state of Israel without allowing so much as a word of criticism. As the ADL itself has stated: “Anti-Jewish statements are clear evidence of anti-Semitism.” To enforce its program of censorship, the ADL has 50 offices across the United States that report to the main office in New York where the decision is made to take action. Unbeknownst to most, the ADL keeps dossiers on countless American citizens whom it regards as potential threats to the welfare of Jews and Israel, which is against U.S. law. So vast and meticulous is its operation throughout the world that decades ago senator Jack Tenney opined that “the CIA and FBI are like tinkertoys compared to the ADL.”


B’ne B’rith originated in 1842, ostensibly for Jewish humanitarian reasons. In 1913, the spelling changed to B’nai B’rith and it became an organization whose main purpose was to thwart anti-Semitism. By the mid-twentieth century, the ADL arm of B’nai B’rith had grown so large that Congressman John Rarick was compelled to give critical testimony before Congress on Dec 6, 1971. Here are his sobering words:


The world’s largest spy network, the ADL…is e

ither too powerful to be curbed or too well embedded to be mentioned or to come under public scrutiny. What is the ADL? It is a private investigative organization engaged in spying and preparing secret dossiers and reports which it uses to suppress free speech and discussion and to influence public thought and sentiment on an unsuspecting citizenry.


Rarick further comments that the ADL is a “monstrous Gestapo of the establishment,” whose purpose is the “use of its intelligence network as a private super-pressure [organization],” and that it engages in “coerced cooperation of newspapers and other media of communication…” Quoting the words of senator Jack Tenney of California, Rarick continued:


“The ADL has become the world’s most powerful Gestapo; the brain center of a vast spy network and the intelligence unit of a myriad of Jewish organizations. Their secret agents spy on American citizens. Extensive files and dossiers are complied on those whom they dislike…Throughout their multitudinous controls of the media of communication, they are capable of destroying reputations and silencing all rebuttal.”
“We are beginning to appreciate its vast spy network sprawling across the nation and throughout the world. Our imagination is staggered by its apparent control of the avenues of communication.”


In effect, the ADL is the intelligence arm of the Israeli Mossad. And because the ADL is an unregistered foreign organization spying on American citizens and creating files on them (something even the FBI cannot do to American citizens), it is in violation of the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s “Foreign Registration Act of 1938,” in that it is an illegal agent of the state of Israel. Of course, the Mossad has been spying on American citizens for quite some time. Just one example will suffice. As of this date,
Amdocs Limited, and Israel-based, government-subsidized telecommunications company which contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in America…is in the unique position of having legal real-time access to nearly every telephone in the country. ‘It is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it’ [quoting Carl Cameron, Fox News correspondent]. The system also has the potential to generate personal information from every household and customer with a phone – in short, virtually every person in the country…Sources told Fox that in 1999, the NSA issued a ‘Top Secret Sensitive Compartmentalized Information report’ warning that Israel was acquiring the call records (“Little Brother is Watching,” Culture Wars, Marlene Maloney, 2-04, p. 30).
Not only has the ADL toppled a huge number of politicians running for office who have been on its hit list, its main goal is to enact “hate crimes laws” that not only prosecute criminal activity motivated by prejudice, but to prosecute what it calls “hate speech,” that is, anything said that is critical of identifiable groups based on race, sexual orientation, etc. This has already been enacted in Canada, and the B’nai B’rith in Canada has a 25-year legal paper trail beginning in 1971 showing itself to be the premier lobbyist for the law’s passage in the Canadian Parliament. The ADL is now working feverishly for an identical law to pass in the United States. They almost succeeded in 2000 when the “Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act,” which would have made it a federal crime to make critical remarks of various identifiable groups, was narrowly defeated in Congress. The forerunner of the Enhancement Act was the “Hate Crimes Statistics Act,” which passed Congress in 1990, and which allowed the federal government to keep information in data banks of those who commit crimes with “hate” as a motivation; followed by the “Hate Crimes Act, S.622,” passed in 1999, which made it a felony to commit a crime motivated by “hate.” Amazingly enough, this is the same kind of legal paper trail that began in Canada and which ended up curbing all speech against identifiable groups. Such a law in the United States would make it illegal, for example, to denounce the homosexuality promoted by Dignity USA; or to denounce the abortion agenda promoted by Planned Parenthood, or the pornography of Hugh Hefner and Larry Flint. In essence, if such “hate speech” laws are enacted the Christian Gospel will be technically illegal to preach, for it holds an uncompromised stand against all of the above immoral behavior.


As the ADL would have it, writing or speaking against the Jewish religion or Israel’s politics will be considered “anti-Semitic,” and thus motivated by “hatred” of Jews. A good example of the ADL’s intent is evident in the vociferous reaction Abe Foxman, its president, registered against Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. If Foxman has his way, Christianity will not be allowed to preach “Christ crucified,” since that, in his mind, would tend to single out the Jews as a notorious race. Already there are prominent Jewish leaders, such as Micha Brumlik speaking at the Evangelical Academy in Germany, who have declared that the Gospel of St. John is an “embassy of hate” (German: “eine Botschaft des Hasses”). He concludes: “…the message that is supposed to lead the people by way of faith and the Son to the Father, is in reality a message of marginalization, fear, anxiety and hate” (March 1989, cited in “Is St. John an Anti-Semite?” Culture Wars, 6-04, p. 21).


As of this day, the ADL is already brainwashing politicians and police departments with its “education” on how to identify hate crimes, which is based, of course, on the ADL’s definition of a “hate crime.” As a reward for their cooperation, the ADL sponsors all-expense paid trips to Israel.


Suffice it to say, Jewish power in America is greater than at any time in its history. Norman Cantor in The Sacred Chain, states: “Jews in the four decades after 1940 came home in American society…to penetration of academia…to politics and government and controlling levels of media…Nothing in Jewish history equaled this degree of Jewish accession to power, wealth and prominence….The Morgans, the Rockefellers, the Harrimans, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the titans of bygone eras, they have been superseded by the Jew…” (pp. 406, 407, 418, as cited in Piper’s The New Jerusalem).


As we can see, in contrast to the pullout from Gaza, we are faced with a Zionist machine that knows no bounds. With all of the above evidence about the Zionist force in America, Sharon was certainly correct in boasting to his Tel Aviv cabinet meeting on Oct 3, 2001: “I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about America. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it” (as reported by Israel Radio (Kol Yisrael)).

Even Israeli citizens, like Elias Davidson, know the score:
As a Jew myself (but opposed to Zionism) I need no encouragement…to observe what should be obvious to the blatant eye: namely that Jews effectively rule US foreign policy and thus determine to a great extent the conduct of most countries…So it is with the proposition that Jews control the world. Surely they do not control every single action; surely it does not mean that every Jew participates in the ‘control.’ But for all practical purposes the proposition holds (“Skin and Discourse,” Culture Wars, 12-03, p. 10).


What is done is done. We now have to make the best of what we have. Let’s all hope and pray that the heightened conflict engendered by Jewish power does not someday result in an all-out nuclear free-for-all. Let’s hope by the grace of God that the winner-take-all philosophy now present in the Neo-con, Evangelical and Zionist agenda does not end up producing the worst carnage the world has ever known. In the meantime, my fellow Catholics, prepare yourselves and your children for a rough ride until the Daystar rises again.


++++UPDATE+++

Videos of Jews Agaisnt Zionism (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-648656475948168397&q=ronald+reagan

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3867618493110671459&q=ronald+reagan

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8421067335698102019&q=ronald+reagan