Eye of Newt
Jul 22, 2006
News reports today show that President Bush's approval ratings are again going down. Three different polls rate it at 40%, 39% and 35%, heading back down toward the 29% from before May 12. In the absence of any other really serious news event that might be affecting his popularity, it seems apparent that the culprit is the Israeli attack upon Lebanon.
Americans are obviously getting war-weary and are having serious doubts about the wisdom of our foreign policy. The misinformation in the past that got us into the war in the first place is difficult to overcome.
In my view, we are much too quick to go to war, and the "patriot card" is becoming frayed from overuse. Each usage will require a bigger reason, perhaps bigger than the Twin Towers disaster. I do not like that fact, because it gives our own power brokers too much motive to fabricate just such a disaster--"for the greater good," of course.
The fact is, wars are never fought for the advertised reasons. There are the reasons given to the public to manipulate them into supporting the war. And then there are the real reasons that benefit a few at the top of the Babylonian power structure. Rev. 18:13 lists "the souls of men" at the bottom of the list of Babylonian assets that are of value.
Secondly, wars are always fought with no regard to the biblical laws of war found in Deut. 20. Yet we ask and presume God's blessing upon us--while our "enemies" ask and presume the same. I am not saying that war should never be an option, but if it comes to that, it should be waged according to biblical law.
Furthermore, wars should be fought only to restore justice among nations, not to further the cause of injustice in the name of God. I cannot go into the history of past wars, for that would take too long, and I do not have my library resources at my present disposal. (I am still away from home.) But I can comment upon the current conflict, for its causes go deep into biblical history.
President Bush is apparently reluctant to open up another war front, but now Newt Gingrich is pushing him as hard as he can on behalf of the Israel Lobby (AIPAC). In an interview with David Postman on July 15, he is quoted in the following article:
"He [Gingrich] said people, including some in the Bush Administration, who urge a restrained response from Israel are wrong "because they haven't crossed the bridge of realizing this is a war."
"This is World War III," Gingrich said. And once that's accepted, he said, calls for restraint would fall away:
"Israel wouldn't leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts."
"There is a public relations value, too. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is "'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?" [End of Quote]
Note that President Bush is too restrained! All he has to do is declare World War III, and this would justify us in going to war--and then punishing any nation that got in our way! Once our nation is fully committed to war, it would be nearly impossible for any American citizen to support the other side--even if the "enemies" were the ones wronged in the first place! And this is his advice to President Bush on how to get more votes this fall.
Gingrich starts with Hezbollah as the instigator of this conflict, instead of asking what got Hezbollah all upset at the Israelis. He assumes that the Israelis are innocent bystanders, who long for peace, who only want a little security for their innocent citizens, and who only want to be left alone.
In fact, he reinforces this view by giving a simple illustration. What if Cuba fired a missile at Miami? Would not Americans be justified in retaliating against Cuba?
A better analogy would be this: Suppose America invaded and occupied half of Cuba. As a result, some Cubans refused to accept our occupation and sent a missile to Miami. Would America then be justified in becoming indignant at those "terrorists" who dared to oppose us?
Newt would have us go in and bomb them back to the stone age to teach them a lesson. The lesson is this: We have the power to impose our injustice upon you, so don't you dare resist us. If you threaten our security, we will not stand around and allow you to object to our injustice.
Better yet, suppose Cuba invaded Florida. Would we not reserve the right to "fight for our land?" If we resisted a Cuban invasion of Florida, would Fidel Castro call us "terrorists"?
In the Zionist conflict since 1948, the Israelis have been usurping the birthright of Joseph, just as they usurped the sceptre of Judah when Jesus came to lay claim to it. Once again, the Israelis are playing the role of Absalom, who usurped the throne from David.
And just as Absalom was helped by Ahithophel, who betrayed David, and just as the religious leaders were helped by Judas, who betrayed Jesus, the Son of David, so also Newt Gingrich is emerging as a major type and sign of the modern Judas.
I understand that he claims to be a Christian believer. I believe he is, because so was Judas. Judas was Jesus' disciple and friend, yet he ended up betraying Jesus over some deluded idea that he was going to force Jesus to manifest His power to the world by saving His own life.
Today, there are Christians who do the same. They are pushing the Jews into full-scale Armageddon--"and the sooner the better"--in order to hasten the second coming of Christ. In other words, they are trying to force Christ to come and save the day for His "chosen people."
Perhaps I am being too generous. There are many Christian books that make it perfectly clear that only 144,000 Jews will survive this attack. In other words, these Christians are pushing for war in order to kill off about 6 million Israelis, hoping that 144,000 Jews will emerge as Christians during the tribulation!
And so, Christians who "love the Jews" are being asked to pay immigration costs for as many Jewish families as possible to move to the Israeli state, while believing that most of them will not survive the coming war. They call this "love." If that is not the Judas factor, I don't know what is. They are betraying not only Jesus Christ, but the Jews also, whom they profess to love and cherish.
This fact is not lost upon Jews. They often grumble about this, but their grumbles are suppressed as long as Christians send them money and support their Zionist cause.
When the Israeli state is destroyed and the Christians find that they are still unraptured, a deathly horror of reality will set in. In that day, you who know the truth of Bible prophecy will be called to lead them to repentance so that they do not all hang themselves as did Judas.
This is a sobering prospect. But keep in mind that Judas really was Jesus' friend. Jesus did not lie to him when He called him "friend." I believe they were boyhood friends. He just thought that Jesus needed some help with his messianic career. And, yes, he had some problems with money, too (John 12:6).
Not that the modern Church has any issues with money, of course.