letter from the Vatican outlining the plans of Pope Leo XIII respecting the
United States was published in the New York Sun, July 11, 1892, and contains
the following significant statement:
THEOCRACY HAS CRASHED ONTO THE AMERICAN SCENE
Breaking Down the Protective Wall of Separation Between Church and State
IS ON THE MARCH
it a War. In this metaphorical warfare, the Church of Rome and the
Religious Right can be described as advancing in a two-pronged enveloping
pincers movement. The pincers have either already been snapped shut, or
will be in the near future. It is essential to note that the campaign has been
waged by stealth. In the case of the Church of Rome it has been waged for
over one hundred years. Here is documentation of that fact:
Is there now a permanent halt to the progress of the march? - definitely not. (Cf. EXEGESIS OF REVELATION -2- The Beast and the False Prophet;) Is there now a pause for an extended number of years? - very unlikely; or a relatively brief pause? - possible. (Cf. The Sign of the End of Time; DISTRESS OF NATIONS WITH PERPLEXITY; Why the Ignorance; A Fearful Warning; FINAL WORLD EVENTS IN PROPHECY FORESHADOWED; Consider Rev. 7:1-3: And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. ]
Looking back over the last thirty plus years in particular, one is reminded of the following words written by Ellen G. White:
I have been shown that Satan has not been stupid and careless these many years, since his fall, but has been learning. He has grown more artful. His plans are laid deeper, and are more covered with a religious garment to hide their deformity. The power of Satan now to tempt and deceive is ten-fold greater than it was in the days of the apostles. His power has increased, and it will increase, until it is taken away. (2 SG, p. 277; emphasis supplied.)
This statement bears repeating, "His plans are laid deeper, and more covered with a religious garment to hide their deformity;" and think of the words of the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:14,15:
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Then there were the words of the apostle John in 1 John 4:1:
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
How aptly do the words of John fit the conditions of the modern world! How necessary it is for us to “try the spirits.” How fitting for these times were the warnings of the apostle Paul and the latter-day Messenger of the Lord! Yet, too many of us have been asleep. It required the utmost vigilance to detect the iniquity cloaked under a garment of righteousness; to perceive the wickedness dressed in the garb of morality. It was hard perhaps even a century and a half ago when the power of Satan then "to tempt and deceive [was] ten-fold greater than it was in the days of the apostles." It has been harder still in our time when "his power has increased, and it will increase, until it is taken away." Nevertheless, we have had in our possession detailed expositions which laid out the plan of the ministers of Satan, who have "transformed themselves as ministers of righteousness." One thinks of two ministers of the gospel, A. T. Jones and Christian Edwardson, whose careful research exposed the master scheme conceived by Pope Leo XIII and followed relentlessly by his successors. From one of A. T. Jones' sermons at the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference session of 1895 we quote:
The papacy is very impatient of any restraining bonds; in fact, it wants none at all. And the one grand discovery Leo XIII has made, which no pope before him ever made, is that turn which is taken now all the time by Leo and from him by those who are managing affairs in this country--the turn that is taken upon the clause of the Constitution of the United States: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Leo has made the discovery that the papacy can be pushed upon this country in every possible way and by every possible means and that congress is prohibited from ever legislating in any way to stop it. That is a discovery that he made that none before him made and that is how it is that he of late can so fully endorse the United States Constitution.
We all know of course that that was intended to be the expression of the American people always, that religion should have no place in governmental affairs and no connection whatever with it. But the papacy is never satisfied without taking possession of everything in the government and running it in the interests of the church and Leo XIII has found out that this can all be done under the cover of that constitutional statement which was intended to prevent such a thing forever.
Thus the papacy in plain violation of the
Constitution will crowd herself upon the government
and then hold up that clause as a barrier against anything that any would do to
stop it. And every one that speaks against this working of the papacy, behold!
He "is violating the Constitution of the
That is why Pope Leo XIII turns all his soul, full of ideality, to what is improperly called his American policy. It should be rightly called his Catholic universal policy. (A. T. Jones in his sermon "The Papacy," Third Angel's Message 3, 1895 General Conference, emphasis added)
A. T. Jones'
remarkable insights into the papacy's plan of action for the
"The United States of America, it can be said without exaggeration, are the chief thought of Leo XIII....A few days ago, on receiving an eminent American, Leo XIII said to him: 'But the United States are the future; we think of them incessantly.'...That is why Leo XIII turns all his soul, full of ideality, to what is improperly called his American policy. It should be called his Catholic universal policy." - "Catholic Standard and Times" (Philadelphis), Nov. 3, 1894; quoted in "Protestant Magazine," Oct., 1913, p. 441.
The report of "the third
"Our purpose is to make
"It seems to me that the main support of
Protestantism comes from the United States and England....If we put an end to
this effort in England and the United States by making these nations
predominantly Catholic, we will have removed the chief obstacle to the
conversion of the world to the true faith....A vigorous effort in the
United States at this time will reduce the opposition to an insignificant
condition....In the course of another century, the [Protestant] sects will be a
study for the historian and antiquarian along with Arianism." - Extract
from a letter in "The Missionary" (Roman Catholic),
This Catholic movement has
already made such progress in
Now the "Catholic Action" is focused
Dr. E. Boyd Barrett, for many years a Jesuit, and still a Roman Catholic, as far as the author knows, has the following to say about the plans of his church:
"In theory, Catholic Action is the work and
service of lay Catholics in the cause of religion, under the guidance of the
bishops. In practice it is the Catholic group fighting their way to control
"The effort, the fight, may be drawn out. It
may last for five or ten years. Even if it last for twenty - what is twenty
years in the life of
"And in the fight, as she has ever fought
when battles were most desperate in the past,
In a communication from
"Pope Pius feels that the
"The Catholic Movement, Rome's militant
organization numbering millions all over the world, will be marshaled direct from
Rome by Monsignor Pizzardo - next to Pacelli the Holy See's shrewdest diplomat
and politician - instead of by the local bishops as before. The priest's
education is to be thoroughly revised and modernized - with special attention
to modern propaganda methods. In addition there will be established in each
country a central bureau, responsible only to
"Coughlin has shown us the way of getting at
the modern man. He has embarrassed us by showing and using the political power
of the church so openly....We know how to tackle
"Pacelli is contacting the American
cardinals and leading Catholic personalities,...to explain the
This article speaks of Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli,
then papal secretary of state, coming from the
This Catholic plan of conquest was well
understood years ago. An illustration in Harper's Weekly of October 1,
1870, pictured the pope pointing to
It is of interest to note
that the last thirty years include the presidency of Democrat Jimmy
Carter. At the end of this page is a hyperlink to a web page which in
turn is linked to a number of files under the heading "Why is the Vatican
a threat to Americans?" One file is an article, titled "One Nation Under God . . .," by John M. Swomley, emeritus professor of social ethics at St. Paul School of Theology in
According to Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, presidential candidate Jimmy Carter made a deal on August 31, 1976, with a group of Catholic bishops headed by Archbishop Joseph Bernadin in which the bishops, by agreeing not to endorse Carter’s opponent, Gerald Ford, received major concessions in terms of Catholic political appointees who dismembered and crippled the State Department’s family planning programs. Ravenholt, who was serving as director of AID’s global population program, was removed.
Then, on October 6, 1979, the BBC reported the following:
John Paul II has become the first Pope to set foot in the White House after greeting US President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn.
The meeting of the 39th President of the
it is obvious why the papacy backed "born-again" Jimmy Carter in
1976. Carter's pandering to the Pope in 1979 was futile. It
may be that a deal was made between the
to the stealth campaign of extremist Protestants in
"What name is given to the doctrine that the state has neither the right nor the duty to be united to the Church to protect it?
"This doctrine is called Liberalism. It is founded principally on the fact that modern society rests on liberty of conscience and of worship, on liberty of speech and of the press.
"Why is Liberalism to be condemned?
"Because it denies all subordination of the state to the Church." - pp. 131-133. (Facts of Faith, p. 260, emphasis added)
An essay in the issue of the Wanderer Newspaper online (www.thewandererpress.com), dated March 6, 2002, by Arthur M. Hippler, director of the Office of Justice and Peace in the Diocese of La Crosse, Wis., was titled "Lucifer, The First Liberal." Here are the opening and closing paragraphs:
In his encyclical on The Nature of True Liberty (Libertas Praestantissimum), Leo XIII makes the remarkable claim that liberalism is diabolic in its origins. "But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, I will not serve; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals" (Libertas Praestantissimum, n.14). Although the Holy Father’s comparison may seem hyperbolic, nonetheless the principles of liberalism mirror the Devil’s original revolt. . . .
While many understand liberalism as a freedom for certain political equality and civil rights, more fundamentally liberalism is a freedom from the moral law and the teaching authority of the Church. One cannot speak of "Catholic liberals" without contradiction, or at the very least, equivocation. Liberalism, like socialism and Communism, has been condemned by Pope after Pope in the social encyclicals. If we are tempted to minimize the evils of this error, we would do well to remind ourselves that Pope Leo XIII presents Lucifer to us as the original liberal.
Thus there has
been this concerted attack by the Church of Rome and the Religious Right on
"Liberalism," tarred with the brush of immorality. The question is whether
the Religious Right came to this place independently of the influence of
Now, as to the
political union between
There is a widespread assumption that the Christian Coalition and many of its allied far-right groups are Protestants of fundamentalist or evangelical persuasion. The Christian Coalition in December 1995 reinforced that assumption in public statements by its executive director, Ralph Reed, urging Catholics to unite with the coalition.
As a matter of fact, the religious right has
always been deeply involved with Roman Catholics, who have played decisive
roles in formulating its ideology and strategy. The first of these leaders
was conservative writer William F. Buckley, Jr., who founded Young Americans
for Freedom at his
Another Roman Catholic, Father Paul Marx, founded
Human Life International in 1981 and persuaded Dr. Jack Wilke, a lecturer on
sex education, to become involved in anti-abortion work. Wilke later became
president of the National Right to Life Committee and is also a member of the
board of directors of the Catholic Campaign for
Probably the most influential of the early Catholic leaders is Paul Weyrich, whose Free Congress Foundation lent support to the "lengthy campaign" which led to the Vatican's disciplining of liberal Seattle Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen. It was Weyrich, together with Ed McAteer and Howard Phillips, who spent a day with Jerry Falwell persuading him to take on "the issue of abortion'" As Connie Paige notes in The Right to Lifers, out of that meeting also came the idea for the Moral Majority, the single most crucial entity since the Catholic church in making the right to life movement a dangerous force on the right."
At that meeting in
Jerry Falwell acknowledged his indebtedness to
the Catholic ultraright in an interview in the February 1988 San Francisco
Focus: "I went to see some Catholic leaders and political people in
Richard Viguerie was himself a Roman Catholic political activist, influential in recruiting rightwing Protestants. (Emphasis added.)
Here is further documentation from AMERICAN DEMOCRACY & THE VATICAN: POPULATION GROWTH & NATIONAL SECURITY, By Dr. [Phd.] Stephen Mumford, Page 207, "American Conservatism vs. the Radical Religious":
Two vast movements that involved millions of
non-Catholic Americans set the stage for the rapid acquisition of power in
The first, which began in earnest more than two decades ago, is the ecumenical movement. This movement has pretty much ceased to make any forward advances. Many of the earlier leaders have dropped out, recognizing that the Protestant groups made virtually all the compromises. Some have dropped out in disappointment, fully recognizing that they have been completely duped by their Catholic counterparts.
The second vast movement involved the
political mobilization of fundamentalists by the
"The Pastoral Plan was a brilliant blueprint," states Paige.
The message of the plan was absolutely clear: the Roman Catholic Church was getting into the business of electoral campaigns in a big way. It was as if the bishops had switched on an enormously powerful political engine that then appeared to run on its own. But the perpetual-motion machine is a thing of the imagination. A closer look at the right-to-life machine revealed that fuel and labor costs, maintenance, body work, lubrication, and replacement parts right down to the last screw all remained very much under firm pastoral guidance.
The machine went into high gear, NCHLA organizers created and developed grass-roots right-to-life PACs, which they called "congressional district action committees," in almost half of the country"s 435 congressional districts. The CDACs involved thousands of sympathetic Catholics in right-to-life activity, including letter-writing, meeting with elected officials, conducting candidate and voter education projects, and developing efficient phone networks.17
The New Right, which is dominated by [Roman]
Catholics such as Richard Viguerie and which answers to the
"However heartfelt, opposition to abortion was simply part of the plan." (Center for Research on Population and Security Website, emphasis theirs.) . . .
The Catholic Church and Social Justice Issues
The Reagan Administration is clearly being manipulated by the [Roman] Catholic Church, apparently with the president's blessing. In an April 1982 speech before the National Catholic Education Association, Reagan made the incredible statement,
"I am grateful for your help in shaping American policy to reflect God's will ...., And I will look forward to further guidance from His Holiness Pope John Paul II during an audience I will have with him in June."
Mr. Reagan is obviously leaning on the
The Abortion Movement
In 1980, Federal Judge John Dooling, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, declared that the Hyde Amendment, which prevented Medicaid payment for abortion, was unconstitutional. (Copies of Judge Dooling's 328-page decision in McRae vs. HEW are rare. During a recent conversation with the Brooklyn United States District Court, I was told that their copy had disappeared and, for this reason, they were not in a position to reproduce it.)
Judge Dooling had spent a year gathering evidence and studying the anti-abortion movement, and his findings showed that the anti-abortion movement was essentially a Roman Catholic movement with a little non-Catholic window dressing. The amendment, says Dooling bluntly, was a ploy by anti-abortion congressmen frustrated in their attempt to pass a constitutional amendment that would override the Supreme Court's 1973 pro-abortion decision; its purpose was quite simply to circumvent the Court's ruling and prevent as many abortions as possible.
Dooling, a practicing Catholic, makes short shrift of the anti-abortionists' pretensions to be a spontaneous grass-roots movement that owes its political victories to sheer moral appeal. He confirms that the right-to-life's main source of energy, organization, and direction has been the [Roman] Catholic Church, and he describes in detail how the movement uses one-issue voting to put pressure on legislators, candidates, and the party organizations that nominate them - a tactic that gains influence far out of proportion to its numbers. Please see appendix one for excerpts from Judge Dooling's decision in McRae vs. HEW.
What is most significant in this extract is Judge Dooling's finding that the anti-abortion movement's main source of energy, organization, and direction has been the [Roman] Catholic Church.
The bishops' Pastoral Plan prompted the creation of the Moral Majority.
Richard A. Viguerie, a Catholic, is the man most responsible for the development and success of the New Right, and he will be the first to claim that honor. He was also involved in the original discussions that led to the creation of the Moral Majority and, as its fundraiser, can be credited with its financial success.
Paul Weyrich, a [Roman] Catholic, claims credit for originating the idea for the group and the name itself. In their search for an attractive front man for the organization, they chose Jerry Falwell, who, according to intimates, has an insatiable lust for power - and, thus, Moral Majority, Inc., was born.
It is inconceivable that these Catholic laymen were not responding to the bishops' Pastoral Plan. Much went into avoiding public disclosure of the role of the [Roman] Catholic Church in the creation of the Moral Majority.
Maxine Negri, in "A Well-Planned
Conspiracy," exposed involvement of the [Roman] Catholic hierarchy in the
Moral Majority. Then, the June 21, 1982, issue of
At the heart of Moral Majority is a direct-mail operation..... Membership claims.... put the number of Moral Majority's active supporters at roughly 4 million Roman Catholics, Protestant fundamentalists, and orthodox Jews. The organization says its "hardcore contributors," numbered at more than 400,000, include a cadre of 80,000 priests, ministers, and rabbis organized into fifty autonomous chapters.
This claim of autonomy should not be taken seriously. What is described here is exactly the organization described in the Pastoral Plan of Action down to the details. None of us who has ever worked extensively with fundamentalist churches or lived among fundamentalists ever took the claim that the Moral Majority was a fundamentalist organization seriously.
One characteristic common among fundamentalists is a keen sense of individualism, and individualists are often fundamentalists because of this trait. There is self-selection. They strongly resist the "herding" that characterizes other major denominations such as the [Roman] Catholic Church. . . . (Ibid., pp. 43-44, Emphasis theirs)
"The New Right, which is dominated by
Catholics such as Richard Viguerie and which answers to the
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM vs. THE RADICAL RELIGIOUS
"If we didn't know the Pope agrees with us, we Catholics in the New Right would have serious conscience problems. I would never work counter to the Church's official position." -Paul Weyrich, founder Moral Majority Christian Voice Religious Roundtable
The radical religious in our country, the
so-called New Right, religious right, religious conservatives, and the Moral
Majority, according to Paul Weyrich, will be guided by policy established in the
Vatican. To ensure that the Moral Majority does not act in ways in which
the pope would not approve, the opinion of Weyrich and other Catholics in the
organization must bear considerable weight in decision-making by the Moral
Majority organization. They must be in positions of leadership. We have
discussed earlier the
All of this
does not surprise Seventh-day Adventists who are still students of Bible
prophecy. Guided by the light of prophecy, notable Church leaders like A.
T. Jones and Christian Edwardson laid the groundwork for our understanding of
current events. From the Bible these men received the wisdom to
discern the conception in the mind of Leo XIII of the original grand design to
subvert and destroy the Constitution of the
From the Humanist, November-December 1997, Watch on the Right, "The Pope Versus the Bible," by John M. Swomley:
The key to the purpose of this center is found in its focus
on the teachings of the current pope and on such issues as abortion, birth
control, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and ordination of women. It was
described as “part interactive museum and part think tank.” In other words, “it
is intended to be akin to a presidential museum for the Pope” and also a
right-wing propaganda agency to supplement the already Catholic-led Heritage
Foundation, National Empowerment Television, and Free Congress Foundation.
These have been promoting right-wing Vatican ideology in the American political
sphere ever since Paul Weyrich, deacon in the Catholic church, founded them and
turned over the leadership of National Empowerment Television to William
Bennett of the right-wing Catholic Campaign for
The Washington Times also reported that
The author also focused on the hypocrisy of the
The fact that the
Catholic bishops are using abortion to control
Some priest-fathers are willing to become involved with, if not willing to fully acknowledge, their off spring. But sadly, others simply arrange abortions, sometimes with the acknowledgment of their bishops.
If one examines
If it is argued by the pro-life movement that the Vatican has changed in recent years, it is only necessary to note that, since 1975 when the bishops wrote their pro-life pastoral, the Vatican has been involved with its Maronite militia in Lebanon and the thousands of murders of suspected communists and political dissidents in Argentina described by Emilio F. Mignona, a Roman Catholic, in his book Witness to Truth: The Complicity of Church and Dictatorship in Argentina.
Moreover, to show
his devotion to “life,” Pope John Paul II on April 21, 1986, raised the
twenty-nine military vicariates around the world to the status of dioceses.
These have military jurisdiction and are governed by prelates with the same
rights and privileges as a bishop. It was the military vicars in
The pro-life campaign in
The greatest danger to democracy in any nation is
theocracy. It can occur in any society where a powerful religious organization
or combination of organizations is the decisive voice in a political or
judicial system. In spite of our constitutional system of separation of church
and state there is substantial evidence of theocratic influence and efforts to
control in the
It is evident in a well-documented alliance of the
Republican National Committee under George W. Bush’s leadership with the
Cardinals and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and the silence or
collusion of some largely Protestant organizations. This conclusion is based largely
on the remarkable investigative reporting by a progressive democratic Roman
Catholic organization of the actions of Bush and the Catholic hierarchy of the
On its cover page is a color picture of five
red-clad, smiling Cardinals applauding a smiling George W. Bush in front of the
On the domination of the
so-called "free press" of the
One of the least known and most dangerous of the far-right
organizations is the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. It is
little known because it masquerades as a civil rights organization; it is
dangerous because it redefines religious and civil rights as opposites to those
normally understood as constitutional rights. Chiefly, its commission is to
censor or suppress any activity, language, speech, publication, or media
presentation that it considers offensive to the papacy, the
The Catholic League was organized in 1973 by a Jesuit priest, Virgil Blum, who in 1959 had organized Citizens for Educational Freedom to launch the campaign for government funding of parochial schools through tax vouchers. In 1993, William Donohue took over the leadership of the Catholic League, with the assistance of Robert Destra as general counsel. Donohue has worked hard to redefine civil liberties away from individual rights so as to oppose affirmative action, gay rights, women’s rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. . . .
The league, however, is not simply a collection of
right-wing individuals. It claims “the support of all the
A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church. . .
The Catholic League claims that any criticism of the pope,
the hierarchy, and the
The last quotation corroborates from recent history what Christian Edwardson wrote in Facts of Faith sixty years ago:
MUZZLING THE PUBLIC PRESS
Dr. McGinnis also spoke of their plans regarding the daily papers. He said: "We may consider briefly the program of the International Catholic Truth Society in reference to two great agencies in the formation of the minds and hearts of the great American people, - the press and the public libraries.
press...mold[s] the thought and influence[s] the will of the country....We do
demand that the great Catholic Church, in her saving doctrines and in her marvelous
activities, should be brought more prominently before the American
SOCIAL POLICIES ENMESHED
It may be an over-simplification
to state that the social policies of the Church of Rome and the Religious Right
mesh perfectly together. Perhaps this is partly due to the fact that, in
a descriptive term observed on one website, there is so much "hypocrisy
and cant" in the Church of Rome. Also, in all fairness, not all
Catholics in the
In an essay in the online Yurica Report titled "The Despoiling of America. How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State," Katherine Yurica and Laurie Hall wrote:
Dominionists have gained extensive control of the
Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the
From the article "Christian Democracy" in The Catholic Encyclopedia Online we quote:
In Christian Democracy, the name and the reality have two very different histories, and therefore they must be carefully distinguished.
What Christian democracy is was authoritatively
laid down by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical "
In these two quotations can be seen a basic similarity between the social principles of Rome and the Religious Right, which is a fundamental shift away from the civil government to religious control over the welfare of the people.
of the Religious Right in the
THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT ADVANCED STEALTHILY
In an April, 2001, Special Issue of Watchman, What of the Night?, under the title, "The Image to the Beast, Is It Now Formed,?" we quoted Carla Binion from the Online Journal as follows:
For example, George W. Bush campaign adviser Ralph Reed once defended his Christian Coalition colleagues for fronting "stealth candidates" - meaning, politicians running on secular issues but hiding their religious-right agendas. Reed told the Los Angeles Times (March 22, 1992) that when it comes to stealth tactics it is like guerilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It is better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night" (WWN Special 1(01,) p. 9, emphasis added)
In "The Despoiling of America. . .," Katherine Yurica and Laurie Hall wrote:
Today, Dominionists hide their agenda and have resorted to stealth; one investigator who has engaged in internet exchanges with people who identify themselves as religious conservatives said, "They cut and run if I mention the word ‘Dominionism.’" Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University wrote, "In March 1986, I was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo [Pat] Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus titled, "How to Participate in a Political Party." It read:
"Rule the world for God. Give the
impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of lead"ership positions whenever possible, God willing."
Dominionists have gained extensive control of the
Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the
It is estimated that thirty-five million
Americans who call themselves Christian, adhere to Dominionism in the
THE ROMAN HIERARCHY AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT
In the presidency of George W. Bush, Roman Catholic and Christian Reconstructionist ideologies of government for the United States have passed from concepts and planning to the stage of implementation. In "The Despoiling of America. . .," Katherine Yurica and Laurie Hall wrote:
The First Prince of the Theocratic States of
It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it. And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty. On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.
Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with
excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of
the President of the
Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation.
The movement towards theocratic government was clearly discernible in the 2000 presidential election campaign. It should have been easy for Seventh-day Adventists to see the application of Rev. 13 to the events that were unfolding. We tried to sound the alarm in the April, 2001, Special Issue of Watchman, What of the Night? Some heeded, but others berated us by mail for engaging in "liberal politics." One writer accused us of "liberal spin." Is it not now plain to see the origin of these notions? It will not have been easy in the intervening years for the skeptics to change their minds; for reasons summed up in one word, "stealth" - the stealth of Rome, the stealth of the Religious Right, the stealth of the Bush presidency, even the stealth of the creeping ecumenism of decades. It is a sad fact that many, many Seventh-day Adventists have been influenced by the ecumenical movement to the point where they can no longer distinguish between the true and the false. In the case of such as these, even what is already exposed in this document, and what is about to be exposed, may fall on deaf ears. The key is in whether we can recognize the papacy and the "false prophet" for what the Bible reveals them to be. We all will in due course; but it will then be too late for many to turn around.
In the April, 2001, Special Issue of WWN, we provided our own documentation of the Religious Right's takeover of the Republican Party. We identified some of the individuals and organizations who were involved. One was the Christian Reconstruction movement. We also identified Marvin Olasky, who conceived the term "Compassionate Conservatism," as a mentor of President Bush. What we did not know at the time was that Olasky is a Christian Reconstructionist, and that the ideology of Christian Reconstructionism pervades the White House governing policies.
From "Talking with
Mark Crispin Miller, Author of Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's
What's most significant here, and yet gets almost zero
coverage in our media, is the fact that Bush is very closely tied to the
Christian Reconstructionist movement. The links between this White House and
that movement are many and tight. Marvin Olasky -- a former Maoist who is
now a Reconstructionist -- coined the phrase "compassionate
conservatism," and was hired by the Bush campaign in 2000 to serve as
their top consultant on welfare. Olasky's entire career has been financed
by Howard Ahmanson, the
Christian Reconstructionism is a maverick theological movement. It's far more activist and radical than most Christian Evangelism is. For the most part, Christian Evangelicals generally have chosen to deplore this world in their expectation of Jesus' return, whereupon this world will be improved. The reconstructionists believe that it is the obligation of every Christian to do whatever he or she can do to make this a Christian republic with an eye toward making the other nations of the world Christian republics. . .
This means replacing the Constitution with the Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Old Testament. It is an anti-pluralist movement, which would entail the disenfranchisement all non-Christians, and the establishment of a common law based on Leviticus. If you want a sense of what the theocrats are after, read that book, and also read The Handmaid's Tale. Although the reconstructionists don't believe in violent tactics to get their way, and many of the Islamists obviously do, the world envisioned by the former seems to be more punitive that the global caliphate imagined by al Qaeda.
And in fact we are now dealing with an adversary whose world-view is opposed to ours completely. They are nostalgic for the Middle Ages, or at least for the colonial theocracies of the 17th and early 18th centuries.
In an article on Christian Reconstructionism in The Public Eye Magazine, Vol. VIII, Nos. 1 & 2, March/June 1994, by Frederick Clarkson, Part 1, under the title "Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence," the author wrote:
The Christian Right has shown impressive resilience and has rebounded dramatically after a series of embarrassing televangelist scandals of the late 1980s, the collapse of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, and the failed presidential bid of Pat Robertson. In the 1990s, Christian Right organizing went to the grassroots and exerted wide influence in American politics across the country.
There is no doubt that Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition gets much of the credit for this successful strategic shift to the local level. But another largely overlooked reason for the persistent success of the Christian Right is a theological shift since the 1960s. The catalyst for the shift is Christian Reconstructionism--arguably the driving ideology of the Christian Right in the 1990s.
The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law." Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.
Reconstructionism has expanded from the works of a small group of scholars to inform a wide swath of conservative Christian thought and action. While many Reconstructionist political positions are commonly held conservative views, what is significant is that Reconstructionists have created a comprehensive program, with Biblical justifications for far right political policies. Many post-World War II conservative, anticommunist activists were also, if secondarily, conservative Christians. However, the Reconstructionist movement calls on conservatives to be Christians first, and to build a church-based political movement from there.
For much of Reconstructionism's short history it has been an ideology in search of a constituency. But its influence has grown far beyond the founders' expectations. As Reconstructionist author Gary North observes, "We once were shepherds without sheep. No longer." (Emphasis added.)
That was 1994, just over ten years ago. In an endnote to their essay, "The Despoiling of America . . .," Yurica and Hall provided the following information, which gives added significance to the Bush victory in 2004:
 Tim LaHaye predicted on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club show
on September 25, 1985 that 110,000 evangelical, fundamentalist, and Pentecostal
churches could sponsor one person per church to run for office and win, that in
a decade they would hold every office in the
The reader will have noted that among the capital crimes included in the Christian Reconstructionist ideology are "blasphemy" and "heresy." Either of these could be applied in fulfillment of Rev. 13:15.
From a well-documented article titled Christian Reconstructionism - The Foundation of Modern Conservativism (Politics) and dated May 22, 2004, on a website with the curious name of Kuro5hin, by revscat (an apparent e-mail username) the following is quoted:
Much of the modern conservative agenda ties in closely with Reconstructionist beliefs, and are frequently in lock-step with them. Some examples:Welfare - Reconstructionists believe that the state has undermined the church by many of its duties, specifically aid to the poor, indigent, and those unable to provide for themselves. Tom Albrecht, an avowed Reconstructionist, summarized this belief in a Usenet posting as follows:
The purpose of the state, on the other hand, is to be a minister of justice (Rom 13:1ff). It alone is given the sword of power to inflict vengeance on those who would violate the law of God as expressed in the laws of the state.
In our society the state has, to a large extent, usurped the "gracious" role of the church by involving itself in areas that are the exclusive domain of the church or family; ministries to the poor and needy, education of children, etc. This is a form of paganism in which the state becomes god to many people under its ever expanding sphere of influence. (Emphasis added.)
Interestingly, the Usenet posting (the link above is active) begins with a query arising out of an article by Albrecht, "Could you be a bit more explicit about what theonomists believe? ...Your description could easily fit some Seventh-Day Adventists, ..." Albrecht replied, "Not really. SDA teaches that the seventh day sabbath is still to be observed. Theonomists do not." However, we wanted to focus attention on what Albrecht said about the purpose of the state. The reader will also note confirmation of the social policy of the Reconstructionists, as Theonomists. Keep this in mind in the context of the Bush administration's policies.
"Falwell Says Evangelicals Control GOP, Bush's Fate"
This was the headline of a Cox News Service report by Scott Shepard dated September 25, 2004, which appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune. The article went on to report:
The Rev. Jerry Falwell said yesterday that evangelical Christians, after nearly 25 years of increasing political activism, now control the Republican Party and the fate of President Bush in the November election.
"The Republican Party does not have the head count to elect a president without the support of religious conservatives," Falwell said at an election training conference of the Christian Coalition.
Falwell said evangelical Christians are now "by far the largest constituency" within the Republican Party, their route to dominance beginning in 1979 with his founding of the Moral Majority, a precursor to the Christian Coalition.
"I tell my Republican friends who are always talking about the 'big tent,' I say make it as big as you want to, but if the candidate running for president is not pro-life, pro-family . . . you're not going to win," he said.
We have already seen that the Religious Right, and by the pervasiveness of its ideology within the Religious Right, Christian Reconstructionism, are ultimately under the control of the Pope himself: "If we didn't know the Pope agrees with us, we Catholics in the New Right would have serious conscience problems. I would never work counter to the Church's official position." -Paul Weyrich (Emphasis added.)
It remains only to give some examples of how Catholic a president George W. Bush is, Protestant though he be in name. We begin with reports from early in his presidency. In an article in the Washington Post, by staff writer Thomas B. Edsall, dated April 16, 2001, and titled "Bush Aims to Strengthen Catholic Base - Republicans Seeking Solid Majorities Among All White Religious Voters," was the following statement:
The effort to recruit Catholic voters has led to a striking
change in the political climate in
Republican advocacy of "compassionate conservatism" meshes well with Catholic doctrine, in contrast to more hard-edged Republican themes of free-market conservatism and the libertarianism promoted by groups such as the Cato Institute, Hudson [Deal Hudson, publisher of the Catholic magazine Crisis] and George both argue. (Emphasis added.)
The same article reported that Bush's staff had instituted a weekly conference call with an informal group of Catholic advisers; but that is not all as will be seen. An article in the New Republic, by Ryan Lizza, dated April 23, 2001, titled "WHITE HOUSE WATCH, Salvation" opened as follows:
In late March, President
Bush traveled to an obscure corner of Washington, D.C., to give one of the most
striking and underreported speeches of his presidency. It wasn't about
education reform or tax cuts. In fact, it had little to do with Bush or his
administration at all. It was rather a simple, eloquent, Christ-drenched
tribute to Pope John Paul II, offered to commemorate the opening of the
It was a remarkable moment, but not an isolated one. Bush has courted the Catholic vote more doggedly than any modern president, explicitly-and often eloquently-placing "compassionate conservatism" within the context of the Catholic tradition of aiding the underprivileged and protecting the sanctity of life. (Emphasis added.)
The article went on to state:
The president makes a point of meeting with local bishops wherever he travels, but especially on visits to swing states. He has made Catholic leaders fixtures at White House events, and his political staff holds a weekly conference call with conservative Catholics.
Further down, the weekly conference call was mentioned again as follows:
The Republican National Committee (RNC) is reviving its
Catholic Task Force, which will now include a staffer who concentrates on
Catholic Hispanics. In the speech-writing shop, Michael Gerson, an
evangelical with a keen understanding of Catholic teaching, has been joined by
Peter Wehner, a former aide to GOP Catholic luminary Bill Bennett. In the
public liaison office, Tim Goeglin, a former aide to Gary Bauer who later did
religious outreach for the Bush campaign, serves as the point man for
Catholics. One of his responsibilities is hosting a White House conference
call, on Thursdays at eleven o'clock in the morning, with Catholic
leaders-including Wagner, Hudson,
Returning to the Washington Post article quoted earlier, it closed with the statement:
[Paul] Weyrich wrote that he recently asked senior Bush adviser Karl Rove to tell the president "that he has mastered the art of Catholic governance." Rove, according to Weyrich, replied, "That's pretty good for a Methodist."
Following up on this reference, there is a statement by Weyrich on his Free Congress Foundation website, dated March 13, 2001, and titled "Bush Understands Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity," from which we quote as follows:
"Before I get to the business of why I've called you," I said to President Bush's political guru Karl Rove, "I would be grateful if you would give your President a message from me." Rove was most obliging. "Tell him that he has mastered the art of Catholic governance," I said. Rove replied: "That's pretty good for a Methodist."
Rove went on to say that President Bush understands the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. I am not the only one who believes this is the case. The American Society of Tradition Family and Property (TFP), a very traditionalist group, says privately that Bush is more Catholic than any Catholic President who is electable in this country. . .
The principle of subsidiarity requires that when you minister to someone in need you begin with the unit closest to home. Only if you cannot satisfy the need at that level do you move beyond to mediating structures. If those structures fail, you would move to government, but you would begin at the local level. And again, if local government can't satisfy needs, only then would it be permissible to turn to the next level of government and so on. The bias in this principle is in favor of the family as the basic unit of society. Beyond the family, private institutions have the next bias, if you will, and government is only favored when private institutions fail completely, and then the bias is in favor of government which is closest to the people. . .
Already this President has been misjudged and
misunderstood. I suspect that unless his friends and critics alike begin to
understand his Catholicity, George Bush will continue to confound people. The
Weyrich's opinion of
Bush's Catholicity is shared by a former heavyweight in the U.S. Senate, Roman
Catholic Rick Santorum. A report from
In contemporary Western debates, this idea of unity between faith and political allegiance often puts Opus Dei-inspired politicians on the right.
Santorum was a forceful champion of this view. He told NCR that a distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, enshrined in John Kennedy’s famous speech in 1960 saying he would not take orders from the Catholic church if elected president, has caused “much harm in America.” . . .
Santorum told NCR that he regards
George W. Bush as “the first Catholic president of the
“From economic issues focusing on the poor and social justice, to issues of human life, George Bush is there,” he said. “He has every right to say, ‘I’m where you are if you’re a believing Catholic.’ ” (Emphasis added)
So it is clear from the testimony of two militant sons of the Church of Rome that the George W. Bush presidency has the MARK OF THE BEAST written large all over it. This also testifies to the menacing presence of the IMAGE TO THE BEAST, poised to snuff out the torch of civil and religious liberty which once shone with a bright and steady light in what was proudly known as "the land of the free." It is well to note a manual of one of these two sons of the Roman Church that has come to light and been published by the pen of Katherine Yurica. From the Yurica Report dated September 14, 2004, under the title "Conquering by Stealth and Deception - How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power" we quote:
Paul Weyrich’s Secret Manual on How to Win Politically
Since the writing and posting of my essay, The Despoiling of America in February 2004, there is more and more evidence that not only has a cultural war been launched, but that the plotters are winning it. “Dominionism” now looks more like a term that is applicable to both right-wing-religious believers and to the neo-cons who were created and born in an astonishing resurgence of an immoral Machiavellianism: both groups believe in domination and control. While religious adherents adopted a decidedly heretical Christian doctrine, the neo-cons continue to use the American churches to help execute their cabal. It was expressed this way by a Yurica Report talk board participant:
“One of the more sinister aspects of the
current crisis is the influence of Leo Strauss on the pro-war, “neo-cons” who
are determining so much of our foreign policy. While the Christian right thinks
it is running the show, Leo Strauss’ irreligious philosophy is actually in
control. Strauss believed that the rulers should not be religious, but should
use religion to manage the people — which he evidently regarded as a stupid
herd. He also believed that a state of war was great for controlling and directing
the masses. So it’s all come together: the weirdest book of the bible
[Revelations], with its mysterious disasters; the scheming behind the scenes
warmongers and an incident of terrorism that has served admirably as the
Project for a New American Century’s hoped-for ‘new
Americans and the main-stream media have been very slow in catching on to the fact that we are in a war—a war that is cultural, religious and political. One document not mentioned in The Despoiling of America is the closeted manual that reveals how the right wing in American politics can get and keep power. It was created under the tutelage of Paul Weyrich, the man who founded the Free Congress Foundation. Conservative leaders consider Weyrich to be the “most powerful man in American politics today.” There is no question of his immense influence in conservative circles. He is also considered the founder of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank made possible with funding from Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon-Scaife. Weyrich served as the Founding President from 1973-1974.
To get a sense of how revolutionary the political fight for power in the U.S. is, we need to look at a few quotes from what has been dubbed, “Paul Weyrich’s Teaching Manual,” the Free Congress Foundation’s strategic plan on how to gain control of the government of the U.S. Written by Eric Heubeck, and titled, “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement,” the document is no longer available at the Free Congress Foundation’s website for obvious reasons. But excerpts are published at the Yurica Report. The excerpts explain why the Dominionists are winning; the tactics they endorse are sheer Machiavellian:
I have paraphrased the four immoral principles of the Dominionist movement as the following:
1) Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication.
2) It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of “goodness” whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as “evil.”
3) Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks.
4) The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.
One does not have to think very hard to recall multiple demonstrations of this plan of action in and out of the election campaign season. We have provided documentation earlier in this document of the tactics of intimidation by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in muzzling the press; tactics that are not far removed from the above plan of action. It bears reiteration that Weyrich has said, "If we didn't know the Pope agrees with us, we Catholics in the New Right would have serious conscience problems. I would never work counter to the Church's official position."
It is left to
the reader to make the connections between the Bush administration's economic
policies and the Roman Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Santorum makes
it easy. Here is further evidence that the social policies of Roman
Catholicism and the Christian Reconstructionist Religious Right are enmeshed in
the current governance of the
Election Results Manipulated?
In an undated pre-election article, titled "Bush's Catholic Courtship Strategy," by Deborah Caldwell, which appears on Beliefnet.com, describing itself as an independent multi-faith e-community, the following was reported:
President Bush was so eager for a meeting with
Pope John Paul II that he recently flew overnight to
Why would Bush subject himself to this? Answer: Bush badly needs Catholic votes.
This is followed by a Beliefnet.com post-election article, titled "It Wasn't Just (Or Even Mostly) the 'Religious Right'," by Steven Waldman and John Green, which stated:
The congealing conventional wisdom is that super-religious, born-again Protestants—a.k.a. the religious right—carried President Bush to victory in 2004. A new Beliefnet analysis of the election data reveals this is only half right.
There was indeed a flood of evangelicals to the polls-—but it now appears that the shift in the Catholic vote was just as important and, in crucial states, probably more so. . .
Bush’s strong performance among Catholics, it turns out, was crucial to his victory. Bush won Catholics 52%-47% this time, while Al Gore carried them 50%-46% in 2000. If Kerry had done as well as Gore, he would have had about a million more votes nationwide. According to Gallup Polls, only one Democrat since 1952 (Walter Mondale in 1984) lost the Catholic vote by this large a margin.
The Catholic impact was starker in key states. In
Bush also did better among Hispanic Catholics, getting 42% of the vote in 2004 compared to 31% in 2000.
There is no mistaking the surge of Catholic votes for Bush, along with that of the Evangelicals, which speaks volumes. That alone is cause for alarm bells to be ringing throughout Seventh-day Adventism; but in addition to the role of Catholics and Evangelicals following the dictates of their religious leaders, reasonable doubts have been raised about the validity of the election results. The question is: can we, with a knowledge of the Bible, in spite of the spectacle of Revelation 13:11-18 unfolding before our very eyes, take lightly the evidence of tampering at the ballot box? Perhaps we should consider the further evidence that the end preached by Seventh-day Adventists for over one hundred and fifty years is at hand, in the context of the validity of the election results. Notwithstanding the title "How George W. Bush Won the 2004 Presidential Election," the following prediction was made in an article by Sandeep S. Atwal before the presidential election, and appears to have been fulfilled to the letter:
Purging voter lists is just
the beginning: the
“The Christian worldview is
the answer. We need Christian statesmen who press for the Crown Rights of
Jesus Christ in all areas of life. This isn’t political salvation or an
overnight fix. It will take decades of mobilization and confrontation to
undo a century of godless socialism. It must be a grassroots movement
that starts in individual families and churches and then moves outward to take
dominion. It must encompass every area of life and not just the political
arena. Finally, it must start soon, for there isn’t much time left.
– Dr. Val Finnell, published by the Chalcedon Institute
If the connections between
Hagel and ES&S seem suspect, the origins of America’s largest electronic
voting machine companies may be just as distressing, especially for those
who venerate the separation of church and state. The convoluted
system of renaming and buyouts of
Brothers Bob and Todd Urosevich founded American Information Systems. Bob is currently president of Diebold, and Todd Urosevich is Vice President of Aftermarket Sales for ES&S. (In 1999, American Information Systems purchased Business Records Corp to become ES&S.)
American Information Systems (AIS) was primarily funded with money from Ahmanson brothers, William and Robert, of the Howard F. Ahmanson Co. The majority stake in ES&S is still owned by Howard F. Ahmanson and the Ahmanson Foundation.
Howard Ahmanson belongs to
Council for National Policy, a hard right wing organization, and also helps
finance The Chalcedon Institute. As the institute’s own site reports,
The 2004 election will be the first to use nation-wide electronic voting. With the purging of voter lists, secrecy surrounding voting machines, the lack of a verifiable paper trail combined with voting machine companies with strong Republican ties and funding from the radical right, a Bush victory is all but inevitable. Welcome to the machines. http://www.tom-davis.org/activism/unverifiable-voting/voting-summary.html (Emphasis added.)
consider the following quotation from an article by Alastair Thompson of
In the data which is shown below in tabulated form, and above in graph form, we can see that 42 of the 51 states in the union swung towards George Bush while only nine swung towards Kerry.
There has to date been no official explanation for the discrepancy.
Ordinarily in the absence of an obvious mistabulation error, roughly the same number of states should have swung towards each candidate.
Moreover many of the states that swung against Democratic Party hopeful John Kerry swung to an extent that is well beyond the margin of error in exit polls. Exit polls by their nature - they ask voters how they actually voted rather than about their intentions - are typically considered highly accurate.
Last week in an analysis of a similar, but incomplete set of data, Dr Stephen F. Freeman from the University of Pennsylvania calculated that the odds of just three of the major swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania all swinging as far as they did against their respective exit polls were 250 milllion to 1. (See…"The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy" – Dr Stephen F. Freeman - .pdf format)
Dr Freeman's academic paper contains a thorough description of why and how exit polls are conducted (in some countries they use them to prevent against vote fraud), and considers a number of hypotheses for why this year's polls could have been so dramatically wrong. He concludes that the reasons are unknown.
CAUTIONARY NOTE: The data that is released today shows the 4pm data run from the Edison-Mitofsky polling company. This run was based on 63% of the full 13660 sample in the poll. However as we also have a set of data from around midnight with which to compare this data, we can tell that the final exit poll results were not that far different than these early results. This in itself tends to suggest that the polling system did not have a systemic bias in its early data as suggested by some commentators in early reports on this puzzle. http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm (Bold print emphasis added.) (The active hyperlink for this report is in the Theocratic Dictatorship Library.)
There is another indicator pointing to a questionable result in the 2004 presidential election. Time Magazine's December 27, 2004/January 3, 2005, issue names George W. Bush "Person of the Year." From the related article, by Nancy Gibbs and John F. Dickerson, we quote:
Asked about his re-election, he replies, "I think over the Christmas holidays it'll all sink in."
As he says this, George W. Bush is about to set a
political record. The first TIME poll since the election has his
approval rating at 49%. Gallup has it at 53%, which doesn't sound bad
unless you consider that it's the lowest December rating for a re-elected
We have entered into hard political facts here; but it is the only way to get behind the carefully crafted and highly deceptive propaganda to which we are relentlessly subjected. The final paragraph of the April, 2001, Special Issue of Watchman, What of the Night? included this statement:
This is the alarm bell that should be sounding. Instead, there is a seductive sound, the deceptive ring of a bell of peace and tranquility. In reality it is tolling the impending death of democracy and its civil and religious freedoms. The call now is to all religions to come and worship the image of the beast.
website headlined “Why is the
Published January 3, 2005
The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you, the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)