The Neo-Con Connection:
By Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D.
The other day someone sent me a recent article by Deal Hudson. Dated March 9, 2005, it bore the title: “Who Will Win The Catholic Vote?” The following words prefaced the article: “A Catholic Look at Society, Culture and Politics...Deal W. Hudson, Editor...In This Issue: How the Catholic Left and Pro-Abortion Democrats Are Preparing for the 2006 and 2008 Elections.”
Hudson, of course, is a Republican who wants to keep the new surge of Catholics in the Republican party. In order to fight the Catholic left, Hudson identifies ten strategies being used by the opposition. He writes:
“The following is a list of the strategic initiatives being launched by the Catholic left in response to the Republican gains in the Catholic vote (from 37% in '96 Who Will Win The Catholic Vote? By Deal W. Hudson to 47% in '00 to 52% in '04). Some of these efforts are coordinated, but most of them are predictable reactions to the prospect of mass-attending Catholic voters staying in the Republican Party.
Mr. Hudson goes on to list the left’s strategies and how the conservatives should combat them. So far so good. Anyone with a smidgen of moral and theological sensibility knows just how much liberalism and modernism has decimated society. Having no viable alternatives, good Catholics have migrated to the Republican party as a refuge of last resort. But latching on to a political party by default inevitably raises questions as to the independent worthiness of that very party. Have Mr. Hudson and his conservative cronies really earned our vote, or have we been commandeered to an agenda that has as many faults as the left, but merely with different labels?
In the past I would have given Mr. Hudson my undivided attention, but the mere fact that this man has been caught in a quagmire of heinous sexual improprieties and yet is still out in public stumping for the Republican party, made me think of the possibility that we Catholics are being hoodwinked by ideological opportunists. It was Mr. Hudson’s hubris that incited me to do my own investigation into the Republican party and its current crop of leaders.
Mr. Hudson, in case you haven’t heard, was “fired” from his job at Crisis magazine a few months ago when report of his various sexual liaisons surfaced in the news. Among other things, Hudson more or less forced himself on a young college girl, afterward attempting to cover up the incident with $30,000 of hush money. While investigating the allegations, the Crisis board of directors found numerous sexual improprieties in his recent past.
After reading Hudson’s political combat strategies, I began to wonder how this man could still view himself as a moral beacon when his own house is built with nothing but glass, most of which is already shattered. At least Bill Bennett had the courtesy to remove himself from the public eye when his gambling weakness was exposed, but Hudson’s hubris seems to go beyond the pale. But then it dawned on me. Perhaps Hudson’s moral turpitude is typical of many of the Neo-con Republicans with whom he rubs shoulders – they use the moral high-ground as a lure to bring conservative Catholics and Evangelicals to their cause, but in reality they are wolves in sheep’s clothing who are often just as immoral as the liberals they decry. This observation, of course, will take some fleshing out.
The first counter-strategy Mr. Hudson advises in his article is to fight the attempt of the left to “demote the legacy of John Paul II.” Normally, we would see such a statement as a sincere effort to support the pope, but I have discovered this is merely the impression Mr. Hudson and his Neo-con colleagues want to create. They know the quickest way to the average Catholic’s heart is through praise of John Paul II. The reality is that Hudson’s and the Neo-con’s affection for John Paul II is only skin deep, if that much, for while they give lip service to his policies, they just as quickly distance themselves when their views do not match his. The most glaring example is the war in Iraq. John Paul II has stated in no uncertain terms that he is against the invasion of Iraq, yet the Neo-cons pretend they don’t hear him.
Case in point: George Weigel, the well known “papal biographer” who penned the 1999 book: Witness to Hope: John Paul II. Although Weigel purports himself to be a papal loyalist, he drew his line in the sand in early 2003 declaring that he fully supported the Iraq war. One would think that such opposition to the pope would diffuse Weigel’s aura of fidelity, but the biographer had an ingenious way of making his defiance palatable. He chose the USCCB as his whipping boy. In remarks quoted by the National Catholic Reporter, Weigel blasted the entire US bishopric, stating that the Just War doctrine “lives more vigorously...at the higher levels of the Pentagon than...in certain offices at the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops” (NCR 1-31-2003). As the NCR commentator correctly sized it up:
“So why doesn’t Weigel fight the real enemy? For the obvious reason that a certain class of conservative commentators in today’s American Catholic church make their living by interpreting the mind of John Paul, and it is inconvenient when his thinking cuts against the geopolitical agenda of the Bush administration.”
All this, of course, leads to investigating George Weigel a little more closely. Is he really pro-Catholic or is he, similar to Deal Hudson, merely a Neo-con plant set in place to win the Catholic vote? Considering his duplicity between Iraq and the pope, I have little doubt that George Weigel’s first allegiance is to the Neo-con political machine. His rap sheet doesn’t help much either. He is on Crisis’ editorial board, and thus has strong connections to Deal Hudson. He is also an active member of the Project for the New American Century, a Neo-con think-tank that cogitates on ways of advancing America’s present imperialism by means of war, financial pressure and other such mafioso-style intimidations. Other members of this elite group include: William Kristol (chairman), William Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Midge Decter, Steve Forbes, Norman Podhoretz, Ellen Bork, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz – a virtual “Who’s Who” of the Republican war-party in the Bush administration. Here is its notice of conquest as of its opening date June 3, 1997:
“We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”?
Obviously, there is nothing Catholic about these people. The above paragraph is a shining example of America’s imperialistic hubris turned into a civil religion. In truth, this global imperialism is only going to enslave the American people to the ideologues who will take their money and their children and squander them both on the battlefield. Rather than, as John Paul II has consistently told them, seek some means of peaceful co-existence, these political prima donnas are bent on conquest, and the worst part is that they are attempting to use Catholic cover to bring in their Trojan horse.
‘Too judgmental,’ you say? Take note of this: George Weigel is also a member of the United States Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), as of 1992. For those who know the history of the CFR, nothing more need be said. It and the former Trilateral Commission have been trying to shape global politics and geography with the same imperialistic intimidations for the last 30 years. Of the other names listed above, members of the CFR include Midge Decter (1992) and Norman Podhoretz (1992), the latter is the editor emeritus of Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee which incessantly accuses its anti-Iraq-war critics of “anti-semitism.” Another major player is Michael Novak, one of the principle architects of Crisis magazine. Novak is also on the Council of Foreign Relations (1992). Thus it is no surprise why the National Catholic Reporter predicted what precisely happened:
“As for the pope, the challenge is to spin away inconvenient utterances. Thus when American Catholic pundit Michael Novak arrives in Rome in early February to try to convince the Vatican of the morality of ‘preventive war,’ he will no doubt quote John Paul II approvingly, even if his aim is to draw different conclusions about the use of force in Iraq.”
Concluding, NCR states:
“The Bush-friendly line being toed by Weigel and Novak, in open contrast to what we’re hearing from Rome, reminds us that there is a ‘culture of dissent’ on the right in American Catholicism too. Usually it arises when John Paul challenges America’s prerogatives in commerce or war.”
There’s more. William F. Buckley Jr., who is not shy about advertising his Catholicism, is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as a member of the exclusive and mysterious Skull & Bones society, class of 1950. Last we heard of Skull & Bones, one of their initiatory rites included stamping one’s feet on a picture of the reigning pope. Buckley also has ties with the Central Intelligence Agency, and some have surmised that his present outlet, National Review, is a CIA-funded front.
The Neo-cons are smart. Considering that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and almost gained the presidency save the Florida mishap, the Neo-cons were not going to take any chances. Migrating as many Catholics out of the Democratic party as possible was their primary goal, for without them, it was commonly conceded that Kerry would be the next president. Unfortunately, the heinously immoral Democratic platform made it rather easy for the Neo-cons to entice the disillusioned Catholics to their side of the aisle.
But in order to bring the Catholics aboard, the Neo-cons needed to plant their seeds. Deal Hudson is one such seed set up in an innocent-looking Catholic media outlet to shore up the Neo-con agenda. As Paul Likoudis exposed in his September 30, 2004 article, Mr. Hudson, and his employer, Crisis, are on the ‘take’ from the well-endowed Neo-con party line. While in Hudson’s tenure, financial support for Crisis came from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the premier Neo-cons of today who specialize in globalization of American political interests through financial and militaristic means (known in the past as Imperialism). Much of AEI’s income originates from the sale of munitions and armaments. Crisis also receives money from the Morley Publishing Group (of which Hudson is the director), who are in turn supported by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, who specialize in setting up Neo-con think-tanks to enhance Middle East war efforts for the Bush administration. Crisis is also supported by the Carthage Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, the latter of which is involved in the sale of arms, and the former of which is controlled by Richard Scaife and funded by the Mellon family, another Neo-con outlet whose Internet site “Newsmax” promotes the war in Iraq as if it were the salvation of mankind.
Regarding the connection between William Kristol and Crisis, Likoudis notes:
“...the Bradley Foundation began funding Crisis magazine just about the same time it began funding Bill Kristol’s Project for the New American Century; and as Kristol and his peers began pushing for war with Iraq, Deal Hudson began persuading Catholics to that disastrous viewpoint. It is perhaps in this light that Hudson’s career should be evaluated.”
William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and one of the leading talking heads of the Neo-con movement seen regularly on Fox’s Sunday morning broadcasts, believes that it is the United States’ job to restructure the Middle East and “supplant dictators” around the world by using “pre-emptive” attacks. In other words, Kristol wants Bush to seek out and destroy anyone who would interfere with the American-Zionist efforts to secure the greater part of the Middle East for their own selfish interests. Kristol is such a war-monger that, after the 2004 election, he sought for the ouster of Donald Rumsfeld on the basis that he wasn’t being aggressive enough in the Middle East. Adding fuel to the fire, Lawrence Kaplan, writer for the New Republic, charges that Pat Buchanan’s magazine, The American Conservative, promotes that idea that “President Bush has become a client of...Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party,’” and that this is “anti-semitic” (March 24, 2003). And why shouldn’t Buchanan? Listen to the shocking words of Ariel Sharon:
“I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about America. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
Sharon’s hubris is rather amazing, considering that this tiny nation less in size than New Hampshire and barely 50 years old claims virtual control of the world. Lawrence Kaplan’s colleague, Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman, admits the obvious, stating:
“These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith” [all Jewish members of Bush’s administration].
Richard Perle’s history is revealing as well. In 1970 a federal wiretap heard him discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli embassy. Not surprisingly, Stephen Isaacs, who wrote Jews and American Politics in 1974, called Perle: “direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” The New York Times added in 1983 that Perle had taken enormous payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.
These three individuals (Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith), in addition to David Wurmser and Elliott Abrams (son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz), came up again in a February 9, 2003 front-page story of The Washington Post, an article in which Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official saying: “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” Former Washington Times editor and now United Press International Editor-at-Large, Arnaud de Borchgrave, remarking on what he calls the “Bush-Sharon Doctrine,” states that “Washington’s Likudniks have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn into office.” He further states: “The creation of a democratic state in Iraq...was the opening phase of a policy designed to surround Israel with democratic states.” Borchgrave then makes reference to a 1996 paper in which Richard Perle teamed up with Feith and Wurmser to write, on behalf of Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netahyahu: “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The “Realm,” of course, refers to the Middle East. Mind you, this is about five years before 9/11 and America’s declaration of war on Iraq. They write:
“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – and important Israeli strategic objective in its own right – as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”
Later in 1997, Douglas Feith wrote another paper titled A Strategy for Israel in which he insisted that Israel should force itself into “the areas under Palestinian Authority control” even though “the price in blood would be high.” Concerning the Perle-Feith-Wurmser connection, Buchanan quotes author Michael Lind:
“The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectual joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such ‘neoconservatives’ is the power and reputation of Israel.”
It is not mere coincidence that, as of this writing, Perle chairs the Defense Policy Board; Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense; and Wurmser is a special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control (John Bolton). Already in January 1998, four years before 9/11, Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz wrote to Bill Clinton urging him to speak of the removal of Saddam Hussein as the primary “aim of American foreign policy.” Do we sense an agenda here? In Perle’s new book An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, he demagogues his way through his thesis by claiming that
“There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust...the terrorist threat” puts at risk “our survival as a nation...A radical strain within Islam seeks to overthrow our civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies, imposing on the whole world its religion and laws.”
This is nothing but fear-mongering rhetoric to incite ethnic hatred against Muslims so that the American public will throw up their hands and give unqualified support to Israel. There is nothing Catholic about it. Never mind that the Jews would like everyone to practice Judaism. Perle is good at making enemies for hire. It is precisely his ‘Israel-first-and-only’ policy that led to the attacks on the World Trade center. We know this because the Arab-Muslim leaders know the motives of their own renegades, and they have told us as much. The reality is, if the Muslims are treated right, they are hardly a threat. Perle’s claim that Islam wishes to force their religion on others is easily countered by taking a good look at history. As Pat Buchanan notes:
“Well, yes. Militant Islam has preached that since the 7th century. But what are the odds the Boys of Tora Bora are going to ‘overthrow our civilization’ and coerce us all to start praying to Mecca five times a day?....Wherever Islamism takes power, it fails...Taken altogether, all 22 Arab nations do not have the GDP of Spain. Without oil, their exports are the size of Finland’s. Not one Arab nation can stand up to Israel, let alone the United States...If death comes to the West it will be because we embraced a culture of death – birth control, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia. Western man is dying as Islamic man migrates north to await his passing and inherit his estate....Fear is what Perle and his co-author David Frum are peddling...we have since discovered, Iraq had no hand in 9/11, no ties to al-Queda, no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, and no place to attack us. Iraq was never ‘the clear and present danger’ the authors insist she was” (The American Conservative, “No End to War,” March 1, 2004, p. 7).
In other words, America has been hoodwinked by the Neo-con/Zionist alliance into having us fight their enemies for them. In this regard, Wolfowitz is especially dangerous. A 1992 memo written by Wolfowitz was eventually leaked from the Pentagon. It contained a bold strategy for what appears to be a plan for world conquest. The paper later became the backbone of American foreign policy in a 33-page “National Security Strategy” issued by George Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. Among other shocking things, the paper declares: “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively.” There is nothing wrong, of course, with “self-defense,” but the operative word here is “preemptively.” The rationale for attacking another country is now based on the America’s subjective judgment as to whether said country merely poses a threat to our selfish interests. It further asserts that America must understand its role in “nation-building on a grand scale, and with no exit strategy.”
This information is no secret among the military high-brass. The outspoken General Tommy Franks said, rather frankly: “The U.S. attacked Iraq for the sake of Israel.” Likewise, General Anthony Zinni revealed who is behind the foreign policy of the United States – the Neo-cons Zionists who have hijacked the Bush administration. He states:
“The more I saw, the more I thought that this [war] was the product of the neocons who didn’t understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks...I don’t know where the neocons came from – that was not the platform Bush ran on...Somehow the neocons captured the president....everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do....I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington” (Interview with CBS).
The cat is out of the bag, we might say, regarding the Bush administrations true motivations in the Iraq war. On the Sunday news program, Meet the Press, Richard Perle was, ironically, ‘pressed’ when Tim Russert flipped the Israel card and asked him: “Can you assure American viewers...that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel” (2003). Wall Street Journal editor, Max Boot, catching the drift, writes: “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative,’ and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen, it sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” At the same time, Boot admits that the Israel connection is a “key tenet of neoconservatism” and that George Bush’s strategy “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” As we noted earlier, Commentary is the monthly magazine of the American Jewish Committee of which Norman Podhoretz (CFR 1992) is its editor emeritus. In this light, Pat Buchanan writes:
“On Sept. 20 , forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush ‘will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.’ Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon” (The American Conservative, March 24, 2003, p. 4).
Lebanon, of course, is where Israel should not be, since it is not their country. Yet the blackmail against the President apparently worked. Just a short time ago, March 15, 2005, Bush called for an increased attack on Hezbollah, the enemy of Israel. Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Treasury Secretary, stated:
“Bush’s neocon overlords have Bush where they and Ariel Sharon want him, locked on a course toward wider war, with American troops, supplied by conscription, serving as Israel’s legions...Having surely provoked further uprisings and further acts of terror, Bush will use the violence he provokes to call for more troops and wider incursions to deal with ‘thugs and criminals, who are preventing us from bringing freedom to the Middle East.’ We are bringing fire and destruction to the Middle East, and to ourselves. This is exactly what American evangelicals desire...”
The Neo-Catholic Connection:
Deal Hudson, George Weigel and Michael Novak are not alone in the Catholic connection to the Neo-con agenda. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things magazine, a former liberal Lutheran who has since converted to Catholicism but kept his liberalism, has made a name for his publication by promoting it under the Neo-con flag, and being endorsed in return by many of the prominent war-party ideologues. In a recent advertisement for First Things, various Neo-cons are solicited for their blurbs. Among them are William F. Buckley who writes: “How happy for right reason that Richard John Neuhaus disposes of much talent...”; and Robert L. Bartley, a writer for the Wall Street Journal and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (1992) says: “The time could not be more apt for First Things”; and Mary Ann Glendon, another CFR member (1992): “In my experience, no new magazine since the New York Review of Books has elicited so much interest...” The New York Times called First Things: “The flagship monthly of religious neoconservatism.” Richard Neuhaus then boasts in a four-page flyer that his writers, among others, include: Michael Novak, George Weigel, Midge Decter, Mary Ann Glendon, Bernard Lewis (another CFR member). In turn, Neuhaus has been giving lectures at the American Enterprise Institute, which, as we noted in our last article, specializes in globalization of American political interests through financial and militaristic means, while much of their income originates from the sale of munitions and armaments. Two other Neo-con war-promoters and radio talk-show hosts, Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity, have had Neuhaus as their featured guest, with the subject material, of course, focusing on America’s self-justifying invasion of Iraq. Neuhaus’ colleague, Michael Novak, was sent as the Neo-con envoy to Rome in order to persuade John Paul II to sanction the invasion of Iraq, prompting the Vatican to return the favor by telling America it has a Messiah complex and a fixation on materialism. Novak was also a guest on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo, touting the Neo-con agenda in Iraq and further solidifying the Neo-Con/Neo-Catholic alliance. Henry Hyde, noted Catholic from Illinois, took issue with the pope’s assessment of America in a July 2004 Chicago Tribune article. Not surprisingly, Hyde was recently recruited by Deal Hudson to write a financial appeal letter to Crisis subscribers, wherein Hyde touted it as “one of the most influential and important Catholic magazines in America today.”
From confidential sources, it is now known that Norman Podhoretz, his wife Midge Decter, and other wealthy Jewish Zionists, financed the start of First Things and saw in Richard Neuhaus the premier "ecumenist" to head the magazine. Various Jewish Zionist writers are employed on the staff of First Things to see that the agenda of the financial backers is carried out. Neuhaus, perhaps, deserves some consolation for finally realizing that: “There is a lively and legitimate argument about whether, knowing what we know now, this war was justified...” (First Things, Dec. 2004, p. 67). Similarly, William F. Buckley, while stating in an interview with Rush Limbaugh in July 13, 2004: “...with the intelligence we had, it would have been foolish not to attack Iraq...Libya is a good example of the good that came from it,” admitted a few months later: “If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.” This hand-wringing doesn’t go very far unless both Neuhaus and Buckley are willing to tell Mr. Bush, firmly and directly: “Get out of Iraq, and stop threatening the other Arab nations with American Imperialism,” since, in Catholic doctrine, preemptive war is never justified, and thus there is no place for the Neo-con agenda in Catholic thought and practice. Buckley, especially, needs to cease using National Review to brand as “anti-semites” those who don’t agree with the Neo-con party-line.
Other prominent Catholic institutions are tending in the same direction. Ave Maria School of Law, initiated by Dominos Pizza entrepreneur, Tom Monaghan, has on its board of directors James L. Buckley (brother to William F. Buckley, Jr.), who, while sitting on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is a member of the Skull & Bones society, class of 1944. Kate W. O’Beirne, Washington editor of William Buckley’s National Review, also sits on the Ave Maria board. That Skull & Bones members can infiltrate these Catholic institutions with impunity shows just how far the Neo-con agenda has advanced. Another Ave Maria director is Robert P. George. In March 2005, Crisis had a full-page ad touting the winners of the prestigious “Bradley Prize,” among them being Robert George. This is the same Neo-con outfit that funds Crisis from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which specializes in setting up Neo-con think-tanks to enhance Middle East war efforts for the Bush administration. In addition, George has had several meetings with Bush campaign mastermind, Karl Rove, the man who recognized first that without the Catholic vote Bush would not be in the White House. Unfortunately, Rove is only exploiting gullible Catholics. He is just as immoral as the rest of the bunch. His sexual preferences were recently exposed when in March 2005 reporters saw him enter a gay bar in Washington D.C., and there is much more to tell about Rove. Robert Bork, professor of law at Ave Maria and member of the American Enterprise Institute (a Neo-con war-party group), often collaborates with his wife, Ellen Bork, who has written about a dozen articles for the Project for the New American Century, the same war-party outfit that Kristol, Bennett, J. Bush, Cheney, Podhoretz, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are members.
Incidentally, the website of the New American Century contains an article written on September 4, 2002 titled “Rebuilding American Defenses,” which some (e.g., Alex Jones) claim was written by Dick Cheney, but was at least approved by Cheney, since he is a leading member of the group. In it the authors state that removing Sadaam Hussein was only a minor goal. From this and other reliable sources we know that the main objectives were: (a) to secure the oil fields of Iraq since they contain the world’s richest reserves; (b) to possess Iraq as a military launch base to the rest of the Middle East; c) to initiate sales of military hardware; (d) to train the military for urban suppression. Catholic bishop John Steinbock called its “using military power for political and economic interests” a threat to “the very future of humanity” (The Sentinel, 4-12-03).
More on Skull and Bones
Skull & Bones, according to the book by Anthony Sutton (a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University from 1968-1973) America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones (1983, 2002), is a secret society that originated at Yale University in 1832 and has been instrumental in instigating many of America’s wars and rumors of wars. For example, Henry Stimson, prominent Skull and Bones member of the Truman administration, prides himself on being the major influence upon Truman, based on his April 25, 1945 memorandum to the president, to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. What we know now, of course, is that Japan had been attempting to surrender for the entire six months prior, but their pleas couldn’t get past the deaf ears of Stimson, the Secretary of War. It is probably no coincidence that Hiroshimi and Nagasaki had the largest Catholic populations in Japan. (The Colonel: The Life and Wars of Henry Stimson 1867-1950 by Godfrey Hodgson, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992 ).
Today there is little difference between Stimson’s policies and the “pre-emptive” war policy of Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz and the Bush Skull and Bones cartel. It is probably no coincidence that Wolfowitz, appointed as head of the World Bank by George Bush; Michael Chertoff, appointed as secretary of Homeland Security by George Bush, along with Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer who are very active in the Bush administration, all have dual citizenship, with Israel as their second country of allegiance. No one seems to have paid attention to the U.S. Law, section 1448, that prohibits dual citizenship, especially when this duplicity puts them in very powerful governmental positions. In March 2005 the American Free Press reported that Michael Chertoff’s mother, Livia Eisen, was an Israeli national involved with the Mossad. Consequently, unless Chertoff renounces his Israeli citizenship then Israeli law considers him one of its own. To know the extent of Chertoff’s present power one only needs to read the Patriot Act, one of the most abusive stretches of government power against the citizenry ever devised. You can depend upon it that Chertoff will use it for Israel’s interests. Benjamin Chertoff, Michael’s cousin, has spent the last four years trying to stall independent investigative reports on 9/11, which many critiques have begun to compare to Hitler’s burning of the Reichstag building to foment his rise to political power. There is a mountain of evidence that the New World Order tyrants knew of 9/11 long before it happened and that Osama bin Laden is their patsy. There is simply not enough room to demonstrate it in this article.
Robert H. Goldsborough, familiar to many traditional Catholic readers, has investigated Skull and Bones and has concluded that its members seek nothing less than the rise of the New World Order to replace the Christian World Order. Skull and Bones was originally called “The Order” in its 1833 formation under the Russell Trust. Quoting Anthony Sutton, Goldborough writes: “The Order is the core, the inner circle of the conspiracy for change which run the outer circles including The Council on Foreign Relation, the Trilaterals...a terrifying long range conspiracy that seeks to control our lives from cradle to grave...The Order is a Bush family tradition” (Washington Dateline, 7-26-99).
In fact, the Bush family has 8 generations of Skull & Bones inductees, which includes grandfather Prescott Bush, notorious for digging up the skull of the Geranimo, the Indian chieftain, and placing it at Yale. According to the Associated Press, Prescott Bush was “director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler’s rise to power,” leading in 1951 to a $1.5 million kickback from stock invested in slave labor at the internment camp in Auschwitz (The Sentinel, 10-18-2003; Chris Millegan, Fleshing Out Skull and Bones, 2003; Toby Rogers: “How the Bush Family Wealth is Linked to the Jewish Holocaust,” Clamor Magazine, May-June 2002; John Buchanan, The Guardian, 2003). His son, George Herbert Walker Bush (the first president to use the phrase “New World Order”) is a member of Skull and Bones, as is George W. Bush and John Kerry, class of 1968 and 1966, respectively. In fact, Bush and Kerry are distant cousins. That two presidential candidates with the same pedigree could run against each other shows the grip that these anti-Catholic societies have on America. A shining example of the naivety of Catholics appeared in a July 22, 2004 political ad in the Wanderer advising people to vote against Kerry because he “is a graduate of Yale University and a member of the infamous secret society based at Yale, ‘Skull and Bones,’” neglecting to mention, of course, that Bush has a much deeper pedigree than Kerry. For Bush and Kerry to run against each other presents no contradiction to the society, since the same Hegelian dialectic (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) has been the philosophical/political engine of Western culture for the past two hundred years. Hegel’s philosophy is the only way men with opposing designs on controlling the rest of the world can be curtailed from pushing the red button and ending it all. Of course, the same Hegelian dialectic eventually led Skull and Bones to accepting homosexuals (as long as they had high SAT scores), and thus it is no surprise that George Bush seems to have no problem hiring homosexuals for high-level posts in his administration.
A favorite meeting place of Skull and Bones members is the Bohemian Grove in northern California, a 2,700-acre fortress 60 miles north of San Francisco. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July 15, 2004, most people think of the Bohemian Grove as a place for beatnicks to listen to Grateful Dead music and “gab...drink and urinate on trees.” But that’s how good their cover has been since the Grove’s 1872 inception. As of 2000, its underworld machinations were finally exposed. Investigative reporter Alex Jones infiltrated the highly secured compound with video camera in hand. He recorded nothing less than mock human sacrifices by robed and hooded individuals chanting and groveling in demonic ecstasy to a giant statue of an owl. They engage in a ceremony called the “Cremation of Care,” an attempt to rid themselves of their consciences so that they can proceed with world domination unabated by human sympathies. They themselves claim to be worshiping the Canaanite god Molech (Lev 18:21; Jer 32:35). And you thought such things were confined to the Old Testament? The film was distributed by the BBC, since they had financed Jones’ work. The Bohemian Grove should be of interest to us since its members include: William F. Buckley, Warren Buffet, George Bush, Jeb Bush, Jimmy Carter, Richard Cheney, Alan Greenspan, Alexander Haig (also on Advisory Board of Crisis), Jack Kemp, Henry Kissenger, Colin Powell, David Rockefeller, Donald Rumsfeld, Newt Gingrich, Ed Meese, Richard Nixon, Manuel Noriega, Elliot Richardson, Karl Rove, George Schultz, Casper Weinberger and hundreds of other prominent officials we don’t have room to list, both foreign and domestic. To his credit, David Gergen resigned from the Bohemian Grove in “disgust.” Jones possesses a photo of George H. W. Bush and President George W. Bush standing next to the giant owl at the Bohemian Grove. Helmut Schmidt, former chancellor of Germany, in his autobiography, Men in Power, states that although he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (the same as Weigel, Novak, Buckley, et al) and the Trilateral Commission, he maintains that his greatest thrill was performing Druid death-rituals every July 15th at the Bohemian Grove in California in the company of hundreds of other world leaders. Schmidt stated that it is at the Bohemian Grove that major national and international deals are struck between the world leaders.
Having Protestant evangelicals already in their pocket, today’s Neo-cons are desperately seeking Catholics and their voting block to shore up their party’s anticipated victories. As the two faiths are melded together in the Neo-con crucible, naive Catholics have been “Protestantized” as never before. As C. Joseph Doyle has noted: “What we’ve created in the past 30 years is a whole new generation of public Catholics who are cultural Protestants.” Or as Likoudis says:
“The Catholic Church is taking hits from every side of the Protestant power spectrum: from Episcopal bishops claiming the Church is promoting violence against homosexuals, to Pentecostals claiming the Church is a Babylonian mystery cult, to neoconservative Christians claiming the Vatican is a rogue state for opposing the war in Iraq” (The Wanderer, June 10, 2004).
Typical examples of leading Catholic figures who have been ensconced by the Neo-con agenda (or, worse, are mere plants posing as Catholics) are Sean Hannity who, having advertised his stance against the pope’s opposition to the Iraq war, had the temerity to host Protestant Franklin Graham (Billy Graham’s son) on his popular Fox television show, allowing him to chastise the pope. So enamored is Hannity with the Evangelical agenda that his best-selling book, Deliver Us From Evil, contains the Protestant, not Catholic, version of the Our Father on the inside cover. Hannity’s real loyalties were revealed when, after his bellicose rantings against Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinski, he was confronted with an even more sordid tale in the exploits of his Neo-con colleague, Newt Gingrich, a regular commentator on Hannity’s program. Ignoring Gingrich’s improprieties, Hannity continually treated him like a knight in shining armor, much like Rush Limbaugh treats William F. Buckley. All the while Gingrich was committing serial adultery on his second wife during the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. The adulteress was a young Congressional aide. She was also a Catholic who sang as a member of the prestigious choir at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C. Showing no repentance, Gingrich divorced his wife and married the young aide, and the newlywed couple continued to attend the Shrine, now under the protecting arm of the pedophile protector, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. I myself was in Washington at the time to hear her sing the glories of the Christian faith. Hannity also knows the cruel way in which Gingrich treated his first wife, insisting that she come to terms for divorce while she was recovering from cancer surgery in a hospital bedroom. But this is to be expected. Gingrich’s behavior and Hannity’s looking the other way is the convenient morality of the Neo-con political machine. As John Galbraith stated it:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
Hannity also buys into the same biblical eschatology as Billy and Franklin Graham, which, for most of the last century, has been awash with Puritan millennium-seeking. Their ultimate goal is to prepare the Middle East, particularly Israel, for the Second Coming of Christ who, they think, will soon begin a physical, 1000-year reign from Jerusalem. Naturally, in this eschatological schema the good guys are the Neo-cons, the Evangelicals and the Zionists, while the bad guys are anyone who opposes them, including but not limited to the Arab nations and the world of Islam. Moralist icon, William Bennett, prior to the exposing of his gambling habits, thought nothing of gambling away American lives when on September 12, 2002 in a CNN interview he said so self-righteously that America was “in a struggle between good and evil,” and that “overwhelming force must be used against militant Islam.” Bennett then proceeded to name the nations of his war-mongering fury: Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and China. As Buchanan writes: “Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama’s terrorists.” By the way, Bennett is also on the advisory board of Crisis magazine.
Of course, the underworld is not limited to Skull & Bones and the Bohemian Grove. Similar secret societies bent on world conquest have been around for quite a while. We know some of them as the Freemasons, the P2, the Illuminati, and about a dozen other such illustrative names. We need not be naive – big money and man-made philosophies control almost every sector of this world. That’s what the Apostle John tells us in the Apocalypse. This is not, as some try to dismiss it, a “conspiracy” theory. Catholics got a good taste of reality when in the 1970s-80s they saw that many of the prelates they trusted had already succumbed to its power. One very revealing source was a list of Freemasons discovered by Italian police and later sent to Pope John Paul I by Mino Pecorelli, editor of L’ Osservatore Politico (who was soon afterward assassinated, mafioso style). Among the names on the short list of Masons were 121 Catholic prelates, including prominent office holders such as: Augustin Cardinal Bea, Secretary of State to John XXIII and Paul VI; Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, creator of the Novus Ordo mass; Agostino Cacciavillan, Secretary of State, and until very recently, Papal Nuncio to America; Agostino Casaroli, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Achille Lienart, Bishop of Lille, France and designated as “Masonic Grand Master” and very active in slanting Vatican II in the liberal direction; Leo Cardinal Suenens (leader of the Charismatic movement) and Jean Cardinal Villot, the Secretary of State. These names came complete with Masonic code names and numbers. Villot’s name was “Jeanni” with number 041/3 and he was enrolled in the Lodge on August 6, 1966. So vast was Villot’s power and influence that when Paul VI had excommunicated Pasquale Macci for heresy, Villot, after the pope’s death, had Macci reinstated and saw to it that he was elevated to Cardinal. Pio Laghi, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States is also on the list, and it is no coincidence that he is a great friend to the Bush family.
Paul Marcinkus, Director of the Vatican Bank and numerous money laundering schemes, was also on the Freemason list. It was John Paul I’s stated quest to Cardinal Villot to remove Marcinkus and his collaborators, such as Cardinal Baggio (also on the Freemason list). But Villot and company silenced the pope before he could act. All this is common knowledge now, thanks to David Yallop’s book “In God’s Name”; Paul Williams’ book “The Vatican Exposed,” as well as the work of Richard Hammer, Claire Sterling, Nick Tosches and John Cornwell. What we also know is that, immediately after becoming the new pope, John Paul II closed the door on all the internal investigations initiated by John Paul I, and thus it became business as usual at the Vatican. Instead of ousting Marcinkus the pope elevated him, on the third anniversary of John Paul I’s death, to the position of the Pontifical Commission for the State of Vatican City, which is more or less like being its governor. Instead of reporting the misdealings of the Banco Ambrosiano (which was the source for Marcinkus’ money laundering schemes as he defrauded its depositors), John Paul II paid off the creditors with $250 million of the Vatican’s money. When appeals came to the Vatican from the Italian government to help prosecute Marcinkus, John Paul II protected Marcinkus by citing the immunity granted by article 11 of the 1929 Lateran Treaty with Mussolini, as he also did in protecting Bernard Law, the infamous pedophile shuffler. Cardinals Benelli and Rossi pleaded with the pope to expel Marcinkus but to no avail. It was later discovered that Marcinkus’ money laundering allowed the funneling of $100 million to the Solidarity Trade Union of Poland, a favorite project of the pope’s. Unfortunately, for every Yallop and Williams we can depend upon to expose these historical facts, we have authors such as Carl Bernstein (“His Holiness: John Paul II and the History of Our Time”) and George Weigel (“Witness to Hope: John Paul II”) who refuse to mention them.
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. LaHaye recently spoke of Iraq as “a focal point of end-time events.” 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). Falwell’s favorite slogan these days is “God is pro-war.” 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.
Charles Stanley, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta and former president of the Southern Baptist convention, and who preaches on national television each Sunday recently stated: “We should offer to serve the war effort in any way possible.”
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.
Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, holds that America’s invasion of Iraq has created exciting new prospect for proselytizing Muslims to the Christian faith. Since the Grahams are so influential in evangelical circles, it is not surprising to note that 87% of all white evangelical Christians in America supported Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, and recent polls show that 68% still continue to support it, in the face of the debacles occurring in Iraq on a daily basis.
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 2: Neo-Cons and Jewish Power
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. (Piper, p. 23).
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, p. 24).
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 debilitater. 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 that 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 Neuhaus’ 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 either 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 uncompromising 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.
© Robert A. Sungenis, M.A., Ph.D.
President: Catholic Apologetics International
All Rights Reserved.