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
Originally Published by the Yurica
Report
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.
RobertsonÆs 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 ôà that government àderives
its moral authority from God. Government is the æminister of GodÆ
with powers to ærevenge,Æ to æexecute wrath,Æ including even
wrath by the swordàö[3]
George W. Bush began to
wield the sword of GodÆs 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:
ôOne ought not to say
to those whom one wants to kill, æGive me your votes, because your
votes will enable me to kill you and I want to kill you,Æ but
merely, æGive me your votes,Æ for once you have the power of the
votes in your hand, you can satisfy your desire.ö[4]
Notwithstanding the
advice, the PresidentÆs foreign policy revealed a flare for saber
rattling. He warned the world that ônations are either with us or
theyÆre against us!ö His speeches, often containing allusions to
biblical passages, were spoken with the certainty of a man who holds the
authority of GodÆs wrath on earth, for he not only challenged the evil
nations of the world, singling out Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea as
the ôaxis of evil,ö 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
GodÆs wrath by their licentiousness and undisciplined lives.
To the middle class he
said, ôIÆm going to give you clear skies clean air and clean
water,ö 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: ôIÆm going to give you
a prescription drug program, one that you truly deserve.ö 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, ôIÆm going to build a future for
you and your children,ö 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. ItÆs the
story of why and how ôthe wrath of God Almightyö 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 ôrulers.ö
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 ôChristianityö it can barely be recognized as Christian.
It in fact was and is a wolf parading in sheepÆs 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 ôChristian Reconstructionism.ö 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 ôseeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite
that would govern by imposing their interpretation of æBiblical
Law.Æö He described the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to
eliminate ôàlabor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools.ö
Clarkson then describes the creation of new classes of citizens:
ôWomen 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.ö[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, ôThey cut and run if I mention the word
æDominionism.Æö[11]
Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the
Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University
wrote, ôIn 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, ôHow to Participate in a Political
Party.ö It read:
ôRule the world for
God.
ôGive the impression
that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
ôHide your strength.
ôDonÆt flaunt your
Christianity.
ôChristians 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.ö[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 ôlook to God and not to government for help.ö[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 ôenemy,ö 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 GOPÆs 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 RobertsonÆs Regent
University School of Public Policy (formerly CBN University), Charles
Colson, RobertsonÆs political strategist, Tim LaHaye, Gary Bauer, the
late Francis Schaeffer, and Paul Crouch, the founder of TBN, the
worldÆs 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
ôKingdom of Godö 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, ôMy kingdom
is not of this world,ö 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 ôregents.ö
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 ôhumanistsö
everywhere. Appearing on Pat RobertsonÆs 700 Club show,
Schaeffer claimed that humanism was being forced on Christians; it
taught that man was the ôcenter of all things.ö 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]
ôThe enemy is this
other view of reality,ö Schaeffer spoke emotionally. Citing the
Declaration of Independence as his authorizing document, he said:
ôToday 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 societyà.[Because] the courts are not
subject to the will of the people through elections or re-electionà
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 doesnÆt hold
the view.ö[16]
Schaeffer claimed
that the major ôtitanic changesö to America occurred since 1942:
ôIf you donÆt 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 tyrannyàwe 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.ö
The appeal to
evangelicals went further. On April 29, 1985, Billy Graham, the
respected and world famous evangelist, told Pat RobertsonÆs audience
on the 700 Club show that:
ô[T]he time has come
when evangelicals are going to have to think about getting organized
corporatelyà.IÆm 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 weÆre going to
be lost. I would like to see every true believer involved in politics
in some way shape or form.ö
According to Schaeffer,
Robertson, and Billy Graham, then arguably the three most famous and
influential leaders in the American protestant church world, ôGodÆs
peopleö 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 BushÆs
political advisor, told the Family Research Council in 2002, ôWe need
to find ways to win the war.ö[20]
One is tempted to respond, ôWait a minute, theyÆre in power so why
do they need to continue the war?ö 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 JonesÆ
surreal power over his congregants leaps out from the grave even today.
If a man desired to change the laws in Americaùto undo Franklin Delano
RooseveltÆs 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 ôGodÆs Will.ö 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 ôDominionism,ö 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, ôYouÆre attacking me for my religious beliefs and thatÆs
religious persecution!ö[22]
But how could a leader
get away with a religious fraud that barely hides its destructive and
false intent?
Jim JonesÆs 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 goodnessùhe 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:
ôAlexander 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.ö
ôEverybody 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.ö (p. 93)
Chillingly Machiavelli
advises his readers:
ôLet 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.ö (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 AdministrationÆs
decisions on how to rule Iraq:
ôWhen 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.ö (p. 46)
However Machiavelli has
second thoughts and follows with this caveat:
ôà. [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 usagesàö[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)
MachiavelliÆs 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
ôconcise manualùa handbook of those who would acquire or
increase their political power.ö 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?
ItÆs 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 ôgoodö 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, ôOnce
savedùalways saved.ö In this view, salvation had nothing to do with
ôgood works or a holy life.ö A drunk who had a born again experience
would be among GodÆs 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 GodÆs elect or were unregenerate
outcasts. And it is at this point Dominionists introduced a perversion
to Calvinismùthe same one James Hogg utilizes in his The Private
Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinnerùits technical
name is ôsupralapsarianism.ö It means essentially that the man
called from before the foundation of the world to be one of the elect of
GodÆs 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 ôjustified sinnerö is when one is utilizing
Machiavellian techniques to gain political control of a state. ItÆs
more than comforting; it is a required doctrine for ôChristiansö 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 ministerùrest 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 HillÆs spiritual counselor. He said Hill
died with the conviction he had done the LordÆs work. Spitz who
approved of the murder said, ôSomeone else is going to handle the
publishing of Paul HillÆs book On How to Assassinate.ö
Spitz believed that Hill
was completely justified in murdering the physician because, according
to him, ôtwenty-six babiesÆ lives were saved by the killing.ö
When Copeland pointed out that the scheduled abortions for the morning
of the murders would have simply been postponed to another dayùand
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, ôIf a woman
is raped should she be forced to carry the fetus to term?ö Spitz said,
ôYes.ö
ôWhat if the pregnancy
will kill the mother?ö Spitz replied that under no circumstances could
ôthe baby be killed.ö When Spitz was asked, ôWhy havenÆt you
gone out and killed an abortionist?ö he replied calmly, ôGod
hasnÆt told me to do the killing.ö
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 ôChristianö 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 RoveÆs predecessor, Lee Atwater had been for the
elder Bush.[26] In
fact, there has been an incredible effort to dilute the immoral
implications of MachiavelliÆs teachings. TodayÆs 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 1980Æs.[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, ôLedeen has become the driving philosophical force
behind the neoconservative movement and the military actions it has
spawned.ö[29]
Ledeen made a number of
appearances on the 700 Club show during the 1980Æs. Always
presented as a distinguished guest, Robertson interviewed him on April
30, 1985 and asked him on this occasion: ôWhat would you recommend if
you were going to advise the President [Ronald Reagan] as to foreign
policy?ö
Ledeen responded:
ôThe 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.ö (Emphasis added.)
If LedeenÆs advice
sounds ruthless and Machiavellianùit 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 ôvital.ö 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 ôinterestsö Ledeen wanted
to be defined, cannot have been vital interests, which are
apparentùso in reality he advised the President to call discretionary
interests vitalùwhich 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,
itÆs not clear which of the two first proposed invading Syria, Iran
and Iraq back in the 1980Æs,[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 AmericaÆs greatest enemies in its paper, ôRebuilding
AmericaÆs Defensesö (published in September 2000.)[32]
In 1999, Ledeen
published his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why
MachiavelliÆs Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five
Centuries Ago. (Truman Talley Books, St. MartinÆs Griffin, N.Y.
1999.) Here is a sample of how Ledeen smoothes rough edges and presents
a modern Machiavelli:
ôIn order to achieve
the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to æenter into
evil.Æ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so
feared, admired, and challenging. It is why we are drawn to him
stillàö (p. 91)
Again, Ledeen writes:
ôJust 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.ö (p. 93)
Ledeen clearly believes
ôthe end justifies the means,ö but not all the time. He
writes ôLying is evil,ö but then contradictorily argues that it
produced
ôa magnificent
result,ö and ôis essential to the survival of nations and to the
success of great enterprises.ö (p. 95)
Ledeen adds this tidbit:
ôAllÆs fair in war .
. . and in love. Practicing deceit to fulfill your heartÆs desire
might be not only legitimate, but delicious!ö (p. 95)
William O. Beeman tells
us about Michael LedeenÆs influence. Writing for the Pacific News
Service he says:
LedeenÆs ideas are
repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and
Paul WolfowitzàHe basically believes that violence in the service of
the spread of democracy is AmericaÆs manifest destiny. Consequently,
he has become the philosophical legitimator of the American occupation
of Iraq.ö[33]
In fact, LedeenÆs
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, ôMore than once, Ledeen has seen his ideas faxed to Rove, become
official policy or rhetoric.ö[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 GingrichÆs ôContract with
America.ö 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 ôspiritualö 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, StraussÆs 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. BushÆs White House and Defense Department.
To understand the
Straussian infusion of power that transformed an all but dead
conservative realm, think of NietzscheÆs 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, his 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 DruryÆs Leo Strauss and the
American Right, undertakes to explain the ideas behind StraussÆs
huge influence and following. StraussÆs reputation, according to
Drury, rests in large part on his view that ôa real philosopher must
communicate quietly, subtly, and secretly to the few who are fit to
receive his message.ö Strauss claims secrecy is necessary to avoid
ôpersecution.ö[36]
In reading Strauss, one
sometimes encounters coded contradictory ideas. For example, Strauss appears
to respect Machiavelli becauseùas he points outùin 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 ômerely obscure
something truly evil.ö[37]
So Strauss dances his way through the Machiavellian field of evil, his
steps choreographed with duplicity and itÆs opposite. The reader
cannot let go.
In StraussÆs view,
Machiavelli sees that Christianity ôhas led the world into
weakness,ö 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, ôMachiavelli needed àa detailed
discussion revealing the harmony between his political teaching and the
teaching of the Bible.ö [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]
StraussÆs teaching
incorporated much of MachiavelliÆs. Significantly, his philosophy is
unfriendly to democracyùeven 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 DruryÆs 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 ôis the glue that holds society
together.ö[40]
It is a handle by which the ruler can manipulate the masses. Any
religion will do. Strauss is indifferent to them all.
Fourthly: ôSecular
societyàis the worst possible thing,ö because it leads to
individualism, liberalism, and relativism, all of which encourage
dissent and rebellion. As Drury sums it up: ôYou want a crowd that
you can manipulate like putty.ö[41]
Fifthly: ôStrauss
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.ö[42]
Sixthly: ôIn
StraussÆs 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.ö
StraussÆs
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 RobertsonÆs own
man, Herb Titus, the Dean of CBNÆs 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
ôChristianö 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,
ôThe Declarationàis 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.ö
Robertson asked:
ôLetÆs 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, thatÆs 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?ö
Titus said, ôEven the
people canÆt consent to give away that which God says is
unalienable.ö
Robertson then asked,
ôThe 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?ö
Jaffa responded
cryptically:
ôIÆd say that today,
for example in the Attorney GeneralÆs [Edwin MeeseÆs] 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, æIf you want to find the principles of the
Constitution of the United States, you go first to the Declaration of
Independence.Æö
First, Jaffa means by
the term ôoriginal intentö 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]
econdly, 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:
ôWe 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,ö
The quote stops in the
middle of the sentenceùthe 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.ö
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 DominionistÆs 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 ôclearly believes
that devious and illegal methods are justified when those in power are
convinced of the rightness of their ends.ö[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 1970Æs, 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 RobertsonÆs 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 RobertsonÆs
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 ôworld and worldliness,ö 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 ôHoly Rollersö who danced in
the ôSpiritö and practiced glossolalia. This time, they would be on
topùthey would be the head and not the tailùand 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 ôChristiansö 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,
RobertsonÆs 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 ôHow to Manual.ö
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 ôRegent Universityöùbased on DominionismÆs
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 KingùJesus Christùwill 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 GodÆs election. That is, out of the masses of people and the
multitude of nationsùwealth, in and of itself, is thought to indicate
GodÆs approval on men and nations whereas poverty and sickness reflect
GodÆs 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 ChristianÆs 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 ômake disciplesö teaching the disciples to ôobserve allö
that Jesus ôcommanded.ö All nations under DominionistÆs 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 oneÆs spirituality rested upon the individualÆs
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 DominionistsÆ actual words, the taking of America is
perceived as a violent act. Ben Kinchlow who co-hosted CBNÆs 700
Club with Pat Robertson told an audience, ôWe need to grab the
American dream by the short hairs and snatch it back to where it
was originally designed to be.ö
As Robertson wrote
approvingly in his book, The Secret Kingdom, the kingdom of
heaven ôsuffers violence, and violent men take it by force.ö He
explained, ôZealous men force their way in. ThatÆs what it means.ö
(Page 82.)
What
ôDominionö Means
There were an estimated
110,000 Pentecostal and fundamentalist churches in America in the 1980s.
Robertson taught themùthrough his vast television network and through
his booksùthat the role of the Christian is to rule over the wicked.
DominionismÆs 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 ôelect,ö 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 ôelectö could be labeled a ôfalse prophet or a dreamer
of dreams,ö and therefore, according to the Deuteronomic law ôshall
be put to death.ö
Placing his own words in
the mouth of God, Robertson wrote in The Secret Kingdom:
ôIt is clear that God
is saying, æI 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.Æö (p. 201.)
On his 700 Club
television show (5-1-86) Robertson said:
ôGodÆs plan is for
His people, ladies and gentleman to take dominionàWhat is dominion?
Well, dominion is Lordship. He wants His people to reign and rule with
Himàbut HeÆs waiting for us toàextend His dominionàAnd the
Lord says, æIÆm going to let you redeem society. ThereÆll
be a reformationà.We are not going to stand for those coercive
utopians in the Supreme Court and in Washington ruling over us any
more. WeÆre not gonna stand for it. We are going to say, æwe want
freedom in this country, and we want poweràÆö
Charles Colson, the
former Special Counsel to Richard Nixon, who was called ôNixonÆs
Hatchet Man,ö 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 ôthe most
brilliant political strategist in the world.ö Over the years, Colson
made many appearances on the 700 Club. On one occasion, he laid
out the battle lines:
ôIt 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 thereÆs going to be a conflict.ö (The 700 Club
5-21-86)
Robertson said on his
program the 700 Club (5-13-86):
ôWeÆve sat idly by
long enough and said, æWell religion and politics donÆt mix.Æ
DonÆt you believe it. If we donÆt have moral people in government
then the only other people that can be in government are immoral.
ThatÆs the only way it goes. Either you have moral people in there
or you have immoral people.ö
On another show (5-7-86)
he revealed a partial list of changes the Dominionists planned for
America:
ôWe can change the
government, we can change the court systems, we can change the poverty
problem, we can change educationàWe can make a difference.ö
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
conformityùnot dissent is required, then religion is the power tool of
choice, for it will insure a controlled populace. WeÆre 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:
ôObviously the drunk,
the drug addict, the lustful, the slothful do not have the discipline
to rule the earth and to correct its evils.ö (p. 82)
ôIf we remain
unrighteous, the Bible says, we will miss the kingdom.ö (p.83)
Then he quoted PaulÆs
epistle to the Corinthians:
ôOr 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.ö(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) (p. 83)
If ôSecular Humanists
are the greatest threat to Christianity the world has ever known,ö 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
ôliberalöùone of those folks who wants to give liberally to the
poor and needyùwho desires the welfare and happiness of all
Americansùwho insists on safety regulations for your protection and
who desires the preservation of your valuesùthose damnable people are
the folks that must be reduced to powerlessnessùor worse: extinction.
Dominionists determine
who is among GodÆs electùnot 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
HannityÆs remarks to Time Magazine, ôYou can play golf with
liberals, be neighbors with them, go out to dinner. I just donÆt want
them in power.ö[51]
Or take Ann CoulterÆs assertions: ôLiberals have a preternatural
gift for striking a position on the side of treason.ö Or, ôWhenever
the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with
the enemy.ö (It turns out that every single ôliberalö 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 ôliberalsö must be held to the fire of
biblical standards and biblical punishments because as we all
know, they are ôunregenerate from the beginning of time.ö)
RobertsonÆs book
acknowledges that his followers, the ôChristianö army raised up for
political purposes are the elect chosen to rule. RobertsonÆs
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 religionùthat 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 ôcodeö with Herb
Titus, his ôguestö on the show on May 27, 1985. Titus was the Dean
of CBN UniversityÆs 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). ôWhat are we going to teach
them? WeÆll teach them the foundation of our government. WeÆre going
to teach them how to win elections.ö
This exchange with Titus
occurred on May 27, 1985:
Robertson: ôWe
have with us today Constitutional authority, Herb Titus. Herb .
. . . How about the biblical concept of war? You know there are many
people who donÆt think we should ever fight wars and yet weÆre
talking about brave men who died for freedom.ö (Emphasis added)
Titus: ôWell I believe
the scripture is very clear that if you are attacked by evil whether
within the country or outside the country, that itÆs 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.ö
Curious about the
meaning of what was being said, particularly since Robertson had asked a
question about war, and TitusÆ answer included war against oneÆs own
population, I looked up Romans 13. I had always read this passage to be
St. PaulÆs 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 MachiavelliÆs and Leo StraussÆs 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 lawùthen 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:
ôEvery 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
GodÆs 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 GodÆs 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
GodÆs service and to these duties they devote their energies.ö
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, ôGodÆs Justice and Ours,ö to prove that
Christian doctrine states ôgovernmentùhowever you want to limit that
conceptùderives its moral authority from God.ö[53]
Government is not only the ôminister of Godö but it has the
authority to ôexecute GodÆs wrath.ö
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 ôunmistakably a reference to the death penalty.ö
At this point, Scalia
demonstrates the absolute brilliance of the judicial rule created by
neo-conservatives that requires a judge to determine the ôoriginal
intentö of the writers of the Constitution. As Scalia himself
describes it, ôThe Constitution that I interpret and apply is not
living but deadàIt means today not what current societyàthinks it
ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.ö[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 DominionistsÆ intention to
extend the death penalty to cover ôcrimesö like adultery,
rebelliousness, homosexuality, witchcraft or effeminateness, I found the
death penalty extension goal to be laughable. It couldnÆt 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 ôdead Constitutionö construction rule of Scalia (or
what Harry Jaffa called ôthe original intentö construction rule). At
the point when the DominionistÆs control the judiciaryùthat
judiciary can roll back AmericaÆs 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, ôGodÆs Justice and Oursö 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 ôclearly
permitted when the Eighth Amendment [which prohibits æcruel and
unusual punishmentsÆ] was adopted,ö and at that time the death
penalty was applied for all feloniesùincluding, for example, the
felony of horse-thieving, ôso it is clearly permitted today.ö[56]
Justice Scalia left no doubt that if the crime of horse stealing carried
a death penalty today in the United Statesùhe 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. ThatÆs why the battle over BushÆs judicial
appointments is so crucial to the future of the America we know and
love. And thatÆs 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 viewù 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 ôthe emergence of democracy.ö[57]
Taking his cue from Leo Strauss, Scalia argued, ôa democratic
government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual
citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do as
individuals.ö Democracy, according to Scalia, creates problems, ôIt
fosters civil disobedience.ö[58]
As Patricia Williams
wrote: ôGod bless America. The Constitution is dead.ö[59]
DominionismÆs
Theocratic Views
What would a ôreconstructedö America
look like under the Dominionists? K.L. Gentry, a Dominionist
himself, suggests the following ôelements of a theonomic approach to
civic order,ö 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]
DominionismÆs concept of government according to Gentry is as follows:
ô1. It obligates government to
maintain just monetary policies ... [thus prohibiting] fiat money,
fractional reserve banking, and deficit spending.
ô2. It provides a moral basis for
elective government officials. ...
ô3. It forbids undue, abusive taxation
of the rich. ...
ô4. It calls for the abolishing of the
prison system and establishing a system of just restitution. ...
ô5. A theonomic approach also forbids
the release, pardoning, and paroling of murderers by requiring their
execution. ...
ô6. It forbids industrial pollution
that destroys the value of property. ...
ô7. It punishes malicious, frivolous
malpractice suits. ...
ô8. It forbids abortion rights. ...
Abortion is not only a sin, but a crime, and, indeed, a capital
crime.ö[61]
The fourth item in
GentryÆs list, ôabolishing of the prison system and establishing a
system of just restitutionö has been worked on extensively by
Dominionist Gary North, who holds a doctorate degree in Economics. 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
æjust restitutionÆ system of the bible, which happens to reinstitute
slavery, like this:
ôAt 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.ö[62]
The
Immorality of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs
If the blithe acceptance
of slavery isnÆt shocking enough, here is one of the coldest attitudes
I ever heard expressed in an interview on American television. I canÆt
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 RobertsonÆs 700 Club. She
began the interview with a question about Medicare and Medicaid fraud,
suggesting cost possibly ômillions and billionsö of dollars:
Williams:
ôWell, 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 somebodyÆs 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 wellà.Well, people should have insurance. But I
would say if our fellow man is found in need, does not have enough,
well thatÆs a role for the church, thatÆs a role for the family,
thatÆs a role for private institutions to take care of these
things.ö
Danuta Soderman:
ôI 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 uncompassionateùthat 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.ö
Williams: ôI
think the moral issue runs the other way. That is, we have to ask
ourselves, æWhat 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?Æ 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, doesnÆt justify my taking money from somebody
else.ö
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
AdministrationÆs Medicare Prescription Drug bill passed in December of
2003. Robertson, however, outlined what to do twenty years ago as
follows:
1. ôWe should
say to all the elderly, æYouÆre going to be taken care of. The
governmentÆs going to pay you. DonÆt worry about it. [YouÆll]
get your Social Security like youÆre expecting, æcause youÆre
counting on it.ö
2. ôThere should be a
gradual moving [up] of [the retirement] age to reflect the fact that
weÆre healthier and we live longer and people should have dignity
and be allowed to work a little bit longer.ö
3. ôThe 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 à$100 billion
dollars a year flowing into American industry. It would be
marvelous.ö
Wealth is a
Sign of GodÆs Favor, Poverty is a Sign of GodÆs Disfavor
How did the Dominionists
get so far from the LordÆs edict to help the poor, the sick, and the
elderly? Using the text of Deuteronomy 28, which is a list of GodÆs
blessings and curses, Robertson and other Dominionists believe that the
chapter reveals GodÆs covenanted economic law. God only bestows
ômaterial wealth or blessingsö 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:
ôGod is sovereign over
the poor. He raises them upùnot all of them, but some of them.
æThe Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth
up.Æö[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,
ôThey are predictable. Covenantal rebellion by a society will lead to
GodÆs imposition of these sanctions.ö[65]
North then ties the package up neatly: ôThe blessings and cursings of
God under the Mosaic Covenant were sure. They were not disconnected from
GodÆs law. There was a bedrock objectivity that united
covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers.ö[66]
To understand what North
is talking about, we have to read a portion of the text of Deuteronomy
28:
ôThe Lord shall
establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto
theeàand the Lord shall make thee the head and not the tail; and
thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneathàö
A conclusion drawn by
the scripture itself is that a nation who follows the commandments or
laws of God will be ôhigh above all nations of the earthàand all
people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the
Lord, and they shall be afraid of thee.ö On the other hand, the
Dominionists believe those who are poor, sick, and weak are so situated
because GodÆs wrath has been visited upon themùthey are the
ôwickedö 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:
ôThe Lord shall cause
thee to be smitten before thine enemiesàthy carcass shall be food
unto all fowls of the airàThe Lord will smite thee with
[boils]àand with àtumors, 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 evermoreàthou 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 ass shall be violently
taken away from before thy face and shall not be restored to thee;
they 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 alwaysàö
Gary North explained:
ôThe point of Deuteronomy 28 is this: the way to wealth, both
individual and corporate, is through systematic adherence to GodÆs
Bible-revealed law.ö[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
GodÆs attitude toward the poor, it is morally wrong to help them. So
itÆs easy to see how Social Security and Medicare are viewed by
Dominionists as ôevilö programs that rob money from some citizens to
enrich others.
ThereÆs one other
little trap for the unwary Dominionist; when a government is seen to be
the enforcer of the Deuteronomic laws, itÆs easy to take the next step
and say that it is the duty of the ôChristianö 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
ôminister the wrath of Godö against the citizens of America as
punishment for ôrebelliousness.ö 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 GodÆs 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 punishedùbut it will appearùat 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 FDRÆs
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
helpùfor 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 outùthere 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. AmericaÆs 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.
AmericaÆs unions have helped to create a better life for millions of
workers. The Dominionists want to break all unions apart (especially the
teacherÆs 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? ItÆs 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, ôThere is no difference
between the two parties.ö May God help us and grant us discernment
when we vote.
Notes to The Despoiling of America
(By clicking on the endnote number, you
will be returned to the referenced text)
[1]
ôReligious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office,ö Washington
Post, December 24, 2001.
[2]
Kevin Phillips, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics
of Deceit in the House of Bush, Viking Press, 2004, at page 224.
[3]
Antonin Scalia, ôGodÆs Justice and Ours,ö in First Things
123 (May 2002): 17-21, http://www.firsthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html
[4]
Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli, University of Chicago
Press, 1978, at page 9. The actual quote is: ôà[O]ne ought not to
say to someone whom one wants to kill, æGive me your gun, I want to
kill you with it,Æ but merely, æGive me your gun,Æ for once you
have the gun in your hand, you can satisfy your desire.ö
[5]
Osha Gray Davidson, ôDirty Secrets,ö Mother Jones,
September/October 2003 at page 53. ôThe Bush administration has been
gutting key sections of the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, laws that
have traditionally had bipartisan support and have done more to protect
the health of Americans than any other environmental legislation.ö The
subtitle reads: ôNo president has gone after the nationÆs
environmental laws with the same fury as George W. Bush and none has
been so adept at staying under the radar.ö
[6]
Alan Sager, Ph.D. and Deborah Socolar, M.P.H. ô61 Percent of
MedicareÆs New Prescription Drug Subsidy Is Windfall Profit to Drug
Makers,ö Health Reform Program, Boston University School of Public
Health. http://www.healthreformprogram.org
You may read the report in a PDF file by clicking
here:
[7]
See Pat RobertsonÆs prescription on how to eliminate Social Security
on page 27.
[8]
Pat Robertson ironically outlined the drastic effects that follow rash
government spending in 1985. He stated that it will wipe out the middle
class and destroy the Social Security and Medicare programs. (Taped and
transcribed by the author.) Read RobertsonÆs description by clicking
here: http://www.yuricareport.com/Campaign2004/PatRobertsonCongressBuyingVotes.html
[9]
If my words appear extreme, consider that in January of 2004, Walter
Cronkite broke a lifetime rule, saying, ôI must speak out.ö Mr.
Cronkite continued, ôI am deeply disturbed by the dangerous and
growing influence of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on our
nationÆs political leaders.ö
Former Governor of Delaware, Russ Peterson in
his new book, Patriots, Stand Up!, wrote, ôOur cherished
American way of life is under attack by the far right-wing Republicans
who are now running the White House, the Senate and the House of
Representatives. This is the product of a conspiracy that has been
growing over the past few decades through the use of evil tactics and
strategies, lies and deceptions to transform America.
ôDeception is now the hallmark of the Bush
administration. Read of the frightening chicanery in furthering an
imperial strategy, nurturing the military-industrial complex, waging war
on the environment, plunging the nation into debt, demeaning the needy,
antagonizing the world and using terrorism to frighten and exploit.ö
The author calls on patriots to apply the
principles of democracy now to retake America from a conservative elite
that controls the country.
The authorÆs background: Russ Peterson,
scientist, citizen activist, former executive with the DuPont Co.,
Republican Governor of Delaware, assistant to Republican Gov. Nelson
Rockefeller of New York, head of the U.S. Council on Environmental
Quality under Presidents Nixon and Ford, head of the Office of
Technology Assessment, reporting to six Republican and six Democratic
members of Congress, president of the National Audubon Society,
internationally acclaimed environmental leader, United Nations goodwill
ambassador, and faculty member at Dartmouth College, Carleton College
and the University of Wisconsin Madison. His numerous national and
international awards include 15 honorary doctorates. In 1996 he became a
Democrat. http://www.governorpeterson.org/
[10]
ôChristian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains
Influence,ö by Frederick Clarkson, The Public Eye Magazine,
Vol. VIII, Nos. 1 & 2, March/June 1994, Part 1 of a four part
series. See http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html
[11]
Gary North, Ph.D., in Econonmics, the President of the Institute for
Christian Economics (ICE) and is also the son-in-law of R.J. Rushdoony,
the founder of Christian Reconstructionism, advises his followers not to
give out his literature to everyoneùjust to interested people. ôLet
word of mouth tell the story. You need not become very visible if you
choose not to.ö From Replacing Evil With Good http://reformed-theology.org/ice/books/conspiracy/html/8.htm
on page 9 of 11. For a complete understanding of how good and evil are
inverted and the "conspiriators" become us--see this
entire collection titled: "Conspiracy: A Biblical View" by
Gary North at http://reformed-theology.org/ice/books/conspiracy/index.html
Click on each section of the Table of Contents at the site. This web
site can be reached only by entering from the root directory.
[12]
See Joan BokaerÆs article in ôThe Rise of the Religious Right in the
Republican Party,ö a public information project from
TheocracyWatch.org http://www.4religious-right.info/taking_over.htm
[13]
Ben Kinchlow, co-host of the 700 Club with Pat Robertson, was
made Vice President of CBN in charge of CBNÆs charities program
ôOperation Blessing.ö On March 27, 1985, while criticizing farmers
for wanting a government bailout he said: ôWhatÆs wrong in this
country is that so many people have substituted the government for God.
Instead of looking to God to supply their needs, theyÆre looking to
government.ö Railing at financially stressed people was very common on
the show.
[14]
Tim LaHaye predicted on Pat RobertsonÆs 700 Club show on
September 25, 1985 that 110,000 evangelical, fundamentalist, and
Pentecostal churches could sponsor one person per church to run for
office and win, that in a decade they would hold every office in
the U.S. At the time, he said there were only 97,000 public offices in
the U.S. so ôwe would have more Christians in office than there are
positions.ö By 1994, for the first time in forty years, Republicans
regained control of Congress. Similarly Ralph Reed predicted that by the
year 2,000 they would control Congress. Gary North wrote in 1985: ôI
propose a program. Some variant of this program must be adopted if we
are to have any meaningful hope in recapturing the machinery of civil
government, the media, and the educational institutions. It will be
done. It has already begun. How long it will take is problematical; I
think we will begin to see major victories before the year 2005.ö http://reformed-theology.org/ice/books/conspiracy/html/8.htm
at page 5 of 11 pages.
[15]
Francis Schaeffer originally appeared on the 700 Club with Pat
Robertson in 1982. The series of interviews with Schaeffer were repeated
on the show in the week of July 7, 1986 as Robertson presented the legal
and biblical foundations for Christian political action. Francis
Schaeffer, however, died between the first and second airing. The
Schaeffer interviews were tape recorded and transcribed, my quotes are
from my transcript. The accuracy of my transcript can be compared to the
video tapes of the shows. At the time, People for the American Way
were recording the shows and establishing a Pat Robertson 700 Club
library for future reference.
[16]
All 700 Club quotes in this article were recorded and transcribed
by the author and her assistant unless otherwise indicated.
[17]
Although neither Robertson nor Schaeffer used the words
ôDominionismö or ôdominionö in this interview series they used
the word ôdominantö when asking which culture was dominant in the
United States: the Christian culture or the humanistic culture. They
asserted the humanistic culture was the dominant force in America and
ôChristiansö had to regain dominance.
[18]
The most successful ministers knew the psychological importance of
creating ôenemiesö that were attacking the church. Jerry Falwell
maintains the rule: ôTo be successful, keep a good fight going all the
time.ö
[19]
Psychiatrist Scott Peck has written about the phenomena groups resort to
almost universally in his book, The People of the Lie, ôThere
are profound forces at work within a group to keep its individual
members together and in line...Probably the most powerful of these group
cohesive forces is narcissismàgroup prideà.A less benign but
practically universal form of group narcissism is what might be called
æenemy creation,Æ or hatred of the æout-group.Æö
[20]
ôWar on Secular Societyö at http://www.4religious-right.info/introduction2.htm
[21]
In short, they needed a religion of their own to justify evil acts and
to counter the political acceptance by many Christians who were
attracted to the communal and ôcommunisticö principles of the early
church (Acts 2:42-47), where the early Christians sold all their
possessions, gave them to the needy, and held ôall things [in]
common.ö Such Christian ideas were a direct threat to capitalismÆs
future robber barons. How could great fortunes be amassed if one had to
give it all away to the poor and follow Jesus? (Matthew 19:16-30.)
[22]
Pat Robertson is particularly adept at changing the issue from
questioning an aggressively religious political agenda into an attack
on religion. The Constitution prohibits a religious test for office in
America (Article 6). However, a battle over the nomination of Herb
Ellingwood in 1985 to the position of Assistant Attorney General for
Legal Policy caused a fire storm. (That office screens candidates for
the federal judiciary.) During the same period dominionists like
Ellingwood and Tim LaHaye were advocating that twenty-five percent of
all government positions should be handed to Christian fundamentalists (dominionists)
since they made up twenty-five percent of the nationÆs population. Pat
Schroeder, former Democratic congresswoman from Colorado and chairman of
the Civil Service Committee strongly opposed the view as a religious
quota system and a violation of Article VI of the Constitution. She said
the questions that were asked of judicial candidates, apparently
prepared by Ellingwood, amounted to a religious test for office. She
spoke on the Phil Donahue show on (September 6, 1985):
ôIf you look at some of the
questions that are being asked by some of the senators of judges, they
donÆt have to do with their background, their training, whether or not
they understand the law, they have to do with personal beliefs. ThatÆs
not where we have been in the past, and thatÆs a very dangerous
turnàö
During the same period of time
(August-September) Pat Robertson easily turned the legitimate
questioning of Herb EllingwoodÆs agenda into an attack on Christianity
by framing it this way on his 700 Club Show on August 9, 1985:
ôCan an evangelical Christian
hold high office in the United States of America? Now that is the
question. Or are evangelical Christians going to be discriminated
against? And indeed will there be a religious test for public office
which disqualifies anybody who speaks to a religious group? . . . .Herb
Ellingwood is Chairman right now of the Merit Protection Review Board
and he has done a superb job. He was the former legal counsel to
President Reagan in California and has worked closely with Ed Meese for
years. HeÆs been a very distinguished attorney. It just seems like
this campaign of assassination that goes on against good men like that
should be brought to a stop. . .And if you feel that Christians ought to
be allowed to serve in positions of responsibility in the
governmentàand you donÆt think that Christians should be
discriminated againstàhereÆs the number of the White House: 202
446-7639àö (700 Club 8-9-85)
[23]
One cannot help comparing this passage with the fact that 27,000 bombs
were dropped on Iraq in the 2003 air war and in a demonstration of cold
indifference, the Bush administration ignored the advice of prominent
archeologists to protect IraqÆs museums, which contained the greatest
collection of ancient relics, art, and ancient treasures in the world,
and in so doing, allowed the lootingùthe despoilingùof that
nationÆs treasures.
[24]Again,
because we will learn in this article that Machiavelli is a handbook in
the Bush administration, one must ask if the George W. Bush
administration perceives despoiling as a plan of action to
control the American populace. The question must be asked.
[25]
See Kevin Phillips, author of American Dynasty, Aristocracy, Fortune,
and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. Viking Press, 2004,
at page 239-240.
[26]
Ibid. at page 321.
[27]
RobertsonÆs and LedeenÆs relationship continues. For a recent
CBN interview of Ledeen conducted by Pat Robertson and transcribed by
CBN.com go to: http://cbn.com/CBNNews/News/030623e.asp?option=print
[28]
Ledeen tried to arrange the sale of arms to Iran in order to divert the
profits to the Contra militants who were fighting the Nicaraguan
governmentÆs Sandinistas. However, Congress had voted to cut off U.S.
aid to the Contras and therefore any such transaction was illegal.
[29]
William O. BeemanÆs article, ôWho Is Michael Ledeen?ö was
published on May 8, 2003 and may be read at the alternet.org: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15860
[30]
Gerard Thomas Straub worked at CBS for eight years before joining the 700
Club as executive producer. After leaving CBNÆs employment, he
went to work for ABCÆs ôGeneral Hospitalö as associate producer.
His 1986 book, Salvation for Sale, (Prometheus Books, N.Y.)
offers insights to how Pat Robertson conducted business off camera from
the perspective of an insider. The dichotomy between his public friendly
ôpastoralö role and his actual business conduct is stark evidence
that he understood MachiavelliÆs rule that only appearance counts.
Straub wrote: ôIn reality Pat is a pompous pope of the video Vatican
of Christian broadcasting, and he rules his empire with absolute
authority. He does not tolerate debate, discussions, or dissentàHis
television followers never get to see the tough-minded, hard-driving
cut-throat leader.ö In addition, over the years, Pat Robertson
revealed his Machiavellian political philosophy repeatedly and openly on
his show in discussions of how to handle foreign policy and in his
ruthless approach to the poor and needy of America.
[31]
On June 19, 1985: Danuta Soderman, the second member of Pat
RobertsonÆs daily team, asked Pat Robertson how the United States
should deal with middle-east terrorist groups: ôSpeaking about being
decisive in dealing with terroristsÆ groups, yesterday you offered
some opinion on how Iran should be one of the places we should target
our energies on; any other thoughts on this?
Robertson: ôJust like the last
guest in that clip our news department did, he said itÆs pretty much
undeclared war. Khomeini has declared war against the United States. He
has told people that if they die against the infidel, they go to heaven.
The Islamic Jihad is controlled out of Iran, and the other factor of
course is Syria, which is giving some sanctuary to all of these people.
Syria controls the Becca Valley nowù practically all of it, since
Israel withdrew its forces. So up in the Becca Valley the Shiite Muslims
from Iran are forcing the Lebanese women to wear veils and practice the
various extreme views of the Islamic faith in the Shiite traditions.
WeÆve got to go after the source. If you want to go after a snake
you donÆt cut inches off his tail.ö
Robertson also focused on the Becca
Valley on July 12, 1985 and on several other occasions. The refrain has
not changed in nineteen years. A recent January 2004 article published
in the Jerusalem Post states Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is
considering invading the Becca Valley, which is still controlled by
Syria.
[32]
See: Project for the New American Century ôPrinciplesö: http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
and ôRebuilding AmericaÆs Defensesö http://newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
[33]
William O. BeemanÆs article, ôWho Is Michael Ledeen?ö was
published on May 8, 2003 and may be read at the alternet.org: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15860
[34]The
BBC article may be read at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3031803.stm
The longer and more important article, ôVeteran neo-con advisor
moves on Iran,ö by Jim Lobe, writing for the Asia Times
can be found at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF26Ak03.html
Another very interesting article is ôFlirting with Fascism: Neocon
theorist Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the
American Right,ö by John Laughland and published in the June 30, 2003
issue of The American Conservative. You may read this article at:
http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/print/featureprint.html
And for a recent interview with Ledeen, conducted by Pat Robertson on
CBN.com, go to endnote 14 above.
[35]
As quoted by Jim Lobe in ôVeteran neo-con advisor moves on Iranö
published in the Asia Times. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF26Ak03.html
[36]
Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss and the American Right, St. MartinÆs
Press, 1999 at page 1.
[37]
From Thoughts on Machiavelli by Leo Strauss, University of
Chicago Press, 1958 at pp. 10-11.
[38]
Ibid. pp. 176-178.
[39]
The only example of this possibility I have found so far is in the work
of Dominionist Gary North who wrote tirelessly on the correlations
between conservative economic principles and the Old Testament laws and
rules. See Gary North, ôThe Covenantal Wealth of Nations,ö from Biblical
Economics Today, Vol. XXI, No 2, February/March 1999. It can be read
at: http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bet/bet99.02.htm
See also an article by J. Ligon Duncan, III, ôMosesÆ Law for Modern
Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian
Reconstructionist Movement,ö Premise, Vol. II, Number 5, May
27, 1995, page 4 and on the web at: http://capo.org/premise/95/may/ssha2.html
Ligon states: ô...Reconstructionism is attempting to make a systematic
and exegetical connection between the Bible and the conservative
ideology of limited government and free market economics. For instance,
Gary North has written volume after volume deriving principles of
economics from his studies of the Pentateuch.ö
[40]
Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss and the American Right, St. MartinÆs
Press, 1999 at page 11-13.
[41]
Shadia Drury is quoted in an analysis by Jim Lobe for the Inter Press
Service News Agency. http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18038
[42]
Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss and the American Right, St. MartinÆs
Press, 1999 at page 23.
[43]
IÆm indebted to Patricia J. Williams, Professor of law at Columbia
University for this insight. See her article, ôInfallible Justice,ö The
Nation; October 7, 2002 at http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20021007&s=williams
Not only is the concept of ôoriginal intent brilliant and
revolutionary, it in fact goes further than any other political format
to legitimize the conversion of present day jurisprudence back to the
judicial weltanschauung (world view) of eighteenth century jurists. It
is the key factor in the DominionistÆs intent to establish biblical
law over all Americans. Two Supreme Court justices subscribe to it
already. In other words, as Law Professor Patricia J. Williams has
pointed out, the rule would effectively repeal most of the judicial
decisions made in the last century.
[44]
Ibid at page 106.
[45]
Ibid.
[46]
See the excerpts from my book, The New Messiahs which trace the
political machinations of the Dominionists within the Republican Party
and the plot to take over all three branches of the government of the
United States.
[47]
J. Ligon Duncan, III ôMoses Law for Modern Government: The
Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist
Movement,ö Premise, Vol. II Number 5, May 27, 1995. http://capo.org/premise/95/may/ssha2.html.
[48]
Social Darwinism is the discredited extension of DarwinÆs evolutionary
theory to the human social condition. Social Darwinism takes Charles
DarwinÆs concept, ôthe survival of the fittest,ö and applies it to
the idea that the ladder to material wealth and to the ôgood lifeö
may be climbed only after one has successfully engaged in group battles
and conflicts and prevailed in the pit of life by drop kicking oneÆs
opponents. Those who climb out of the pit and up the ladder become the
socially recognized victors in the competition and are considered
biologically superior to those who fail. The illogical fallout from this
concept is the circular argument that the existence of a socially elite
class must be proof that those who possess wealth and power are
necessarily superior to those in economic classes below them.
[49]
Dominionists may argue with some credibility that they do believe in
helping the poor; however, they want churches to undertake that task and
adamantly fight against government social aid programs funded from tax
moniesùunless of courseùit is a so-called ôfaith basedö
initiative. Pat Robertson forgot his objections to the government
handing out money and gratefully accepted the $500,000 Mr. Bush sent him
early in his administration for ôgood faith based charitable work.ö
Regardless of their protestations, however, the churches of America
cannot and do not have the billions of dollars to provide the social
safety net for the poor, elderly and sick among AmericaÆs population.
In 1985, for example, Robertson bragged CBN gave $50 million worth of
food, clothes, and supplies to 8.5 million people, but that was what he
called ôleveragedö contributions, in which CBN had joined with other
charities. Robertson admitted they gave only $10 million. Deducting the
$2 million of CBNÆs contributions to the Contras in Central America,
CBNÆs total contribution amounted to only about eighty-eight cents to
every hungry, needy person he said CBN helped.
[50]
Pat Robertson wrote in The Secret Kingdom: ôUnhappily,
evangelical Christians have for too long reduced the born-again
experience to the issue of being æsaved.Æ Salvation is an important
issue, obviously, and must never be deemphasized. But rebirth must be
seen as a beginning, not an arrival. It provides access to the invisible
world, the kingdom of God, of which we are to learn and experience and
then share with others. Jesus Himself said it clearly before His
ascension: æAll authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching
them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you
always, even to the end of the age.Æ [Matthew 28:18-20 New American
Standard Bible]. The commission was to make followers and
learnersùconvertsùand to teach them the principles of the kingdom.
Entry into the body of believers was not enough. They were to learn how
to live in this worldàThe invisible was to rule the visible. Christ
has authority over both.ö Emphasis is RobertsonÆs. (p. 51)
[51]
James Poniewozik, ô10 Questions for Sean Hannity,ö Time Magazine,
Nov. 11, 2002.
[52]
Mark S. Zaid, ôThe New, Unabashed McCarthyism: A Review of Treason:
Liberal Treachery From The Cold War To The War On Terrorism
Originally published by Findlaw.com and reprinted with permission at the
Yurica Report.com: http://www.yuricareport.com/RevisitedBks/ZaidonCoulterTreason.htm
[53]
Antonin Scalia, ôGodÆs Justice and Ours,ö in First Things 123 (May
2002): 17-21, http://www.firsthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html
[54]
Ibid.
[55]
Patricia J. Williams, Professor of law at Columbia University. See her
article, ôInfallible Justice,ö The Nation; October 7, 2002 at
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20021007&s=williams
[56]
Ibid.
[57]
Antonin Scalia, ôGodÆs Justice and Ours,ö in First Things 123 (May
2002): 17-21, http://www.firsthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html
[58]
Ibid.
[59]
Patricia J. Williams, Professor of law at Columbia University. See her
article, ôInfallible Justice,ö The Nation; October 7, 2002 at
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20021007&s=williams
[60]
The platform of the Republican Party of Texas may be found at: http://www.4religious-right.info/texas_gop.htm.
Here are excerpts: ôThe Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United
States of America is a Christian Nation ...
ô1. GOVERNMENT: We
reclaim freedom of religious expression in public on government
property, and freedom from government interference. Support government
display of Ten Commandments.
Dispel the "myth" of
the separation of church and state. A strong and vibrant private
sector [should be] unencumbered by excessive government regulation.
Oppose Campaign Finance Reform. Oppose any form of gun control. Abolish:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Position of Surgeon General;
EPA; Department of Energy; Department of Housing and Urban
Development; Department of Education; Department of Commerce and
Labor; National Endowment for the Arts.
ô2. ECONOMY: Abolish the
dollar in favor of the gold standard. Abolish the IRS. Eliminate
income tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income
tax, payroll tax and property tax. Repeal minimum wage law. ...
Gradually phase out Social Security tax for a system of private
pensions.
ô3. UNITED NATIONS:
.. We immediately rescind our membership in, as well as
all financial and military contributions to the United Nations."
We should " ... evict the United Nations from the United States
and eliminate any further participation.
ô4. FAMILY: We believe that
traditional marriage is a legal and moral commitment between a man and
a woman. We recognize that the family is the foundational unit of a
healthy society and consists of those related by blood, marriage, or
adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education,
moral training, conduct, and property.
ôThe
practice of sodomy tears at the heart of our society... The party
oppose[s] decriminalization of sodomy. Oppose all forms of
abortion - even in cases of rape or incest. We unequivocally oppose
United States Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child.
ô5. EDUCATION: We call for the
abolition of the U.S. Department of Education and the prohibition of
the transfer of any of its functions to any other federal agency.
ôSupport
official prayer in public schools Oppose Early Childhood Development
Programs. We support ... a program based upon biblical principles...
Terminate bilingual education. Since Secular Humanism is recognized by
the United States Supreme Court as a religion ... Secular Humanism
should be subjected to the same state and federal laws as any other
recognized religions.
ô6. THE ENVIRONMENT: Oppose
the myth of global warming. Reaffirm the belief in the
fundamental right of an individual to use property without
governmental interference. Oppose EPA management of Texas air quality.
ô7. THE MIDDLE EAST: ...
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel ... therefore, the United States
should move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.ö
To read the complete Texas GOP
Platform click here to go to a PDF file: more
[61]
J. Ligon Duncan, III ôMoses Law for Modern Government: The
Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist
Movement,ö Premise, Vol. II Number 5, May 27, 1995. http://capo.org/premise/95/may/ssha2.html.
[62]
Gary North, ôThe Covenantal Wealth of Nations,ö from Biblical
Economics Today, Vol. XXI, No. 2, February/March 1999. It can be
read at: http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bet/bet99.02.htm
[63]
Katherine Yurica, ôRogue Republican Dons in Congress Tear Up the
Constitution, Exclude Democrats and Accept a New Title: The
Godfathers,ö at http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/RogueRepublicanBillsUnconstitutional.htm
[64]
Gary North, ôThe Covenantal Wealth of Nations,ö from Biblical
Economics Today, Vol. XXI, No. 2, February/March 1999. It can be
read at: http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bet/bet99.02.htm
[65]
Ibid.
[66]
Ibid.
[67]
Ibid.
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 RobertsonÆs television show, The 700 Club covering
several years in the mid 1980Æs. 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: http://www.yuricareport.com
|