(A 2004 Essay)

From the Turn of the 19th-20th Centuries To the Beginning of the 21st Century - This is an Astonishing History of Subversion and Revolution by Stealth - Read the Facts!!

A 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:
     "What the church has done in the past for others, she will now do for the United States....He [the pope] hails in the United American States, and in their young and flourishing church the source of new life for Europeans....If the United States succeed in solving the many problems that puzzle us, Europe will follow her example." - "New York Sun," July 11, 1892; quoted in "Liberty," 1907, No. 4, p. 10.
How remarkably this coincides with the prophetic prediction: "His deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast." Rev. 13:3. Yes, it is true that "as America, the land of religious liberty, shall unite with the Papacy in forcing the conscience and compelling men to honor the false sabbath, the people of every country on the globe will be led to follow her example." - "Testimonies," Vol. VI, p. 18. This country led the world from despotism to liberty, and it will lead the way back.  Christian Edwardson in  Facts of Faith, (published in 1943) p. 260, emphasis added.


Breaking Down the Protective Wall of Separation Between Church and State




They call 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:
[November, 2008
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; The Image to the Beast;)  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;
: 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. ]

[March, 2012
Highly significant web documents published in 2011:

NATURAL LAW - The ascendancy of the Roman Catholic dogma in the body politic of the United States


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 United States" in spirit, because the constitution says that nothing shall ever be done in respect to any religion or the establishment of it. When a citizen of the United States would rise up and protest against the papacy and all this that is against the letter and the spirit of the constitution, behold! He does not appreciate "the liberty of the constitution. We are lovers of liberty; we are defenders of the constitution; we are glad that America has such a symbol of liberty" as that.  Indeed they are.

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 United States of America were followed in 1943 by Christian Edwardson's Facts of Faith  in which he reiterated the plan of action and documented the progress made in its execution:

A letter from Rome, dated October 14, 1894, says:

"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 Washington conference" says:

"Our purpose is to make America dominantly Catholic." - "The Mission Movement in America," issued from the Catholic University, Washington, D.C., June, 1909.

"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), Washington, D.C.: May, 1910; quoted in "Protestant Magazine," Vol. II, p. 22.

    This Catholic movement has already made such progress in England, that, with a little careful manipulation, its leaders anticipate very little opposition in the future. (See "History of the Romeward Movement in the Church of England," London: 1900, and "The Secret History of the Oxford Movement," London: 1899, both by Walter Walsh; and "The Oxford Movement in America," by Rev. C. E. Walworth, New York: 1895; also "The Jesuits and the British Press," by Michael J. F. McMarthy."

Now the "Catholic Action" is focused on America, not in an antagonistic way, but quietly, in wisely planned, systematically organized, and well directed efforts along numerous lines, so as to gain favor among Protestants, and not to be suspected as propaganda. And, remarkable as it may sound, Protestant leaders and people are totally asleep on the Catholic question, even more so than the Huguenots were in France before the St. Bartholomew's Massacre.

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 America." - "Rome Stoops to Conquer," p. 15. New York. 1935.

"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 Rome? The fight must be fought to a finish - opposition must be worn down if it cannot be swept away. Rome's immortal destiny hangs on the outcome. That destiny overshadows the land.

"And in the fight, as she has ever fought when battles were most desperate in the past, Rome will use steel, and gold, and silvery lies. Rome will stoop to conquer." - Id., pp. 266, 267.

In a communication from Vatican City, published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Nov. 4, 1936, we read:

"Pope Pius feels that the United States is the ideal base for Catholicism's great drive....

"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 Rome, to combat red agitation with every political weapon available....The church must fight, and at once.

"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 America today, and that is our most important problem at the moment.

"Pacelli is contacting the American cardinals and leading Catholic personalities, explain the Vatican's plan for the new crusade....The Catholic political organizations in the large cities, like Tammany Hall, will give the church a good lever. Those contacts are also being carefully inspected by the pope's minister.

"The Vatican itself resembles a general staff headquarters preparing plans and arms for a big offensive. Since the time of the Counter-Reformation, churchmen say, no such extensive reorganization of personnel and propaganda methods has been undertaken. The whole world-wide net of Catholic organizations and sub-organizations is being contacted directly from Rome and cleared for action. The church is to be adjusted to modern political, social, and cultural conditions." - p. 10, col. 3, 4, used by permission.

This article speaks of Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, then papal secretary of state, coming from the Vatican to effect the above mentioned reorganization. He toured the United States "in a chartered airplane." Christian Science Monitor says: "The visit of a high Roman prelate to the United States on the eve of an election is as unprecedented as it is delicate." - Oct. 2, 1926.

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 America as "The Promised Land."  (Pp. 240-242, emphasis added)

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 Kansas City, Missouri, and president of Americans for Religious Liberty.  It reveals the following:

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 United States with the 264th Roman Pope broke a 200-year-old tradition which has seen few US politicians publicly courting the Catholic Church.

In retrospect 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 Vatican and Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election campaign.  Whether or not this is so, it is clear that since 1980 the Roman Catholics have been riding the GOP elephant all the way to domination of all of the institutions of national government, with worse to come shortly in the nomination of justices to the Supreme Court.  We are confident that anyone reading this document in its entirety will be convinced that Rome has now almost completely accomplished her purpose.  This nation is now controlled by the Vatican, under the cover provided by Evangelical Christians.  How long will it be before laws are passed which culminate in the dragon's war against the remnant (Rev. 12:17)?  This document presents convincing evidence that the world is on the verge of "the battle of that great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14.)

Before turning to the stealth campaign of extremist Protestants in America, it is well to examine the railings of both Ultraright Roman Catholics and the Religious Right against "Liberalism."  We naturally tend to associate this with licentiousness, which is as abhorrent to us as to any other Christians; but mark the following, which was taken from a Catholic schoolbook, "Manual of Christian Doctrine, by a Seminary Professor," printed by J. J. McVey, Philadelphia, 1915, and carrying the sanction of the Catholic Censor and the seal of the Church:

"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 (, 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 Rome?  This question is answered conclusively in articles on several web sites, which are included in the Theocratic Dictatorship Library linked to this document (this library of hyperlinks to other web pages is provided for research purposes only, and does not constitute an endorsement of any ideology, doctrine, theology, or political perspective promoted on those web pages or the web sites to which they belong.)

Now, as to the political union between Rome and the Evangelicals, here is an excerpt from "Catholics and the religious right - Watch on the Right - Column," Humanist,  March-April, 1996,  by John M. Swomley:

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 Sharon, Connecticut, estate in 1960. He was also very influential in the 1964 organization of the American Conservative Union, which was the forerunner of a number of existing rightist groups, such as the Conserve [s/b Conservative] Caucus and the National Conservative Political Action Committee.

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 America, which serves as a kind of central committee for Catholic Republicanism.

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 Lynchburg, Virginia, in January 1979," Paige continues, "Paul Weynch was the one who articulated exactly what it was they all were trying to accomplish." Richard Viguerie, in his book The New Right, put it this way: "Paul Weyrich and Howard Phillips spent countless hours with electronic ministers like Jerry Falwell, James Robison, and Pat Robertson, urging them to get involved in conservative politics."

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 Washington and then formed the Moral Majority." Falwell also indicated that at the time the Moral Majority had a membership of 30 percent Roman Catholic and 20 percent fundamentalist evangelicals; the rest were Mormons, Jews, and others.

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 America by the Vatican.

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. [Note: In reality it accomplished its purpose.]

The second vast movement involved the political mobilization of fundamentalists by the Vatican. According to Paige, the Reverend Edward Bryce, National Conference of Catholic Bishops' director of right-to-life activities, has presided over the transformation of the [Roman Catholic] Church into a right-to-life political machine. Bryce admits that the expenditures on abortion are much larger than the records show and that most of this is buried in bishops" discretionary funds and individual diocesan ledgers. No doubt, much of this "hidden" money of which Father Bryce speaks goes into the election campaigns of both Catholics and non-Catholics who cater to the needs of the Vatican.

"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 Vatican, drew the fundamentalists in under the guise of religion - but for explicitly political purposes.

"However heartfelt, opposition to abortion was simply part of the plan."  (Cf. 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 Vatican for a lot of help, and he's getting it - much of it not in the best interest of the United States. If the United States government shows no more willingness to deal with illegal immigration than has been shown by the Reagan Administration, then a migration from Latin America of the magnitude described above is certainly imminent. A [Roman] Catholic majority in the United States and Vatican control of our government would greatly enhance the power of the Church not only in this country but worldwide.

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. [Viguerie is alive and very active in 2013 - involved in the Tea Party movement.]

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 U.S. News and World Report noted:

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 Vatican, drew the fundamentalists in under the guise of religion-but for explicitly political purposes".  (Ibid. p. 207, emphasis theirs.)


"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 Vatican's control over faithful laypersons, and Weyrich is apparently in this mold. Weyrich and his Catholic colleagues control the Moral Majority. The Vatican controls Weyrich and his colleagues. Thus the Vatican controls the Moral Majority. It is a fact that the American Catholic bishops described the Moral Majority in their 1975 Pastoral Plan of Action (appendix two), four years before Jerry Falwell was asked by the Catholics who named the organization to head it.  (Ibid. p. 203, underscored emphasis theirs, bold print emphasis added.)

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 United States of America. They discerned the future workings of papal policy in the politics of this nation.  What they revealed is confirmed not only by the quotations exposing the role of Rome in the politics of the Religious Right; but also by the following quotations which expose the scope of the late Roman Pontiff's ambitions and the role of the Catholics in manipulating the news media in this country.

From the Humanist, November-December 1997, Watch on the Right, "The Pope Versus the Bible," by John M. Swomley:

The Vatican has begun a multimillion dollar project that will strengthen its influence in the United States. After about ten years of planning, construction began this past September on what the July 23, 1997, Washington Times reported is a $50 million Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C. The 100,000-square-foot center is being built next to the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and is being financed by a Detroit foundation.

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 America. Bennett is the former secretary of education under the Reagan administration and the nation’s leading advocate of vouchers for private schools.

The Washington Times also reported that Detroit’s Cardinal Adam Maida said the pope wanted this memorial in Washington. It did not speculate about a pope who would build such a memorial to himself instead of using such funds for efforts like eliminating poverty, war, disease, and other forms of injustice. As many progressive Catholics and others have long known, the Vatican is primarily a political and financial power institution functioning behind the pope’s facade of spirituality.

The author also focused on the hypocrisy of the Vatican in its pro-life campaign:

The fact that the Catholic bishops are using abortion to control America is evident in the following excerpt from an article in the August 29, 1997, National Catholic Reporter discussing women who become pregnant by priests:

 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 Vatican dogma, it is only fetuses that have a “right to life.” The pregnant woman whose life or health is endangered by the fetus has no right to life. Over the centuries, the Vatican has been involved in the direct or indirect slaughter of millions of people, including the enemies in the Crusade; the heretics and Jews in the Holy Inquisition; Protestants in the religious wars in Europe; Moors driven out of Spain; Muslims driven out of Eastern Europe by Polish-led armies; Jews, gypsies, and communists in World War II; and both Orthodox and Muslim Serbs killed by the Croatian Ustashi Catholics during the 1930s and 1940s.

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 Argentina who gave the church’s approval for the military coup of March 24, 1976, which led to the murders in the subsequent “Dirty War” in that country.  (Emphasis added.)

The pro-life campaign in America is not about morality or the sanctity of life.  It is all about the politics of deception, and the acquisition of power.  That power has been achieved in the ascendancy of the Republican Party and the George W. Bush presidency.  From Christian Ethics Today, Journal of Christian Ethics, Issue 36, Volume 7 No 5, October 2001, "The Threat of Theocracy?," By John M. Swomley, we quote:

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 United States today.

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 United States in the Summer 2001 issue of Conscience, a journal of Catholics for a Free Choice.

On its cover page is a color picture of five red-clad, smiling Cardinals applauding a smiling George W. Bush in front of the newly dedicated Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington on March 21. The description under the picture is “TOGETHER AT LAST: CONSERVATIVE CATHOLICS AND THE GOP.” The word “conservative” should be “right wing,” as most dictionaries describe a conservative as one who wants to maintain the status quo or existing system of government. The programs advocated by the new alliance go instead in the direction of extreme or radical change.  "The Threat of Theocracy?,"

On the domination of the so-called "free press" of the United States by Rome, we quote from the Center for Research on Population and Security: the Humanist, January-February, 1998, Watch on the Right, "A League of the Popes Own," by John M. Swomley:

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 Vatican, or the Catholic church in America.

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 U.S. cardinals and many of the bishops” and exists in response to Canon 1369 of the Code of Canon Law:

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 Vatican is bigotry. The league says it has attacked CBS’s 60 Minutes for a January 22, 1995, broadcast featuring the progressive Catholic group Call to Action. The league also attacked NBC Nightly News for referring to Catholics for a Free Choice and another Catholic group, Dignity. When the Associated Press mentioned that a federal appeals court judge who barred doctors from engaging in assisted suicide is a Catholic, the league launched a protest that resulted in an AP apology. That apology prompted Donohue to boast in the May 1995 Catalyst that the league “will not have to call attention to such errors in the future.” In other words, the league’s threat to the American press is clear: it is not permissible to identify public servants as Catholics when their public actions uphold papal teachings.

The last quotation corroborates from recent history what Christian Edwardson wrote in Facts of Faith sixty years ago:


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.

     "Our daily 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 public." - Id., p. 419.  (Facts of Faith, p.249)


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 United States subscribe to the papal policies and objectives described in this document.  However, there is solid evidence of a link between the social policies of Rome as enunciated in successive papal encyclicals, and of the Religious Right as influenced by the Christian Reconstructionists.  It will be demonstrated in another segment of this document that the policies have become intertwined in the presidency of George W. Bush under cover of "Moral Values" and "Compassionate Conservatism."  Our primary purpose in examining these governmental policies is to expose the dominance that the Church of Rome and the Religious Right have achieved over the government, in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

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 United States; they continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised under false labels that confuse voters. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Dominionism maintains the necessity of laissez-faire economics, requiring that people "look to God and not to government for help."[13]  ( February 2004.  (Emphasis added;  the complete article is in the Theocratic Dictatorship Library.)

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 "Graves de communi" wherein it is declared to be the same as "popular Catholic action". Such a definition is certainly intensive so that not everything done by Catholics, among the people or for the people, can be technically termed Christian democracy, or popular Catholic action. Action in this definition is taken to mean an organized movement with a definite programme to deal with the pressing problems that come before it. Popular has reference to the people, not inasmuch as they are a nation or collective whole, but as the fourth estate: the plebs, the tenuiores, and the tenuissimi of classical antiquity. Lastly, Catholic (and therefore Christian through and through) signifies that this organized action in favour of the people (plebs) is the work of Catholics as such. Popular Catholic action, therefore, means that the scope mapped out for the activity of the organization is the well-being of the people; and that the movement proceeds along Catholic lines, under the guidance of Catholic leaders. Having stated this, it is easy to understand that the existence of Christian democracy is not a thing of yesterday. In the very nature of Christianity, in the spirit of the Church, in the mission of the clergy (cf. Benigni, Storia sociale della Chiesa, Milan, 1907, I) lies the germ of popular Catholic action technically so called; in other words, of Christian democracy. As soon, therefore, as political and social circumstances allowed it, the Church set her hand to this work, and she has continued without interruption her traditional action in behalf of the people. To prove this there is no need of distorting the facts of history. Even if we exclude the marvellous economic organization of the Church of the first three centuries (see the last part of the "Storia" referred to above), it is certain that from the time of Constantine the Church began the practical work of Christian democracy, when the clergy showed their zeal in establishing hospices for orphans, for the aged and infirm, and for wayfarers.  Constantine in a period of famine chose the bishops rather than the civil officials to distribute corn among a starving people, and thus showed his appreciation of Christian democracy.   (Emphasis added.)

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.

The emergence of the Religious Right in the United States can be seen as the ultimate fulfillment of the vision of Leo XIII.  As documented above, it was Rome's objective to "gain favor among Protestants, and not to be suspected as propaganda."  Wherever we turn in society at large today, and even within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it is manifest that Rome has gained favor.  This is particularly evident in the political collaboration between an extremist branch of Protestantism and ultraright Roman Catholicism, in which the Protestants are the spearhead of advocacy for papal aims and objectives.  Not only have the religio-political forces of Protestantism imbibed the principles of Roman Catholicism; they have also, whether wittingly or unwittingly, adopted the stealth methods of Rome.


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.’"[11] 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.
"Hide your strength. Don’t flaunt your Christianity.

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."[12]

Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised under false labels that confuse voters. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Dominionism maintains the necessity of laissez-faire economics, requiring that people "look to God and not to government for help."[13]

It is estimated that thirty-five million Americans who call themselves Christian, adhere to Dominionism in the United States, but most of these people appear to be ignorant of the heretical nature of their beliefs and the seditious nature of their political goals. So successfully have the televangelists and churches inculcated the idea of the existence of an outside "enemy," which is attacking Christianity, that millions of people have perceived themselves rightfully overthrowing an imaginary evil anti-Christian conspiratorial secular society.  (Emphasis added.)


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 America

It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.[2] 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 United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.

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 New World Order," interviewed by, a website of daily headlines, we quote:

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 California multimillionaire who has said publicly that his life's goal is "to integrate Biblical law into all our lives."

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:

[14] 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 U.S. At the time, he said there were only 97,000 public offices in the U.S. so “we would have more Christians in office than there are positions.” By 1994, for the first time in forty years, Republicans regained control of Congress. Similarly Ralph Reed predicted that by the year 2000 they would control Congress. Gary North wrote in 1985: “I propose a program. Some variant of this program must be adopted if we are to have any meaningful hope in recapturing the machinery of civil government, the media, and the educational institutions. It will be done. It has already begun. How long it will take is problematical; I think we will begin to see major victories before the year 2005. at page 5 of 11 pages.  (Emphasis added)

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 Washington.  George [earlier identified as a Roman Catholic and Princeton University political scientist] noted in an interview last week that "in 1960, John Kennedy went from Washington down to Texas to assure Protestant preachers that he would not obey the pope.  In 2001, George Bush came from Texas up to Washington to assure a group of Catholic bishops that he would."

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 Pope John Paul II Cultural Center at Catholic University. "The pope reminds us," Bush told the gathered clergy, politicians, and civic leaders, "that while freedom defines our nation, responsibility must define our lives. He challenges us to live up to our aspirations, to be a fair and just society where all are welcomed, all are valued, and all are protected. And he is never more eloquent than when he speaks for a culture of life. The culture of life is a welcoming culture, never excluding, never dividing, never despairing, and always affirming the goodness of life in all its seasons. In the culture of life we must make room for the stranger. We must comfort the sick. We must care for the aged. We must welcome the immigrant. We must teach our children to be gentle with one another. We must defend in love the innocent child waiting to be born." Pro-choice Democrats in attendance, like Ted Kennedy, shifted uncomfortably in their seats. But the rest of the audience rose in a standing ovation.

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, Princeton's Robert George, and the Acton Institute's Reverend Robert Sirico, among others. (The weekly calls are separate from a Monday conference call with social conservatives because the White House has determined that religiously conservative evangelicals and Catholics are best dealt with as two completely different constituencies.)  (Emphasis added.)

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 Washington press corps isn't much schooled in theology. Before this Presidency concludes they may have to be.  (Emphasis added.)

Weyrich's opinion of Bush's Catholicity is shared by a heavyweight in the U.S. Senate, Roman Catholic Rick Santorum.  A report from Rome in the National Catholic Reporter Online, January 18, 2002, titled "Opus Dei prestige on display at centenary event" By John L. Allen Jr. stated:

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 United States.”

“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,[1] 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 Pearl Harbor.’” Adrien Rain

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 United States.

Election Results Manipulated?

In an undated pre-election article, titled "Bush's Catholic Courtship Strategy," by Deborah Caldwell, which appears on, 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 Rome to cram in a visit before the pontiff--who said he couldn’t rearrange his schedule--left town the next day. While there, Bush was greeted by angry anti-war protesters and had his knuckles rapped by the pope over the war in Iraq.

Why would Bush subject himself to this? Answer: Bush badly needs Catholic votes.

This is followed by a 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 Ohio, Bush got 55% of the Catholic vote in 2004 compared to just under 50% of them in 2000. That means a shift of 172,000 votes into the Republican column. Bush won the state by just 136,000 votes this year.

In Florida, Catholics made up 26% of the electorate in 2000. This year, they made up 28%. In 2000, 54% of Catholics went for Bush; in 2004, 57% of them voted for him. The combination of those two factors meant a gain of 400,000 voters in the Sunshine State—about Bush's margin of victory.

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 U.S. has embraced a form of electronic voting that is unreliable, unverifiable and funded by the radical Christian right. . .

Helping America Vote Right

“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.  The Florida elections have taught us that the Democrats with their liberal/socialistic worldview will stop at nothing to seize control of the government.”

– 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 America’s voting system companies is a complicated story.  However, once the various corporate trails have been followed, a disturbing picture comes into focus.

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, Chalcedon is a “Christian educational organization devoted to research, publishing, and promoting Christian reconstruction in all areas of life…. Our emphasis on the Cultural or Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and the necessity of a return to Biblical Law has been a crucial factor in the challenge to Humanism by Christians in this country and elsewhere....” Chalcedon promotes Christian Reconstructionism, which mandates Christ’s dominion over the entire world.  The organization’s purpose is to establish Old Testament Biblical law as the standard for society. . . .

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. (Emphasis added.)

Now consider the following quotation from an article by Alastair Thompson of New Zealand's Scoop Media titled "Complete US Exit Poll Data Confirms Net Suspicions":

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.

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 President in Gallup's history.  (Emphasis added.)

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.

The 2004 U.S. presidential election is over.  Once again there is a false sense of peace and tranquility on the political scene.  Evidence of probable massive fraud, unprecedented in the history of the Republic, has been met with deafening silence.  Who among us could ever  have imagined such a quiet death for the greatest constitutional democracy that the world has ever seen!


The following website headlined “Why is the Vatican a threat to Americans?” was found too late for the extensive use of quotations in the foregoing text.  There is much valuable historical material here, and further solid documentation of much of what we have stated.  We have placed this hyperlink here, as well as in the "Theocratic Dictatorship" library.  There are some document files on the web page that suggest the ultimate self-destruction of the Roman Catholic Church.  Obviously we cannot share in this optimism, except to the extent that defiance of the God of Heaven will in the end reap the vengeance of a just God in the day of His wrath.

Published January 3, 2005

Re-designed December, 2007

Home Page

Home Page

The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you, the hour and the end!"  Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)