What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?

Religions > Atheism > What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass"
Date:	06 Jul 2005 01:46:30 AM
Object:	What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?

Let's Count the Ways!
http://www.dailykos.com/
Foreign Policy
Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
Liberals: Peace and international cooperation
Executing Minors
Al Qaida/Taliban: Executing Minors OK
American Taliban: Executing Minors OK
Liberals: Find this to be a barbaric and embarrassing practice
Pop Culture
Al Qaida/Taliban: Hate it... kill it
American Taliban: Hate it... ban it
Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it
Self-image
Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints
God
Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone
Stem Cell Research
Al Qaida/Taliban: No Stem cell research
American Taliban: No Stem cell research
Liberals: Stem cell research
Leaders
Al Qaida/Taliban: God choose Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Great Satan
American Taliban: God choose George W. Bush to lead us
Liberals: God didn't choose anyone
Use of Force
Al Qaida/Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
American Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
Liberals: As a last resort
Bush's War in Iraq
Al Qaida/Taliban: Love it!
American Taliban: Love it!
Liberals: It's a disaster
Press
Al Qaida/Taliban: Control of the Press
American Taliban: Manipulation of the Press
Liberals: Freedom of the Press
Free Speech
Al Qaida/Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is an infidel and must
be silenced
American Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is a traitor and must
be silenced
Liberals: Anyone who disagrees with us is in for a spirited discussion
Individuals
Al Qaida/Taliban: Conform or else
American Taliban: Conform or else
Liberals: Embrace diversity
Cooperation
Al Qaida/Taliban: You're either with us or against us
American Taliban: You're either with us or against us
Liberals: We're all in this together
Tolerance
Al Qaida/Taliban: Death to the infidels
American Taliban: Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity
Liberals: Live and let live
Conscience
Al Qaida/Taliban: Obedience to authority
American Taliban: Obedience to authority
Liberals: Critical reflection
Origins
Al Qaida/Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
American Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
Liberals: The Universe began as we know it at least 14 billion years
ago, maybe more
Leaders
Al Qaida/Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
American Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
Liberals: Will served by Representative government
Fear
Al Qaida/Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral
absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
American Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral
absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
Liberals: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in accepting that
respect for our fellow man and the individual choices he/she makes is
eminently moral
Women
Al Qaida/Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
American Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
Liberals: A woman's place is wherever she wants it to be
Marriage
Al Qaida/Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
American Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
Liberals: Marriage is between any two people who love each other
Religion in government
Al Qaida/Taliban: One and the same
American Taliban: One and the same
Liberals: Separation of church and state
Schools
Al Qaida/Taliban: Religious indoctrination. Run by clergy.
American Taliban: School prayer. Religious indoctrination (creationism
and "intelligent design"). Private religious school system.
Liberals: Leave religious teachings to parents and sunday school.
Women
Al Qaida/Taliban: No school, must cover entire body, no rights
American Taliban: Government control over reproductive freedoms,
hostility to Title IX, hostility to working women
Liberals: Equality of the sexes
Religious freedom
Al Qaida/Taliban: 'Think like us, or we'll whiip you and/or chop off
your head'
American Taliban: 'Think like us, or we'll condemn you to hell'
Liberals: To each her own
Homosexuality
Al Qaida/Taliban: Eradicate them from society
American Taliban: Eradicate them from society
Liberals: Equality under the law
Torture
Al Qaida/Taliban: Torture them or chop off their heads
American Taliban: Torture them or homosexually rape them.
Liberals: No torture
Medicine and Science
Al Qaida/Taliban: Faith-based world view
American Taliban: Faith-based world view
Liberals: Reality-based community
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka

aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1745 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.

User: "towelie"
Title: Re: What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?	06 Jul 2005 02:04:23 AM

TV's Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:

Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints

From what I've noticed, conservatives tend to settle on the first viewpoint
they hear (usually coming from their parents/from the government) while
liberals and progressives take every viewpoint they see, and distill their
viewpoint from all these viewpoints.
--
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan
The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I reject
the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of evil
creature who would create such a thing. - Anthony Flew, March 22, 2005
aa #2133
ap #19
.

User: "Bernardz"
Title: Re: What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?	06 Jul 2005 08:37:45 AM

In article <BfCdnXXBM6vyH1bfRVn-hg@centurytel.net>,
bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...

Agreed liberals and progressives try to avoid facts as they interfere
their theories.
--
Its only since I started to study French recently that I realised how
much senseless duplication exists in English.
Observations of Bernard - No 80
.

User: "Brian E. Clark"
Title: Re: What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?	06 Jul 2005 03:53:43 PM

In article
<1120653057.282be2affefb43e9540eb623dee35c2a@bubbanews>,
Bernardz said...

Agreed liberals and progressives try to avoid facts
as they interfere their theories.

At a time when Republican titans are talking about "last
throes" in Iraq and a "winning economy" at home, in direct
contradiction to the crushing realities, this is no time to be
bringing up the chasm between fact and opinion -- not unless
you're trying to draw attention to your own monumental
gullibility.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.

User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass"
Title: Re: What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?	06 Jul 2005 08:33:08 PM

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:37:45 +1000, Bernardz <bernardz@nospam.com>
wrote:

In article <BfCdnXXBM6vyH1bfRVn-hg@centurytel.net>,
bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...

Agreed liberals and progressives try to avoid facts as they interfere
their theories.

Really, so where's that WMD again, *****?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka

aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1749 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.

User: "�� /Riain Barton"
Title: Re: What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?	07 Jul 2005 02:48:42 AM

Really??? The Progressive-Liberal, is a ZIONIST JEW, I do not avoid
facts!!!
Do not generalise! The liberal you speak of is the EXTREME-LEFT liberal.
The political spectrum does not run in a straight line, but in a
circle -- Extreme-Left and Extreme-Right actually meet.
"Bernardz" <bernardz@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1120653057.282be2affefb43e9540eb623dee35c2a@bubbanews...
: In article <BfCdnXXBM6vyH1bfRVn-hg@centurytel.net>,
:

says...
: > From what I've noticed, conservatives tend to settle on the first
viewpoint
: > they hear (usually coming from their parents/from the government)
while
: > liberals and progressives take every viewpoint they see, and distill
their
: > viewpoint from all these viewpoints.
: >
:
: Agreed liberals and progressives try to avoid facts as they interfere
: their theories.
:
: --
: Its only since I started to study French recently that I realised how
: much senseless duplication exists in English.
:
: Observations of Bernard - No 80
.

User: "towelie"
Title: Re: What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?	06 Jul 2005 03:21:16 PM

TV's Bernardz wrote:

In article <BfCdnXXBM6vyH1bfRVn-hg@centurytel.net>,
bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...

Agreed liberals and progressives try to avoid facts as they interfere
their theories.

You're obviously not agreeing with me.
If I'm wrong, why are most conservatives religious? Religion is nothing
more than settling on a viewpoint, usually the first one heard by a person,
then twisting reality to fit that viewpoint.
--
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan
The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I reject
the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of evil
creature who would create such a thing. - Anthony Flew, March 22, 2005
aa #2133
ap #19
.

User: "00:00:00Hg"
Title: Re: What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?	06 Jul 2005 04:04:04 PM

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:21:16 -0500, towelie wrote:

Agreed liberals and progressives try to avoid facts as they interfere
their theories.

You're obviously not agreeing with me.

That's just another theory.
--
http://openlinefriday.com
Talk Radio Evaluation Center
Hollywood Reconstruction Site
Wholesale Political Incorrectness
.

User: ""
Title: Re: What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?	14 Jul 2005 11:09:37 PM

towelie wrote:

TV's Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:

Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints

Liberals hear Bush's viewpoint, automatically take the opposite, and do
everything in their power to unintentionally prove Bush right. Don't
cry, idiot.

--

Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan

The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I reject
the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of evil
creature who would create such a thing. - Anthony Flew, March 22, 2005
aa #2133
ap #19

User: "�� /Riain Barton"
Title: Re: What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?	15 Jul 2005 12:57:03 PM

Don't you cry, IDIOT.
<omarenoryt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121400576.973842.120440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: towelie wrote:
: > TV's Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
: > > Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
: > > American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
: > > Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints
: >
: > From what I've noticed, conservatives tend to settle on the first
viewpoint
: > they hear (usually coming from their parents/from the government)
while
: > liberals and progressives take every viewpoint they see, and distill
their
: > viewpoint from all these viewpoints.
:
: Liberals hear Bush's viewpoint, automatically take the opposite, and
do
: everything in their power to unintentionally prove Bush right. Don't
: cry, idiot.
:
: >
: > --
: >
: > Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
: > A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
: > - Maynard James Keenan
: >
: > The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I
reject
: > the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of evil
: > creature who would create such a thing. - Anthony Flew, March 22,
2005
: > aa #2133
: > ap #19
:
.

User: "SuperFaggot"
Title: Re: What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?	15 Jul 2005 08:58:26 AM

Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when

wrote:

towelie wrote:

TV's Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:

Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints

Liberals hear Bush's viewpoint, automatically take the opposite, and do
everything in their power to unintentionally prove Bush right. Don't
cry, idiot.

Uh-huh.
The Despoiling of America

How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist
Church/State
By Katherine Yurica
With Editorial and Research Assistant Laurie Hall
February 11, 2004
[Editor's Note: On November 6, 2004 we corrected two sentences at
accompanying endnote 58.]
[Editor's Note: On April 4, 2005 we corrected Gary North's Phd. from
economics to history.]
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.
As Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court explained a few
months later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe ?? that government
derives its moral authority from God. Government is the ?minister of God?
with powers to ?revenge,? to ?execute wrath,? including even wrath by the
sword??[3]
George W. Bush began to wield the sword of God?s revenge with relish from
the beginning of his administration, but most of us missed the sword play.
I have taken the liberty to paraphrase an illustration from Leo Strauss,
the father of the neo-conservative movement, which gives us a clue of how
the hiding is done:
?One ought not to say to those whom one wants to kill, ?Give me your
votes, because your votes will enable me to kill you and I want to kill
you,? but merely, ?Give me your votes,? for once you have the power of the
votes in your hand, you can satisfy your desire.?[4]
Notwithstanding the advice, the President?s foreign policy revealed a flair
for saber rattling. He warned the world that ?nations are either with us or
they?re against us!? His speeches, often containing allusions to biblical
passages, were spoken with the certainty of a man who holds the authority
of God?s wrath on earth, for he not only challenged the evil nations of the
world, singling out Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea as the ?axis of
evil,? but he wielded the sword of punishment and the sword of revenge
against his own people: the American poor and the middle class who
according to the religious right have earned God?s wrath by their
licentiousness and undisciplined lives.
To the middle class he said, ?I?m going to give you clear skies clean air
and clean water,? then he gutted the environmental controls that were
designed to provide clean air and water. The estimated number of premature
deaths that will result: 100,000.[5] He said to the poor and to the middle
class: ?I?m going to give you a prescription drug program, one that you
truly deserve.? Then he gave the drug industry an estimated $139 billion
dollars in increased profits from the Medicare funds and arranged for the
poorest of seniors to be eliminated from coverage, while most elderly will
pay more for drugs than they paid before his drug benefit bill passed.[6]
After that he arranged for the dismantling of the Medicare program
entirely, based on the method outlined by his religious mentors.[7] He said
to the people of America, ?I?m going to build a future for you and your
children,? then he gutted their future with tax breaks to the rich and a
pre-emptive war against Iraq, and the largest spending deficit in history
[8]
This article is the documented story of how a political religious movement
called Dominionism gained control of the Republican Party, then took over
Congress, then took over the White House, and now is sealing the conversion
of America to a theocracy by taking over the American Judiciary. It?s the
story of why and how ?the wrath of God Almighty? will be unleashed against
the middle class, against the poor, and against the elderly and sick of
this nation by George W. Bush and his army of Republican Dominionist
?rulers.?
How Dominionism Was Spread
The years 1982-1986 marked the period Pat Robertson and radio and
televangelists urgently broadcast appeals that rallied Christian followers
to accept a new political religion that would turn millions of Christians
into an army of political operatives. It was the period when the militant
church raised itself from centuries of sleep and once again eyed power.
At the time, most Americans were completely unaware of the militant agenda
being preached on a daily basis across the breadth and width of America.
Although it was called ?Christianity? it can barely be recognized as
Christian. It in fact was and is a wolf parading in sheep?s clothing: It
was and is a political scheme to take over the government of the United
States and then turn that government into an aggressor nation that will
forcibly establish the United States as the ruling empire of the
twenty-first century. It is subversive, seditious, secretive, and
dangerous.[9]
Dominionism is a natural if unintended extension of Social Darwinism and is
frequently called ?Christian Reconstructionism.? Its doctrines are shocking
to ordinary Christian believers and to most Americans. Journalist Frederick
Clarkson, who has written extensively on the subject, warned in 1994 that
Dominionism ?seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would
govern by imposing their interpretation of ?Biblical Law.?? He described
the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate ??labor unions, civil
rights laws, and public schools.? Clarkson then describes the creation of
new classes of citizens:
?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 [to] blasphemy,
heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.?[10]
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 leadership 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.
When one examines the progress of its agenda, one sees that Dominionism has
met its time table: the complete takeover of the American government was
predicted to occur by 2004.[14] Unless the American people reject the GOP?s
control of the government, Americans may find themselves living in a
theocracy that has already spelled out its intentions to change every
aspect of American life including its cultural life, its Constitution and
its laws.
Born in Christian Reconstructionism, which was founded by the late R. J.
Rushdoony, the framers of the new cult included Rushdoony, his son-in-law
Gary North, Pat Robertson, Herb Titus, the former Dean of Robertson?s
Regent University School of Public Policy (formerly CBN University),
Charles Colson, Robertson?s political strategist, Tim LaHaye, Gary Bauer,
the late Francis Schaeffer, and Paul Crouch, the founder of TBN, the
world?s largest television network, plus a virtual army of likeminded
television and radio evangelists and news talk show hosts.
Dominionism started with the Gospels and turned the concept of the invisible
and spiritual ?Kingdom of God? into a literal political empire that could
be taken by force, starting with the United States of America. Discarding
the original message of Jesus and forgetting that Jesus said, ?My kingdom
is not of this world,? the framers of Dominionism boldly presented a Gospel
whose purpose was to inspire Christians to enter politics and execute world
domination so that Jesus could return to an earth prepared for his earthly
rule by his faithful ?regents.?
How Machiavellianism, Communism, Secular Humanism and Neo-Conservatism
Inspired a New Militant and Evil Anti-Christian Religion
In the fifties and sixties, right-wing Christians worried about communists
and communism taking over the world. Along with communism, another enemy to
Christianity was identified by ministers. In 1982, Francis Schaeffer, who
was then the leading evangelical theologian, called Secular Humanism the
greatest threat to Christianity the world had ever seen. Soon American
fundamentalists and Pentecostals were seeing ?humanists? everywhere.
Appearing on Pat Robertson?s 700 Club show, Schaeffer claimed that humanism
was being forced on Christians; it taught that man was the ?center of all
things.? Like communism, secular humanism was based on atheism, which was
sufficient enough for Schaeffer to conclude that humanism was an enemy to
the Kingdom of God.[15]
?The enemy is this other view of reality,? Schaeffer spoke emotionally.
Citing the Declaration of Independence as his authorizing document, he
said:
?Today we live in a humanist society. They control the schools. They
control public television. They control the media in general. And what we
have to say is we live in a humanist society?.[Because] the courts are not
subject to the will of the people through elections or re-election? all the
great changes in the last forty years have come through the courts. And
what we must get in our mind is the government as a whole, but especially
the courts, has become the vehicle to force this view on the total
population, even if the total population doesn?t hold the view.?[16]
Schaeffer claimed that the major ?titanic changes? to America occurred since
1942:
?If you don?t revolt against tyranny and this is what I call the bottom
line, is that not only do you have the privilege but [you have] the duty to
revolt. When people force upon you and society that which is absolutely
contrary to the Word of God, and which really is tyranny?we have a right to
stand against it as a matter of principle. And this was the basis upon
which the founding fathers built this country.?
The appeal to evangelicals went further. On April 29, 1985, Billy Graham,
the respected and world famous evangelist, told Pat Robertson?s audience on
the 700 Club show that:
?[T]he time has come when evangelicals are going to have to think about
getting organized corporately?.I?m for evangelicals running for public
office and winning if possible and getting control of the Congress, getting
control of the bureaucracy, getting control of the executive branch of
government. I think if we leave it to the other side we?re going to be
lost. I would like to see every true believer involved in politics in some
way shape or form.?
According to Schaeffer, Robertson, and Billy Graham, then arguably the three
most famous and influential leaders in the American protestant church
world, ?God?s people? had a moral duty to change the government of the
United States.[17]
Significantly, at the time, many other fundamentalist ministers were
identifying communism and secular humanism as religions. However, the
equating of a political ideology on the one hand, and a philosophy that
rejects supernaturalism on the other hand, with religions was not
accidental.[18] It allowed the preachers to revile an economic-political
system as well as a philosophy as false religions, even demonic religions,
which Christians should reject at any cost.[19]
Underneath the pejoratives, however, there was a grudging admiration on the
part of Pat Robertson and the other politically astute Dominionists, for
they saw that a political agenda that wrapped itself in religious robes had
the innate power to explode exponentially into the most politically dynamic
movement in American and world history.
The result of the new religion was that by the year 2000, thirty-five
million Americans would declare war on the remaining 245 million. Karl
Rove, President Bush?s political advisor, told the Family Research Council
in 2002, ?We need to find ways to win the war.?[20] One is tempted to
respond, ?Wait a minute, they?re in power so why do they need to continue
the war?? That is the salient question. The answer is frightening.
Starting with a simple idea, Robertson perceived the enormous advantage of
placing an otherwise unacceptable political theory into a religious
context. By doing so it would stand Christianity up-side-down and end
American democracy.
A Machiavellian Religion Was Born
American Christianity had already seen extremes. For Dominionists, perhaps
the single most important event in the last half of the twentieth century
occurred when the Reverend Jim Jones proved that the religious would follow
their leader to Guyana and even further, to their deaths. That fact could
hardly have escaped the notice of even the dullest of politically minded
preachers.
Indeed, Jim Jones? surreal power over his congregants leaps out from the
grave even today. If a man desired to change the laws in America?to undo
Franklin Delano Roosevelt?s New Deal for instance, and allow corporations
the unbridled freedom they enjoyed prior to the Great Depression (which
included the freedom to defraud, pillage, and to destroy the land with
impunity on the way to gathering great fortunes), what better way to
proceed than to cloak the corruption within a religion? If a few men wanted
to establish an American empire and control the entire world, what better
vehicle to carry them to their goal than to place their agenda within the
context of a religion? Jim Jones proved religious people would support even
immoral political deeds if their leaders found a way to frame those deeds
as ?God?s Will.? The idea was brilliant. Its framers knew they could
glorify greed, hate, nationalism and even a Christian empire with ease.[21]
The religion the canny thinkers founded follows the reverse of communism and
secular humanism, it poured political and economic ideology into a religion
and that combustible mixture produced ?Dominionism,? a new political faith
that had the additional advantage of insulating the cult from attacks on
its political agenda by giving its practitioners the covering to simply cry
out, ?You?re attacking me for my religious beliefs and that?s religious
persecution!?[22]
But how could a leader get away with a religious fraud that barely hides its
destructive and false intent?
Jim Jones?s history holds the answer. He not only proved the obvious fact
that people are blinded by their religious beliefs and will only impute
goodness, mercy, and religious motivations to their leader, but Jim Jones
proved the efficacy of the basic teaching of Machiavelli: a leader must
only appear to have the qualities of goodness?he need not actually possess
those attributes.
In fact, Machiavelli taught that it is dangerous for a leader to practice
goodness. Instead, he must pretend to be good and then do the opposite.
Machiavelli taught that a leader will succeed on appearances alone. A good
leader puts his finger to the wind and changes course whenever it is
expedient to do so. Machiavelli wrote this revealing passage that could be
applied not only to false religious leaders but to a false President:
?Alexander VI did nothing else but deceive men, he thought of nothing
else, and found the occasion for it; no man was ever more able to give
assurances, or affirmed things with stronger oaths, and no man observed
them less; however, he always succeeded in his deceptions, as he well knew
this aspect of things.?
?Everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those
few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many, who have the majesty of
the state to defend them; and in the actions of men, and especially of
princes, from which there is no appeal, the end justifies the means.? (p.
93)
Chillingly Machiavelli advises his readers:
?Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and
the means will always be judged honourable and praised by every one, for
the vulgar is always taken by appearances and the issue of the event; and
the world consists only of the vulgar, and the few who are not vulgar are
isolated when the many have a rallying point in the prince.? (p. 94)
Machiavelli also wrote how to govern dominions that previous to being
occupied lived under their own laws. His words eerily reflect the Bush
Administration?s decisions on how to rule Iraq:
?When those states which have been acquired are accustomed to live at
liberty under their own laws, there are three ways of holding them. The
first is to despoil them;[23] the second is to go and live there in person;
the third is to allow them to live under their own laws, taking tribute of
them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who
will keep it friendly to you. Because this government, being created by the
prince, knows that it cannot exist without his friendship and protection,
and will do all it can to keep them. What is more, a city used to liberty
can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way, if
you wish to preserve it.? (p. 46)
However Machiavelli has second thoughts and follows with this caveat:
??. [I]n truth there is no sure method of holding them except by
despoiling them. And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not
destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it, for it can always find a
motive for rebellion in the name of liberty and of its ancient usages??[24]
(p. 46)
(The above quotes are from The Prince in the original Oxford University
Press translation by Luigi Ricci, 1903; revised by E. R. P. Vincent, 1935)
Machiavelli?s books, The Prince and The Discourses are not abstract
treatises. Christian Gauss, who wrote an important introduction to the
Oxford edition, called them by their rightful name: they are in fact a
?concise manual?a handbook of those who would acquire or increase their
political power.? Gauss tells us that a long line of kings and ministers
and tyrants studied Machiavelli, including Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin and
Stalin.

How Can Evil Deeds Be Reconciled With Christian Beliefs?
It?s important to understand that the founders of Dominionism are sitting on
the horns of a moral dilemma: How can a leader be both good and evil at the
same time? For if biblical moral proscriptions are applicable to him, he
will certainly suffer some form of censure. And if proscriptions are
applicable, the leader could not lie to the citizenry with impunity or do
evil so that ?good? could be achieved. The answer to the dilemma of how a
Dominionist leader could both do evil and still maintain his place of honor
in the Christian community lies in the acceptance and adoption of the
Calvinistic doctrine that James Hogg wrote about in The Private Memoirs and
Confessions of a Justified Sinner. (W.W. Norton, N.Y. 1970.)
This novel, published in 1824, is concerned with psychological aberration
and as such, anticipates the literature of the twentieth century. The
protagonist is a young man named Robert, who drenched in the religious
bigotry of Calvinism, concluded that he was predestined before the
beginning of the world to enter heaven, therefore no sin he committed would
be held to his account. This freed Robert to become an assassin in the
cause of Christ and His Church.
Fifty years ago a variation on the concept was expressed disapprovingly as,
?Once saved?always saved.? In this view, salvation had nothing to do with
?good works or a holy life.? A drunk who had a born again experience would
be among God?s chosen elect whether he stopped drinking or not. But the
logical extension of the reasoning is the idea that Christianity could have
within itself not ex-sinners but active sinners: as Christian murderers,
Christian pedophiles, Christian rapists, Christian thieves, Christian
arsonists, and every other kind of socio-pathological behavior possible. As
we have sadly witnessed of late the concept is broadly accepted within the
American churches.
But the Dominionists needed the aberrant extension of Calvinism; they
believe as did Calvin and John Knox that before the creation of the
universe, all men were indeed predestined to be either among God?s elect or
were unregenerate outcasts. And it is at this point Dominionists introduced
a perversion to Calvinism?the same one James Hogg utilizes in his The
Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner?its technical name is
?supralapsarianism.? It means essentially that the man called from before
the foundation of the world to be one of the elect of God?s people, can do
no wrong. No wonder then observers noted a definite religious swing in
George W. Bush from Wesleyan theology to Calvinism early in his
administration.[25]
How comforting the Calvinistic idea of a ?justified sinner? is when one is
utilizing Machiavellian techniques to gain political control of a state.
It?s more than comforting; it is a required doctrine for ?Christians? who
believe they must use evil to bring about good. It justifies lying, murder,
fraud and all other criminal acts without the fuss of having to deal with
guilt feelings or to feel remorse for the lives lost through executions,
military actions, or assassinations.
If this doctrine seems too wayward to believe as it might have done had I
not heard a recent interview with a Pentecostal minister?rest assured the
twisted doctrine is horribly alive and thriving in America today.
The interview conducted by Brian Copeland, a news talk show host for KGO,
San Francisco on September 5, 2003, was with the Reverend Donald Spitz of
Pensacola, Florida who is involved with a Pro Life group in Virginia and
with the Army of God. The occasion was the execution of Paul Hill, another
Pentecostal minister who murdered a doctor and his body guard outside an
abortion clinic. Hill was caught and convicted of the crimes. Spitz
admitted that he was Paul Hill?s spiritual counselor. He said Hill died
with the conviction he had done the Lord?s work. Spitz who approved of the
murder said, ?Someone else is going to handle the publishing of Paul Hill?s
book On How to Assassinate.?
Spitz believed that Hill was completely justified in murdering the physician
because, according to him, ?twenty-six babies? lives were saved by the
killing.? When Copeland pointed out that the scheduled abortions for the
morning of the murders would have simply been postponed to another day?and
that the lives of the fetuses were only extended for a day or so, Spitz
refused to accept the argument.
Not surprisingly, Spitz opposed the use of birth control methods. Copeland
asked, ?If a woman is raped should she be forced to carry the fetus to
term?? Spitz said, ?Yes.?
?What if the pregnancy will kill the mother?? Spitz replied that under no
circumstances could ?the baby be killed.? When Spitz was asked, ?Why
haven?t you gone out and killed an abortionist?? he replied calmly, ?God
hasn?t told me to do the killing.?
The Neo-Conservative Connection with Dominionists and Machiavelli
I suspect that most Americans have never heard of Machiavelli, nevertheless,
it should be no surprise to us that Machiavelli has been accepted, praised,
and followed by the Neo-Conservatives in the White House and his precepts
are blindly adopted by the so-called ?Christian? Dominionists. Kevin
Phillips tells us in his masterful book, American Dynasty that Karl Rove,
political strategist for President George W. Bush, is a devotee of
Machiavelli, just as Rove?s predecessor, Lee Atwater had been for the elder
Bush.[26] In fact, there has been an incredible effort to dilute the
immoral implications of Machiavelli?s teachings. Today?s best apologist for
Machiavelli is one of the most influential voices in Washington with direct
connections into the oval office.
Michael A. Ledeen was a Senior Fellow with the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and a counselor to the National Security Council and
special counselor to former Secretary of State, Alexander Haig in 1985. His
relationship with Pat Robertson goes back at least to the early 1980?s.[27]
Like Robertson, Ledeen was an advocate for military intervention in
Nicaragua and for assistance to the Contras. (Ledeen was also involved in
the Iran-Contra affair.)[28]
Today, in 2004, Michael Ledeen is a fellow at the conservative think tank,
the American Enterprise Institute and according to William O. Beeman of the
Pacific News Service, ?Ledeen has become the driving philosophical force
behind the neoconservative movement and the military actions it has
spawned.?[29]
Ledeen made a number of appearances on the 700 Club show during the 1980?s.
Always presented as a distinguished guest, Robertson interviewed him on
April 30, 1985 and asked him on this occasion: ?What would you recommend if
you were going to advise the President [Ronald Reagan] as to foreign
policy??
Ledeen responded:
?The United States has to make clear to the world and above all to its
own citizens, what our vital interests are. And then we must make it clear
to everyone that we are prepared to fight and fight fiercely to defend
those interests, so that people will not cross the lines that are likely to
kick off a trip wire.? (Emphasis added.)
If Ledeen?s advice sounds ruthless and Machiavellian?it may be because it is
Machiavellian. (By definition his statement presupposes the existence of
something or several things that are life threatening to the nation by the
use of the word ?vital.? Yet Ledeen asserts that which is life threatening
must be made manifest or defined. If an interest must be defined, then it
is not apparent; yet the nation will nevertheless ask its sons and
daughters to fight and die for something that is not apparent. Therefore,
whatever ?interests? Ledeen wanted to be defined, cannot have been vital
interests, which are apparent?so in reality he advised the President to
call discretionary interests vital?which is a lie.)
Be aware that Ledeen is in complete accord with Machiavellian thinking. And
so is Pat Robertson.[30] Robertson agreed to virtually every nuance Ledeen
presented. In fact, it?s not clear which of the two first proposed invading
Syria, Iran and Iraq back in the 1980?s,[31] a refrain that also echoed in
the reports of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), one of the
major homes for neo-conservatives in 2000. Both Ledeen and Robertson
targeted the same nations that PNAC lists as America?s greatest enemies in
its paper, ?Rebuilding America?s Defenses? (published in September 2000.
[32]
In 1999, Ledeen published his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why
Machiavelli?s Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five
Centuries Ago. (Truman Talley Books, St. Martin?s Griffin, N.Y. 1999.) Here
is a sample of how Ledeen smoothes rough edges and presents a modern
Machiavelli:
?In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have
to ?enter into evil.? This is the chilling insight that has made
Machiavelli so feared, admired, and challenging. It is why we are drawn to
him still?? (p. 91)
Again, Ledeen writes:
?Just as the quest for peace at any price invites war and, worse than
war, defeat and domination, so good acts sometimes advance the triumph of
evil, as there are circumstances when only doing evil ensures the victory
of a good cause.? (p. 93)
Ledeen clearly believes ?the end justifies the means,? but not all the time.
He writes ?Lying is evil,? but then contradictorily argues that it produced
?a magnificent result,? and ?is essential to the survival of nations
and to the success of great enterprises.? (p. 95)
Ledeen adds this tidbit:
?All?s fair in war . . . and in love. Practicing deceit to fulfill your
heart?s desire might be not only legitimate, but delicious!? (p. 95)
William O. Beeman tells us about Michael Ledeen?s influence. Writing for the
Pacific News Service he says:
?Ledeen?s ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz?He basically believes that violence in
the service of the spread of democracy is America?s manifest destiny.
Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator of the American
occupation of Iraq.?[33]
In fact, Ledeen?s influence goes even further. The BBC, the Washington Post
and Jim Lobe writing for the Asia Times report that Michael Ledeen is the
only full-time international affairs analyst consulted by Karl Rove.[34]
Ledeen has regular conversations with Rove. The Washington Post said, ?More
than once, Ledeen has seen his ideas faxed to Rove, become official policy
or rhetoric.?[35]
Leo Strauss the Father of Neo-Conservatism
Leo Strauss was born in 1899 and died in 1973. He was a Jewish scholar who
fled Germany when Hitler gained power. He eventually found refuge in the
United States where he taught political science at the University of
Chicago. He is most famous for resuscitating Machiavelli and introducing
his principles as the guiding philosophy of the neo-conservative movement.
Strauss has been called the godfather of Newt Gingrich?s ?Contract with
America.? More than any other man, Strauss breathed upon conservatism,
inspiring it to rise from its atrophied condition and its natural dislike
of change and to embrace an unbounded new political ideology that rides on
the back of a revolutionary steed, hailing even radical change; hence the
name Neo-Conservatives.
The father of neo-conservatism had many ?spiritual? children at the
University of Chicago, among them: Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky, who
received their doctorates under Strauss in 1972. Harry V. Jaffa was a
student of Strauss and has an important connection to Dominionists like Pat
Robertson as we shall see below. However, Strauss?s family of influence
extended beyond his students to include faculty members in universities,
and the people his students taught. Those prominent neo-conservatives who
are most notable are: Justice Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Irving Kristol
and his son William Kristol, Alan Keyes, William J. Bennett, J. Danforth
Quayle, Allan Bloom, John Podhoertz, John T. Agresto, John Ashcroft, Newt
Gingrich, Gary Bauer, Michael Ledeen and scores of others, many of whom
hold important positions in George W. Bush?s White House and Defense
Department.
To understand the Straussian infusion of power that transformed an all but
dead conservative realm, think of Nietzsche?s Overman come to life. Or
better yet, think of the philosophy most unlike Christianity: Think of pure
unmitigated evil. Strauss admits that Machiavelli is an evil man. But
according to Strauss, this admission is a prerequisite to studying and
reading Machiavelli: the acknowledgement is the safety net that keeps the
reader from being corrupted. One is tempted to talk back to Strauss and
point out an alternative: the admission could be the subterfuge that keeps
a man from being ridiculed and rejected for espousing Machiavellian
methods.
In one of the most important books for our times, Shadia Drury?s Leo Strauss
and the American Right, undertakes to explain the ideas behind Strauss?s
huge influence and following. Strauss?s reputation, according to Drury,
rests in large part on his view that ?a real philosopher must communicate
quietly, subtly, and secretly to the few who are fit to receive his
message.? Strauss claims secrecy is necessary to avoid ?persecution.?[36]
In reading Strauss, one sometimes encounters coded contradictory ideas. For
example, Strauss appears to respect Machiavelli because?as he points out?in
contrast to other evil men, Machiavelli openly proclaimed opinions that
others only secretly expressed behind closed doors. But we have just noted
that Strauss teaches that secrecy is essential to the real philosopher.
Strauss concluded, some would say that Machiavelli was after all, a patriot
of sorts for he loved Italy more than he loved his own soul. Then Strauss
warns, but if you call him a patriot, you ?merely obscure something truly
evil.?[37] So Strauss dances his way through the Machiavellian field of
evil, his steps choreographed with duplicity and its opposite. The reader
cannot let go.
In Strauss?s view, Machiavelli sees that Christianity ?has led the world
into weakness,? which can only be offset by returning the world to the
ancient practices of the past. (Implied is not a return to the pagan past,
but rather a return to the more virulent world of the Old Testament).
Strauss laments, ?Machiavelli needed ?a detailed discussion revealing the
harmony between his political teaching and the teaching of the
Bible.? [38]These statements of Strauss, by themselves, were sufficient to
send neo-conservative Christians to search for correlations between
Machiavellianism, radical conservatism and the scriptures.[39]
Strauss?s teaching incorporated much of Machiavelli?s. Significantly, his
philosophy is unfriendly to democracy?even antagonistic. At the same time
Strauss upheld the necessity for a national religion not because he favored
religious practices, but because religion in his view is necessary in order
to control the population. Since neo-conservatives influenced by Strauss
are in control of the Bush administration, I have prepared a brief list
that shows the radical unchristian basis of neo-conservatism. I am indebted
to Shadia Drury?s book (Leo Strauss and the American Right) and published
interviews for the following:
First: Strauss believed that a leader had to perpetually deceive the
citizens he ruled.
Secondly: Those who lead must understand there is no morality, there is
only the right of the superior to rule the inferior.
Thirdly: According to Drury, Religion ?is the glue that holds society
together.?[40] It is a handle by which the ruler can manipulate the masses.
Any religion will do. Strauss is indifferent to them all.
Fourthly: ?Secular society?is the worst possible thing,? because it
leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, all of which encourage
dissent and rebellion. As Drury sums it up: ?You want a crowd that you can
manipulate like putty.?[41]
Fifthly: ?Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it
is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, he maintains
that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.?[42]
Sixthly: ?In Strauss?s view, the trouble with liberal society is that it
dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries to found society on
secular rational foundations.?
Strauss?s Student, Harry Jaffa on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson
For four days in 1986, from July first through the fourth of July, Pat
Robertson interviewed neo-conservative Dr. Harry Jaffa, a former student of
Leo Strauss, on the 700 Club show. The topic was the importance of the
Declaration of Independence. Joining with Jaffa was Robertson?s own man,
Herb Titus, the Dean of CBN?s School of Public Policy. This series of
interviews was one of the most important philosophical moments in the
development of the political agenda and political philosophy of the
Dominionists.
Robertson found in Harry Jaffa, the champion he needed, whose reasoning
would influence how the Constitution should be interpreted by conservatives
and would provide a ?Christian? view of the establishment of the United
States that excluded the secular social contract view. Harry Jaffa would
influence both Clarence Thomas (who would be appointed to the Supreme Court
by President George Bush senior in 1991) and Antonin Scalia (who would be
appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan on September 26,
1986).
During the four days of interviews Jaffa and Titus agreed that the
Declaration of Independence was the premier document and it superceded the
Constitution. Titus said, ?The Declaration?is the charter of the nation. It
is what you might call the articles of incorporation, whereas the
Constitution is the bylaws. The Constitution is the means by which to carry
out the great purposes that are articulated in the Declaration.?
Robertson asked: ?Let?s assume that eighty percent of the people are just
totally immoral, they want to live lives of gross licentiousness and they
want to prey on one another, that?s what they want and they want a
government to let them do it. How does that square with the Declaration of
Independence and its consent of the governed??
Titus said, ?Even the people can?t consent to give away that which God says
is unalienable.?
Robertson then asked, ?The principles enunciated in the Declaration of
Independence, how far have we gone from it and what can we do to redress
some of these problems??
Jaffa responded cryptically:
?I?d say that today, for example in the Attorney General?s [Edwin
Meese?s] warfare with the liberals on the Supreme Court, in his appeal to
original intent, he appeals to the text of the Constitution. Jefferson and
Madison said together in 1825, ?If you want to find the principles of the
Constitution of the United States, you go first to the Declaration of
Independence.??
First, Jaffa means by the term ?original intent? that the Constitution must
be interpreted according to what it meant when it was originally adopted.
It is a revolutionary and brilliant idea that will allow the Dominionists
to effectively repeal most of the judicial decisions made in the last
century. [43]
Secondly, if we take Jaffa and the Dominionists at their word and go to the
Declaration of Independence, we can see just how radical the conservative
revolution and Dominionism are. The only portion that is ever quoted
publicly are these words:
?We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed,?
The quote stops in the middle of the sentence?the part that is never quoted
is this:
?That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.?
Dominionism then, takes its authority to overthrow the government of the
United States from our own Declaration of Independence. By the time all
Americans wake up to the Dominionists' intent, it may be too late.
Though Harry Jaffa speaks with a high minded sense of political
righteousness, Shadia Drury exposes his Machiavellian side. Like Strauss,
he ?clearly believes that devious and illegal methods are justified when
those in power are convinced of the rightness of their ends.?[44] Jaffa and
Robertson saw eye to eye on more than one topic: for instance, Jaffa like
his host Pat Robertson, found Oliver North to be a hero (and by extension
Michael Ledeen) when both North and Ledeen went around the law to provide
military aid to the contras.[45]
How Dominionism Stealthily Swept Over America
Within a period of twenty to thirty years beginning in the 1970?s,
Dominionism spread like wild fire throughout the evangelical, Pentecostal
and fundamentalist religious communities in America. It was aided and
abetted by television and radio evangelists. More than any other man, Pat
Robertson mobilized the millions of politically indifferent and socially
despised Pentecostals and fundamentalists in America and turned them into
an angry potent army of political conquerors.[46]
But it would be a mistake to limit Dominionism to the Pentecostals and
fundamentalists alone: conservative Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have
joined and enlarged the swelling numbers.[47] Robertson, like other media
preachers, used every form of communication: television, radio, books and
audio tapes available for sale. One book stands out. Originally published
in 1982 and written with Bob Slosser, a key Robertson loyalist, Pat
Robertson?s The Secret Kingdom soared on the bestseller charts. It
underwent four printings during its first year. By 1984 Bantam published a
mass paperback in cooperation with Thomas Nelson, the original publisher.
(Though the book has since been revised, my quotes are from the original
version.)
However, it was the Pentecostals and fundamentalists who made up the core of
Robertson?s audience. To a people who were largely uneducated and who often
remained ignorant even if they went through college because of their fear
of becoming tainted by the ?world and worldliness,? Dominionism came as a
brilliant light that assuaged their deep sense of inferiority. Pentecostals
in particular could take comfort from the notion that no longer would the
world think of them as ?Holy Rollers? who danced in the ?Spirit? and
practiced glossolalia. This time, they would be on top?they would be the
head and not the tail?and the so-called elite, the educated of the world,
would be on the bottom.
A new world was coming. To help the transition along, Pat Robertson, along
with other pastors, evangelists and churchmen, founded schools,
universities and colleges throughout the United States to train
?Christians? how to run for office, how to win, and how to manage the
affairs of government after they gained office. To get an idea of how
successful the plan was, Robertson?s Regent University now has a $100
million endowment. After watching the Dominionists takeover the Republican
Party and observing their ruthless methods, it is indeed apparent that
Machiavellian principles are the fuel running their ?How to Manual.?
Starting with a class of only twelve in 1985, Robertson began his Journalism
Department at CBN University where 800 other graduate students were earning
Master degrees in a fully accredited institution. Later Robertson changed
the name of CBN University to ?Regent University??based on Dominionism?s
teaching that the national government of America and governments of the
world will be ruled by Dominionists, who will act as regents on an interim
basis, that is, until the true King?Jesus Christ?will return to earth again
and gratefully accept His Kingdom from the hands of His faithful regents.
The Dominionist Plan: Today Control the USA, Tomorrow the World
Significantly, Dominionism is a form of Social Darwinism.[48] It inherently
includes the religious belief that wealth-power is a sign of God?s
election. That is, out of the masses of people and the multitude of nation
?wealth, in and of itself, is thought to indicate God?s approval on men and
nations whereas poverty and sickness reflect God?s disapproval. The roots
of the idea come from a natural twist of an Old Testament passage, which I
discuss below. Essentially there were two elements necessary to establish
Dominionism among Christians who previously believed helping the poor was a
mandate of Christianity.[49]
First, Old Testament law had to be accepted as an essential part of a
Christian?s theology.
Secondly, the Christian had to undergo a second conversion-like experience
that went beyond being born again and demanded not only a commitment to
reestablishing the Old Testament legal structure but required the
implementation of that law in the nations of the world (including the U.S.)
based upon a different understanding of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:
18-20).[50] Under this concept Dominionists are to go into all the world
to take dominion and ?make disciples? teaching the disciples to ?observe
all? that Jesus ?commanded.? All nations under Dominionists' teaching are
to convert to biblical laws, which are ranked superior to secular laws that
were not God given or God directed and are found wanting. The Christian
therefore must be willing to overthrow all laws that are secular.
In other words, a measure of one?s spirituality rested upon the individual?s
willingness to accept the concept of taking dominion over not only the
people of America, but taking dominion over the people of the entire world.
From Dominionists? actual words, the taking of America is perceived as a
violent act. Ben Kinchlow who co-hosted CBN?s 700 Club with Pat Robertson
told an audience, ?We need to grab the American dream by the short hairs
and snatch it back to where it was originally designed to be.?
As Robertson wrote approvingly in his book, The Secret Kingdom, the kingdom
of heaven ?suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.? He
explained, ?Zealous men force their way in. That?s what it means.? (Page
82.)
What ?Dominion? Means
There were an estimated 110,000 Pentecostal and fundamentalist churches in
America in the 1980s. Robertson taught them?through his vast television
network and through his books?that the role of the Christian is to rule
over the wicked. Dominionism?s purpose is to create theocrats (a Christian
class of rulers). But in order to successfully place only certain
Christians in positions of power, Dominionism divides Christian believers
into classes based upon political ideology and certain hot point issues
such as the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, freedom to
decide on medical procedures with ones own physician, freedom of the press
and freedom of speech, freedom of the arts, and certain rights like the
right to a fair trial and protection from governmental intrusion into the
privacy of marriage and adult associations.
The believers who are destined to rule are called the ?elect,? and are
separated from those believers who do not and will not accept the
predestined superiority of the chosen ruling class. A Christian who raises
his voice against the ?elect? could be labeled a ?false prophet or a
dreamer of dreams,? and therefore, according to the Deuteronomic law ?shall
be put to death.?
Placing his own words in the mouth of God, Robertson wrote in The Secret
Kingdom:
?It is clear that God is saying, ?I gave man dominion over the earth,
but he lost it. Now I desire mature sons and daughters who will in My name
exercise dominion over the earth and will subdue Satan, the unruly, and the
rebellious. Take back My world from those who would loot it and abuse it.
Rule as I would rule.?? (p. 201.)
On his 700 Club television show (5-1-86) Robertson said:
?God?s plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen to take dominion
What is dominion? Well, dominion is Lordship. He wants His people to reign
and rule with Him?but He?s waiting for us to?extend His dominion?And the
Lord says, ?I?m going to let you redeem society. There?ll be a
reformation?.We are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the
Supreme Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. We?re not gonna
stand for it. We are going to say, ?we want freedom in this country, and we
want power???
Charles Colson, the former Special Counsel to Richard Nixon, who was called
?Nixon?s Hatchet Man,? pled guilty to charges in the Daniel Ellsberg case
during the Watergate Scandal. He served a prison sentence, and started a
prison ministry afterward. Pat Robertson has called him ?the most brilliant
political strategist in the world.? Over the years, Colson made many
appearances on the 700 Club. On one occasion, he laid out the battle lines:
?It always has been a conflict between the kingdoms: the kingdom of God
and the kingdom of man. When you really look at what Jesus is saying, He is
saying the time is fulfilled, repent and believe, the kingdom is at hand.
And He is calling for the kingdom of God to rule over the affairs of man.
And so inevitably there?s going to be a conflict.? (The 700 Club 5-21-86)
Robertson said on his program the 700 Club (5-13-86):
?We?ve sat idly by long enough and said, ?Well religion and politics
don?t mix.? Don?t you believe it. If we don?t have moral people in
government then the only other people that can be in government are
immoral. That?s the only way it goes. Either you have moral people in there
or you have immoral people.?
On another show (5-7-86) he revealed a partial list of changes the
Dominionists planned for America:
?We can change the government, we can change the court systems, we can
change the poverty problem, we can change education?We can make a
difference.?
Who Rules? And Who Are to Be the Ruled?
In an earlier section, I discussed the principle held by both Machiavelli
and Leo Strauss that religion is necessary as a tool for a leader to
control the masses. If conformity?not dissent is required, then religion is
the power tool of choice, for it will insure a controlled populace. We?re
about to examine its uses, its ingenious gifts and its powers, in this and
the following sections. Be aware that Dominionism is in fact, a brilliantly
executed road that leads to total power.
In his book, which tended to be more formal and less expansive, Pat
Robertson began the listing of those Americans not fit for public office:
?Obviously the drunk, the drug addict, the lustful, the slothful do not
have the discipline to rule the earth and to correct its evils.? (p. 82)
?If we remain unrighteous, the Bible says, we will miss the
kingdom.? (p.83)
Then he quoted Paul?s epistle to the Corinthians:
?Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of
God.?(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) (p. 83)
If ?Secular Humanists are the greatest threat to Christianity the world has
ever known,? as theologian Francis Schaeffer claimed, then who are the
Humanists? According to Dominionists, humanists are the folks who allow or
encourage licentious behavior in America. They are the undisciplined
revelers.
Put all the enemies of the Dominionists together, boil them down to liquid
and bake them into the one single most highly derided and contaminated
individual known to man, and you will have before you an image of the
quintessential ?liberal??one of those folks who wants to give liberally to
the poor and needy?who desires the welfare and happiness of all Americans
who insists on safety regulations for your protection and who desires the
preservation of your values?those damnable people are the folks that must
be reduced to powerlessness?or worse: extinction.
Dominionists determine who is among God?s elect?not solely by a religious
experience such as being born again, but by a political determination of
whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative or
simply a person who questions the deeds of Dominionist political figures.
The politics of exclusion, including bigotry, is in fact wide spread
throughout the United States.
Take, for instance, Sean Hannity?s remarks to Time Magazine, ?You can play
golf with liberals, be neighbors with them, go out to dinner. I just don?t
want them in power.?[51] Or take Ann Coulter?s assertions: ?Liberals have a
preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason.? Or,
?Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side
with the enemy.? (It turns out that every single ?liberal? in the country
is a member of the Democratic Party and therefore is a traitor.)[52]
The Machiavellian nature of the Dominionist cult explains why Bill Clinton
who is a Christian believer was attacked so viciously for his sexual folly
but Newt Gingrich, Bill Livingston, Henry Hyde, Strom Thurmond and scores
of other Republicans escaped the punishment of public ridicule, verbal
abuse, and humiliation for the same sexual peccadilloes. (It appears only
Democratic ?liberals? must be held to the fire of biblical standards and
biblical punishments because as we all know, they are ?unregenerate from
the beginning of time.?)
Robertson?s book acknowledges that his followers, the ?Christian? army
raised up for political purposes are the elect chosen to rule. Robertson?s
transcribed television interviews and dialogs give shocking evidence to the
legitimization of greed, hatred, violence and cruelty by members of the
various fundamentalist branches of the American clergy and by elected
officials of the Republican Party, which can be cited as evidence that
Dominionism is not a Christian religion?that above everything else,
Dominionism is synonymous with Machiavellianism: the ends justify the
means. Under Dominionism, true Christianity is a target to destroy, not a
goal to achieve.
Who Lives and Who Dies? How Justice Scalia Would Expand the Death Penalty
In one of those peculiar moments when a host on television seems to have a
disconnect with his guest, I realized that Pat Robertson was using ?code?
with Herb Titus, his ?guest? on the show on May 27, 1985. Titus was the
Dean of CBN University?s School of Public Policy and was a known Christian
Reconstructionist (Dominionist) who had written position papers arguing
that government has exceeded its authority by requiring individuals such as
doctors, lawyers, and teachers to be licensed by the state. Robertson,
himself, revealed what the School of Public Policy was teaching on a later
show (July 5, 1985). ?What are we going to teach them? We?ll teach them the
foundation of our government. We?re going to teach them how to win
elections.?
This exchange with Titus occurred on May 27, 1985:
Robertson: ?We have with us today Constitutional authority, Herb Titus.
Herb . . . . How about the biblical concept of war? You know there are many
people who don?t think we should ever fight wars and yet we?re talking
about "brave men who died for freedom."? (Emphasis added
Titus: ?Well I believe the scripture is very clear that if you are
attacked by evil whether within the country or outside the country, that
it?s the duty of the civil authorities to defend the nation and the people
of the nation from evil whether it comes from an aggressor outside or an
aggressor inside. We can see that in Romans 13 for example.?
Curious about the meaning of what was being said, particularly since
Robertson had asked a question about war, and Titus? answer included war
against one?s own population, I looked up Romans 13. I had always read this
passage to be St. Paul?s concept of a good government providing beneficial
services to the governed and I restricted its meaning to only a lawfully
constituted government that rules justly.
But read Romans 13 in the light of Machiavelli?s and Leo Strauss?s
discourses on religion and its uses by a political leader, and one glimpses
the danger that Dominionism represents to the American people and to the
American way of life. For it can be read to mean that any lawful government
is ordained by God to execute retribution and punishment upon those who
challenge (resist or rebel against) unjust policies of a government. When
read this way, it takes on a new and sinister meaning. Or, it can be read
to mean that once a new government of the United States of America has been
established under biblical law?then no citizen will have the right to
resist it or rebel against its edicts. In other words, the Declaration of
Independence will no longer be applicable to the regency established by the
Dominionists. This is how Romans 13 reads in the New English Version:
?Every person must submit to the supreme authorities. There is no
authority but by act of God, and the existing authorities are instituted by
him; consequently anyone who rebels against authority is resisting a divine
institution, and those who so resist have themselves to thank for the
punishment they will receive. For government, a terror to crime, has no
terrors for good behaviour. You wish to have no fear of the authorities?
Then continue to do right and you will have their approval, for they are
God?s agents working for your good. But if you are doing wrong, then you
will have cause to fear them; it is not for nothing that they hold the
power of the sword, for they are God?s agents of punishment, for
retribution on the offender. That is why you are obliged to submit. It is
an obligation imposed not merely by fear of retribution but by conscience.
That is also why you pay taxes. The authorities are in God?s service and to
these duties they devote their energies.?
This section, if taken literally as fundamentalists are apt to do, appears
to prohibit any kind of resistance against the policies of a government,
including peaceful protests, petitions, and writings. Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia appears to endorse that position, for he quoted this same
Romans 13 passage in his article, ?God?s Justice and Ours,? to prove that
Christian doctrine states ?government?however you want to limit that
concept?derives its moral authority from God.?[53] Government is not only
the ?minister of God? but it has the authority to ?execute God?s wrath.?
The power of the sword is surely the power to kill or maim and certainly the
power to intimidate. Scalia believes the power of the sword in this passage
is ?unmistakably a reference to the death penalty.?
At this point, Scalia demonstrates the absolute brilliance of the judicial
rule created by neo-conservatives that requires a judge to determine the
?original intent? of the writers of the Constitution. As Scalia himself
describes it, ?The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living
but dead?It means today not what current society?thinks it ought to mean,
but what it meant when it was adopted.?[54] Once the original thinking is
determined, the judge can enforce the Constitution only as a document that
is bound by the time zone in which a particular passage was written.
When I first read articles by authors who were exposing the Dominionists?
intention to extend the death penalty to cover ?crimes? like adultery,
rebelliousness, homosexuality, witchcraft or effeminateness, I found the
death penalty extension goal to be laughable. It couldn?t be done in
America.
I was wrong. I now realize that we are very close to seeing the Dominionists
achieve their goal. All they need to do is to appoint a majority of judges
who will adhere to the ?dead Constitution? construction rule of Scalia (or
what Harry Jaffa called ?the original intent? construction rule). At the
point when the Dominionist?s control the judiciary?that judiciary can roll
back America?s body of legal jurisprudence to a century or more ago as Law
Professor Patricia J. Williams pointed out.[55]
Scalia spilled the beans in his article, ?God?s Justice and Ours? when he
explained how he would determine whether the death penalty is
constitutional or not. His reasoning goes like this: since the death
penalty was ?clearly permitted when the Eighth Amendment [which prohibits
?cruel and unusual punishments?] was adopted,? and at that time the death
penalty was applied for all felonies?including, for example, the felony of
horse-thieving, ?so it is clearly permitted today.?[56] Justice Scalia left
no doubt that if the crime of horse stealing carried a death penalty today
in the United States?he would find that law constitutional.
All a willing Dominionist Republican controlled congress need do to extend
the death penalty to those people who practice witchcraft, adultery,
homosexuality, heresy, etcetera, is to find those particular death penalty
laws existing as of November 3, 1791, and re-instate them. No revolution is
required. That?s why the battle over Bush?s judicial appointments is so
crucial to the future of the America we know and love. And that?s why the
clock is running out on freedom loving Americans.
Scalia himself appears to be a Dominionist, for he believes that Romans 13
represents the correct view? that government authority is derived from God
and not from the people; he asserts his view was the consensus of Western
thought until recent times. Like Pat Robertson, he laments that the
biblical perspective was upset by ?the emergence of democracy.?[57] Taking
his cue from Leo Strauss, Scalia argued, a democratic government, being
seen as ?nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens,
has no more moral power or authority than they do as individuals...?
Democracy, according to Scalia, creates problems: It can foster civil
disobedience.[58]
As Patricia Williams wrote: ?God bless America. The Constitution is
dead.?[59]
Dominionism?s Theocratic Views
What would a ?reconstructed? America look like under the Dominionists? K.L.
Gentry, a Dominionist himself, suggests the following ?elements of a
theonomic approach to civic order,? which I strongly suggest should be
compared to the Texas GOP platform of 2002, which reveals that we are not
just talking about imaginary ideas but some things are already proposed on
Republican agendas.[60] Dominionism?s concept of government according to
Gentry is as follows:
?1. It obligates government to maintain just monetary policies ... [thus
prohibiting] fiat money, fractional reserve banking, and deficit spending.
?2. It provides a moral basis for elective government officials. ...
?3. It forbids undue, abusive taxation of the rich. ...
?4. It calls for the abolishing of the prison system and establishing a
system of just restitution. ...
?5. A theonomic approach also forbids the release, pardoning, and
paroling of murderers by requiring their execution. ...
?6. It forbids industrial pollution that destroys the value of
property. ...
?7. It punishes malicious, frivolous malpractice suits. ...
?8. It forbids abortion rights. ... Abortion is not only a sin, but a
crime, and, indeed, a capital crime.?[61]
The fourth item in Gentry?s list, ?abolishing of the prison system and
establishing a system of just restitution? has been worked on extensively
by Dominionist Gary North, who holds a doctorate degree in history. North
has written volumes of books, essays and articles, (many of which falsely
predicted that the year 2000 computer problem would bring down modern
civilization.) He is most famous among Dominionists for reconciling
economic theory with Old Testament passages.
Gary North describes the ?just restitution? system of the bible, which
happens to reinstitute slavery, like this:
?At the other end of the curve, the poor man who steals is eventually
caught and sold into bondage under a successful person. His victim receives
payment; he receives training; his buyer receives a stream of labor
services. If the servant is successful and buys his way out of bondage, he
re-enters society as a disciplined man, and presumably a self-disciplined
man. He begins to accumulate wealth.?[62]
The Immorality of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs
If the blithe acceptance of slavery isn?t shocking enough, here is one of
the coldest attitudes I ever heard expressed in an interview on American
television. I can?t help reading it in light of the coercive bullying
tactics resorted to by Dominionist leaders in the House of Representatives
to get the necessary votes to pass the controversial new Medicare
Prescription Drug law.[63] The following interview reveals the deep seated
hatred Dominionists have against governmental medical assistance to the
elderly. The interview was conducted on August 1, 1985 with Dr. Walter
Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University and author of
thirty-five books. Danuta Soderman was a co-host on Pat Robertson?s 700
Club. She began the interview with a question about Medicare and Medicaid
fraud, suggesting cost possibly ?millions and billions? of dollars:
Williams: ?Well, I think that the abuse and fraud in and of itself is a
relatively minor problem. That is, the bigger problem is the whole concept
of funding somebody?s medical care by a third party. And I might also
mention here, that is, I saw in the audience many older and senior
citizens. Now whose responsibility is it to take care of those people? I
think it lies with their children and it also lies with themselves. That
is, I think Christians should recognize that charity is good. I mean
charity, when you reach into your pocket to help your fellow man for
medical care or for food or to give them housing. But what the government
is doing in order to help these older citizens is not charity at all. It is
theft. That is, the government is using power to confiscate property that
belongs to one American and give, or confiscate their money, and provide
services for another set of Americans to whom it does not belong. That is
the moral question that Christians should face with not only Medicare,
Medicaid. But many other programs as well?.Well, people should have
insurance. But I would say if our fellow man is found in need, does not
have enough, well that?s a role for the church, that?s a role for the
family, that?s a role for private institutions to take care of these
things.?
Danuta Soderman: ?I thought it was interesting you talked about Medicare
and Medicaid as not being a moral issue. A lot of people would think that
to want to eliminate the program is rather uncompassionate?that there is
something immoral about taking away something that people are relying so
heavily upon, but you said that there is no moral issue here.?
Williams: ?I think the moral issue runs the other way. That is, we have
to ask ourselves, ?What is the moral basis of confiscating the property of
one American and giving it to another American to whom it does not belong
for whatever reason?? That is, I think we Americans have to ask ourselves
is there something that can justify a legalized theft? And I think that
even if the person is starving in the street that act, in and of itself,
doesn?t justify my taking money from somebody else.?

How to Destroy the Social Security Program
On August 14, 1985, Pat Robertson unveiled his ingenious program on how to
get rid of Social Security. The plan amazingly resembles sections of the
Bush Administration?s Medicare Prescription Drug bill passed in December of
2003. Robertson, however, outlined what to do twenty years ago as follows:
1. ?We should say to all the elderly, ?You?re going to be taken care
of. The government?s going to pay you. Don?t worry about it. [You?ll] get
your Social Security like you?re expecting, ?cause you?re counting on it.?
2. ?There should be a gradual moving [up] of [the retirement] age to
reflect the fact that we?re healthier and we live longer and people should
have dignity and be allowed to work a little bit longer.?
3. ?The last thing we should do is to begin to let the younger workers
slowly but surely go into private programs where the money is tax sheltered
and over the years build up their own money and that would in turn, through
the intermediary organizations, banks, insurance companies, would invest in
American industry. They would buy plants and equipment, put people to work
and it would help a tremendous boom. Imagine ?$100 billion dollars a year
flowing into American industry. It would be marvelous.?
Wealth is a Sign of God?s Favor, Poverty is a Sign of God?s Disfavor
How did the Dominionists get so far from the Lord?s edict to help the poor,
the sick, and the elderly? Using the text of Deuteronomy 28, which is a
list of God?s blessings and curses, Robertson and other Dominionists
believe that the chapter reveals God?s covenanted economic law. God only
bestows ?material wealth or blessings? upon those who are among his elect
and he does so because these are the individuals and nations who obey his
commandments and laws. So what about the poor? Dominionist Gary North
explains it this way:
?God is sovereign over the poor. He raises them up?not all of them, but
some of them. ?The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and
lifteth up.??[64]
I grant that the verse cited leaves government assistance out of the
picture. North claims, the blessings and sanctions of Deuteronomy 28 are
historical. He says, ?They are predictable. Covenantal rebellion by a
society will lead to God?s imposition of these sanctions.?[65] North then
ties the package up neatly: ?The blessings and cursings of God under the
Mosaic Covenant were sure. They were not disconnected from God?s law. There
was a bedrock objectivity that united covenant-keepers and
covenant-breakers.?[66]
To understand what North is talking about, we have to read a portion of the
text of Deuteronomy 28:
?The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath
sworn unto thee?and the Lord shall make thee the head and not the tail; and
thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath??
A conclusion drawn by the scripture itself is that a nation who follows the
commandments or laws of God will be ?high above all nations of the earth
and all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of
the Lord, and they shall be afraid of thee.? On the other hand, the
Dominionists believe those who are poor, sick, and weak are so situated
because God?s wrath has been visited upon them?they are the ?wicked? of
this earth and they deserve the wrath of God because their behavior is
bringing the entire nation under condemnation.
The litany of the curses of God on those who do not keep his laws and
commandments are among the most horrendous descriptions of torture in
literature. Here is a sample from Deuteronomy 28:
?The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies?thy
carcass shall be food unto all fowls of the air?The Lord will smite thee
with [boils]?and with ?tumors, and with the scab, and with the itch,
whereof thou canst not be healed. The Lord shall smite thee with madness
and blindness and astonishment of heart [fear]; thou shalt grope at
noonday; thou shalt not prosper in thy ways; and thou shalt be only
oppressed and spoiled evermore?thou shalt betroth a wife and another man
shall lie with her; thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell
therein, and thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not
eat thereof; thine ***** shall be violently taken away from before thy face
and shall not be restored to thee; thy sheep shall be given unto thine
enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue them. Thy sons and thy
daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look,
and fail with longing for them all the day long; and there shall be no
might in thine hand. The fruit of thy land, and all thy labors, shall a
nation whom thou knowest not eat up, and thou shalt be only oppressed and
crushed always??
Gary North explained: ?The point of Deuteronomy 28 is this: the way to
wealth, both individual and corporate, is through systematic adherence to
God?s Bible-revealed law.?[67]
Hence the idea that should a nation minister to the poor or attempt to lift
the poor out of poverty or save people from poverty and ill health, that
nation is contravening the will of Almighty God and such legislation is
contrary to the laws of God. It is only one step further to say that if
this is God?s attitude toward the poor, it is morally wrong to help them.
So it?s easy to see how Social Security and Medicare are viewed by
Dominionists as ?evil? programs that rob money from some citizens to enrich
others.
There?s one other little trap for the unwary Dominionist; when a government
is seen to be the enforcer of the Deuteronomic laws, it?s easy to take the
next step and say that it is the duty of the ?Christian? Dominionist
government to subdue the wicked of the world, especially the vast American
middle class, because its collective licentious life style is bringing the
nation down as a whole; therefore the government must ?minister the wrath
of God? against the citizens of America as punishment for ?rebelliousness.?
That the entire scheme is an unending circular argument, escapes the notice
of the rank and file sitting in the pews.
In their new role as ministers of God?s wrath against this nation,
Dominionist political strategists are aware they must not be seen as being
cruel and hateful. So at first, until the population is completely subdued
and dominated by the elect, Dominionists are forced to devise laws that
will create the political, social, and medical environment that will
ultimately ensure that the wicked are punished?but it will appear?at first
blush to be a gift. The truth, of course, according to
Machiavellian/Straussian dictates, must be hidden from the population; not
just once or twice, but over and over again.
In the end, Dominionism should be viewed as a backboard that bounces the New
Deal and FDR?s social safety net programs, social security (as well as
Medicare) into its political opposite: laissez-faire economics (the motto
of 18th century French economists who protested excessive government
regulation of industry.) Laissez-faire is a doctrine opposing governmental
interference (as by regulation or subsidy) in economic affairs beyond the
minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights.
Dominionism opposes the licensing and regulating power of the government.
One last comment on Pat Robertson. On November 3, 1986, the 700 Club ran a
piece on the use of computers in counting votes. Robertson ended his
Perspective by saying there should be some kind of control on computer
voting to assure an honest count. How prescient this man is! And how
worrisome his prescience is.

Who Is on the Side of Freedom? Let Him Speak Now!
There is an infection, a religious and political pathology that has
corrupted our churches. Those we trusted the most have embraced evil. That
knowledge is almost more than we can bear. Who among us will stand in the
gap and make up the hedge to save our nation?
When we look for help?for the wealthy leaders with the means to help rescue
America, we find they have all defected to the Dominionists. They do not
realize that if the middle class of America is wiped out?there will be no
one to buy their cars, their computers or their products. Only one or two
brave souls like George Soros have made massive contributions to combat the
think tanks and the organized political machine of the Dominionists. The
corporate press lies sleeping, not realizing they will be allowed to report
only what they are instructed to report.
Freedom is under siege. There is only one free major political party still
left in America. I know the Democrats look chaotic, unfocused and generally
unsmooth and thank God, unprogramed. Make no mistake, these plain ordinary
citizens are holding the candles that together form the great torch of
liberty. For all their faults, they love America and they love freedom and
they love the Bill of Rights. America?s independents, its true
Conservatives, its sensible Republicans, and its Libertarians must join
hands together with the homely Democrats and take back America for all
Americans.
The livelihood of the working people of America is at stake. The
Dominionists have lost more American jobs in the last three years than
since the days of Herbert Hoover. And now they want to eliminate the
minimum wage laws too. America?s unions have helped to create a better life
for millions of workers. The Dominionists want to break all unions apart
(especially the teacher?s union). As Americans, we love our schools and are
proud of our educational system. The Dominionists want to destroy all
public education in America and force Americans to be educated in their
religious schools. Americans love our culture and the arts. The
Dominionists want to destroy that culture.
The election of 2004 is not just another election. It is the battle of the
century. It is the gravest political war since the Civil War, which if
lost, spells the end of Independence Day and every right in the Bill of
Rights that we have fought so hard to preserve. Is there an American,
regardless of his or her party, who would not fight for our Democracy? It?s
in jeopardy now. Our friends and cousins in Britain, France, Australia, New
Zealand and scores of other nations have seen our jeopardy and have been
crying out for months and days and years to wake up America!
Let me see your face and look into your eyes. Let me hear you say, ?There is
no difference between the two parties.? May God help us and grant us
discernment when we vote.
[Ahh, bitter irony. -- Snarky]
[Notes are here:
<http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm>]
Katherine Yurica was educated at East Los Angeles College, U.S.C. and the
USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as
a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a freelance
investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the
publisher of the Yurica Report.
Katherine Yurica recorded and transcribed 1,300 pages of Pat Robertson?s
television show, The 700 Club covering several years in the mid 1980?s. In
1987 she conducted a study in response to informal inquiries from the staff
of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Ways and Means Committee of
the U.S. House of Representives, which was investigating whether television
and radio ministries were violating their tax-exempt status by conducting
grass roots political appeals, endorsing candidates, and making political
expenditures as defined under Section 527 of the IRS code. The Subcommittee
on Oversight published Katherine's study in Federal Tax Rules Applicable to
Tax-Exempt Organizations Involving Television Ministries on October 6,
1987, Serial 100-43. (Published in 1988.)
Copyright � 2004 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.
[So, what do you say to all that, then? -- Snarky]
--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
.

User: ""
Title: Re: What Do Republicans and Al Qaeda Have in Common?	14 Jul 2005 11:08:20 PM

This is what liberals were like in JFK's day and doesn't reflect their
pathetic transformation into hysterical, election-losing hyenas. Better
luck next time, liar.
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote: