SOCIAL POLICIES ENMESHED

It may be an over-simplification to state that the social policies of the Church of Rome and the Religious Right mesh perfectly together.  Perhaps this is partly due to the fact that, in a descriptive term observed on one website, there is so much "hypocrisy and cant" in the Church of Rome.  Also, in all fairness, not all Catholics in the United States subscribe to the papal policies and objectives described in this document.  However, there is solid evidence of a link between the social policies of Rome as enunciated in successive papal encyclicals, and of the Religious Right as influenced by the Christian Reconstructionists.  It will be demonstrated in another segment of this document that the policies have become intertwined in the presidency of George W. Bush under cover of "Moral Values" and "Compassionate Conservatism."  Our primary purpose in examining these governmental policies is to expose the dominance that the Church of Rome and the Religious Right have achieved over the government, in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised under false labels that confuse voters. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Dominionism maintains the necessity of laissez-faire economics, requiring that people "look to God and not to government for help."[13]  (http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm) February 2004.  (Emphasis added.)

The complete article is in the Theocratic Dictatorship library.

From the article "Christian Democracy" in The Catholic Encyclopedia Online we quote:

In Christian Democracy, the name and the reality have two very different histories, and therefore they must be carefully distinguished.

THE REALITY

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

In these two quotations can be seen a basic similarity between the social principles of Rome and the Religious Right, which is a fundamental shift away from the civil government to religious control over the welfare of the people.

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

THE ROMAN HIERARCHY AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT
UNITED AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America

It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.[2] On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.

Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.

Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation.

The movement towards theocratic government was clearly discernible in the 2000 presidential election campaign.  It should have been easy for Seventh-day Adventists to see the application of Rev. 13 to the events that were unfolding.  We tried to sound the alarm in the April, 2001, Special Issue of Watchman, What of the Night?  Some heeded, but others berated us by mail for engaging in "liberal politics."  One writer accused us of "liberal spin."  Is it not now plain to see the origin of these notions?  It will not have been easy in the intervening years for the skeptics to change their minds; for reasons summed up in one word, "stealth" - the stealth of Rome, the stealth of the Religious Right, the stealth of the Bush presidency, even the stealth of the creeping ecumenism of decades.   It is a sad fact that many, many Seventh-day Adventists have been influenced by the ecumenical movement to the point where they can no longer distinguish between the true and the false.  In the case of such as these, even what is already exposed in this document,  and what is about to be exposed, may fall on deaf ears.  The key is in whether we can recognize the papacy and the "false prophet" for what the Bible reveals them to be.  We all will in due course; but it will then be too late for many to turn around.

 In the April, 2001, Special Issue of WWN, we provided our own documentation of the Religious Right's takeover of the Republican Party.  We identified some of the individuals and organizations who were involved.  One was the Christian Reconstruction movement.  We also identified Marvin Olasky, who conceived the term "Compassionate Conservatism," as a mentor of President Bush.  What we did not know at the time was that Olasky is a Christian Reconstructionist, and that the ideology of Christian Reconstructionism pervades the White House governing policies.

From "Talking with Mark Crispin Miller, Author of Cruel and Unusual:  Bush/Cheney's New World Order," interviewed by Buzzflash.com, a website of daily headlines, we quote:

What's most significant here, and yet gets almost zero coverage in our media, is the fact that Bush is very closely tied to the Christian Reconstructionist movement. The links between this White House and that movement are many and tight.  Marvin Olasky -- a former Maoist who is now a Reconstructionist -- coined the phrase "compassionate conservatism," and was hired by the Bush campaign in 2000 to serve as their top consultant on welfare.  Olasky's entire career has been financed by Howard Ahmanson, the California multimillionaire who has said publicly that his life's goal is "to integrate Biblical law into all our lives."

Christian Reconstructionism is a maverick theological movement.  It's far more activist and radical than most Christian Evangelism is.  For the most part, Christian Evangelicals generally have chosen to deplore this world in their expectation of Jesus' return, whereupon this world will be improved.  The reconstructionists believe that it is the obligation of every Christian to do whatever he or she can do to make this a Christian republic with an eye toward making the other nations of the world Christian republics. . .

This means replacing the Constitution with the Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Old Testament.  It is an anti-pluralist movement, which would entail the disenfranchisement all non-Christians, and the establishment of a common law based on Leviticus. If you want a sense of what the theocrats are after, read that book, and also read The Handmaid's Tale. Although the reconstructionists don't believe in violent tactics to get their way, and many of the Islamists obviously do, the world envisioned by the former seems to be more punitive that the global caliphate imagined by al Qaeda.

And in fact we are now dealing with an adversary whose world-view is opposed to ours completely. They are nostalgic for the Middle Ages, or at least for the colonial theocracies of the 17th and early 18th centuries.

The Christian Right has shown impressive resilience and has rebounded dramatically after a series of embarrassing televangelist scandals of the late 1980s, the collapse of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, and the failed presidential bid of Pat Robertson. In the 1990s, Christian Right organizing went to the grassroots and exerted wide influence in American politics across the country.

There is no doubt that Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition gets much of the credit for this successful strategic shift to the local level. But another largely overlooked reason for the persistent success of the Christian Right is a theological shift since the 1960s. The catalyst for the shift is Christian Reconstructionism--arguably the driving ideology of the Christian Right in the 1990s.

The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law." Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.

Reconstructionism has expanded from the works of a small group of scholars to inform a wide swath of conservative Christian thought and action. While many Reconstructionist political positions are commonly held conservative views, what is significant is that Reconstructionists have created a comprehensive program, with Biblical justifications for far right political policies. Many post-World War II conservative, anticommunist activists were also, if secondarily, conservative Christians. However, the Reconstructionist movement calls on conservatives to be Christians first, and to build a church-based political movement from there.

For much of Reconstructionism's short history it has been an ideology in search of a constituency. But its influence has grown far beyond the founders' expectations. As Reconstructionist author Gary North observes, "We once were shepherds without sheep. No longer."  (Emphasis added.)

That was 1994, just over ten years ago.  In an endnote to their essay, "The Despoiling of America . . .," Yurica and Hall provided the following information, which gives added significance to the Bush victory in 2004:

[14] Tim LaHaye predicted on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club show on September 25, 1985 that 110,000 evangelical, fundamentalist, and Pentecostal churches could sponsor one person per church to run for office and win, that in a decade they would hold every office in the U.S. At the time, he said there were only 97,000 public offices in the U.S. so “we would have more Christians in office than there are positions.” By 1994, for the first time in forty years, Republicans regained control of Congress. Similarly Ralph Reed predicted that by the year 2,000 they would control Congress. Gary North wrote in 1985: “I propose a program. Some variant of this program must be adopted if we are to have any meaningful hope in recapturing the machinery of civil government, the media, and the educational institutions. It will be done. It has already begun. How long it will take is problematical; I think we will begin to see major victories before the year 2005.” http://reformed-theology.org/ice/books/conspiracy/html/8.htm at page 5 of 11 pages.  (Emphasis added)

The reader will have noted that among the capital crimes included in the Christian Reconstructionist ideology are "blasphemy" and "heresy."  Either of these could be applied in fulfillment of Rev. 13:15.

Much of the modern conservative agenda ties in closely with Reconstructionist beliefs, and are frequently in lock-step with them. Some examples:Welfare - Reconstructionists believe that the state has undermined the church by many of its duties, specifically aid to the poor, indigent, and those unable to provide for themselves. Tom Albrecht, an avowed Reconstructionist, summarized this belief in a Usenet posting as follows:

The purpose of the state, on the other hand, is to be a minister of justice (Rom 13:1ff). It alone is given the sword of power to inflict vengeance on those who would violate the law of God as expressed in the laws of the state.

In our society the state has, to a large extent, usurped the "gracious" role of the church by involving itself in areas that are the exclusive domain of the church or family; ministries to the poor and needy, education of children, etc. This is a form of paganism in which the state becomes god to many people under its ever expanding sphere of influence.  (Emphasis added.)

Interestingly, the Usenet posting (the link above is active) begins with a query arising out of an article by Albrecht, "Could you be a bit more explicit about what theonomists believe? ...Your description could easily fit some Seventh-Day Adventists, ..."  Albrecht replied, "Not really.  SDA teaches that the seventh day sabbath is still to be observed.  Theonomists do not."  However, we wanted to focus attention on what Albrecht said about the purpose of the state.  The reader will also note confirmation of the social policy of the Reconstructionists, as Theonomists.  Keep this in mind in the context of the Bush administration's policies.

This was the headline of a Cox News Service report by Scott Shepard dated September 25, 2004, which appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune.  The article went on to report:

The Rev. Jerry Falwell said yesterday that evangelical Christians, after nearly 25 years of increasing political activism, now control the Republican Party and the fate of President Bush in the November election.

"The Republican Party does not have the head count to elect a president without the support of religious conservatives," Falwell said at an election training conference of the Christian Coalition.

Falwell said evangelical Christians are now "by far the largest constituency" within the Republican Party, their route to dominance beginning in 1979 with his founding of the Moral Majority, a precursor to the Christian Coalition.

"I tell my Republican friends who are always talking about the 'big tent,' I say make it as big as you want to, but if the candidate running for president is not pro-life, pro-family . . . you're not going to win," he said.

We have already seen that the Religious Right, and by the pervasiveness of its ideology within the Religious Right, Christian Reconstructionism, are ultimately under the control of the Pope himself: "If we didn't know the Pope agrees with us, we Catholics in the New Right would have serious conscience problems. I would never work counter to the Church's official position." -Paul Weyrich (Emphasis added.)

It remains only to give some examples of how Catholic a president George W. Bush is, Protestant though he be in name.  We begin with reports from early in his presidency.  In an article in the Washington Post, by staff writer Thomas B. Edsall, dated April 16, 2001, and titled "Bush Aims to Strengthen Catholic Base - Republicans Seeking Solid Majorities Among All White Religious Voters," was the following statement:

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

Republican advocacy of "compassionate conservatism" meshes well with Catholic doctrine, in contrast to more hard-edged Republican themes of free-market conservatism and the libertarianism promoted by groups such as the Cato Institute, Hudson [Deal Hudson, publisher of the Catholic magazine Crisis] and George both argue.  (Emphasis added.)

The same article reported that Bush's staff had instituted a weekly conference call with an informal group of Catholic advisers; but that is not all as will be seen.  An article in the New Republic, by Ryan Lizza, dated April 23, 2001,  titled "WHITE HOUSE WATCH,  Salvation" opened as follows:

In late March, President Bush traveled to an obscure corner of Washington, D.C., to give one of the most striking and underreported speeches of his presidency. It wasn't about education reform or tax cuts. In fact, it had little to do with Bush or his administration at all. It was rather a simple, eloquent, Christ-drenched tribute to Pope John Paul II, offered to commemorate the opening of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center at Catholic University. "The pope reminds us," Bush told the gathered clergy, politicians, and civic leaders, "that while freedom defines our nation, responsibility must define our lives. He challenges us to live up to our aspirations, to be a fair and just society where all are welcomed, all are valued, and all are protected. And he is never more eloquent than when he speaks for a culture of life. The culture of life is a welcoming culture, never excluding, never dividing, never despairing, and always affirming the goodness of life in all its seasons. In the culture of life we must make room for the stranger. We must comfort the sick. We must care for the aged. We must welcome the immigrant. We must teach our children to be gentle with one another. We must defend in love the innocent child waiting to be born." Pro-choice Democrats in attendance, like Ted Kennedy, shifted uncomfortably in their seats. But the rest of the audience rose in a standing ovation.

It was a remarkable moment, but not an isolated one. Bush has courted the Catholic vote more doggedly than any modern president, explicitly-and often eloquently-placing "compassionate conservatism" within the context of the Catholic tradition of aiding the underprivileged and protecting the sanctity of life.   (Emphasis added.)

The article went on to state:

The president makes a point of meeting with local bishops wherever he travels, but especially on visits to swing states. He has made Catholic leaders fixtures at White House events, and his political staff holds a weekly conference call with conservative Catholics.

Further down, the weekly conference call was mentioned again as follows:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) is reviving its Catholic Task Force, which will now include a staffer who concentrates on Catholic Hispanics. In the speech-writing shop, Michael Gerson, an evangelical with a keen understanding of Catholic teaching, has been joined by Peter Wehner, a former aide to GOP Catholic luminary Bill Bennett. In the public liaison office, Tim Goeglin, a former aide to Gary Bauer who later did religious outreach for the Bush campaign, serves as the point man for Catholics. One of his responsibilities is hosting a White House conference call, on Thursdays at eleven o'clock in the morning, with Catholic leaders-including Wagner, Hudson, Princeton's Robert George, and the Acton Institute's Reverend Robert Sirico, among others. (The weekly calls are separate from a Monday conference call with social conservatives because the White House has determined that religiously conservative evangelicals and Catholics are best dealt with as two completely different constituencies.)  (Emphasis added.)

Returning to the Washington Post article quoted earlier, it closed with the statement:

[Paul] Weyrich wrote that he recently asked senior Bush adviser Karl Rove to tell the president "that he has mastered the art of Catholic governance."  Rove, according to Weyrich, replied, "That's pretty good for a Methodist."

"Before I get to the business of why I've called you," I said to President Bush's political guru Karl Rove, "I would be grateful if you would give your President a message from me." Rove was most obliging. "Tell him that he has mastered the art of Catholic governance," I said. Rove replied: "That's pretty good for a Methodist."

Rove went on to say that President Bush understands the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. I am not the only one who believes this is the case. The American Society of Tradition Family and Property (TFP), a very traditionalist group, says privately that Bush is more Catholic than any Catholic President who is electable in this country. . .

The principle of subsidiarity requires that when you minister to someone in need you begin with the unit closest to home. Only if you cannot satisfy the need at that level do you move beyond to mediating structures. If those structures fail, you would move to government, but you would begin at the local level. And again, if local government can't satisfy needs, only then would it be permissible to turn to the next level of government and so on. The bias in this principle is in favor of the family as the basic unit of society. Beyond the family, private institutions have the next bias, if you will, and government is only favored when private institutions fail completely, and then the bias is in favor of government which is closest to the people. . .

Already this President has been misjudged and misunderstood. I suspect that unless his friends and critics alike begin to understand his Catholicity, George Bush will continue to confound people. The Washington press corps isn't much schooled in theology. Before this Presidency concludes they may have to be.  (Emphasis added.)

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

In contemporary Western debates, this idea of unity between faith and political allegiance often puts Opus Dei-inspired politicians on the right.

Santorum was a forceful champion of this view. He told NCR that a distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, enshrined in John Kennedy’s famous speech in 1960 saying he would not take orders from the Catholic church if elected president, has caused “much harm in America.” . . .

Santorum told NCR that he regards George W. Bush as “the first Catholic president of the United States.”

“From economic issues focusing on the poor and social justice, to issues of human life, George Bush is there,” he said. “He has every right to say, ‘I’m where you are if you’re a believing Catholic.’ ”

So it is clear from the testimony of two militant sons of the Church of Rome that the George W. Bush presidency has the MARK OF THE BEAST written large all over it.  This also testifies to the menacing presence of the IMAGE TO THE BEAST, poised to snuff out the torch of civil and religious liberty which once shone with a bright and steady light in what was proudly known as "the land of the free."  It is well to note a manual of one of these two sons of the Roman Church that has come to light and been published by the pen of Katherine Yurica.  From the Yurica Report  dated September 14, 2004, under the title "Conquering by Stealth and Deception - How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power" we quote:

Paul Weyrich’s Secret Manual on How to Win Politically

Since the writing and posting of my essay, The Despoiling of America in February 2004, there is more and more evidence that not only has a cultural war been launched, but that the plotters are winning it. “Dominionism” now looks more like a term that is applicable to both right-wing-religious believers and to the neo-cons who were created and born in an astonishing resurgence of an immoral Machiavellianism: both groups believe in domination and control. While religious adherents adopted a decidedly heretical Christian doctrine,[1] the neo-cons continue to use the American churches to help execute their cabal. It was expressed this way by a Yurica Report talk board participant:

Americans and the main-stream media have been very slow in catching on to the fact that we are in a war—a war that is cultural, religious and political. One document not mentioned in The Despoiling of America is the closeted manual that reveals how the right wing in American politics can get and keep power. It was created under the tutelage of Paul Weyrich, the man who founded the Free Congress Foundation. Conservative leaders consider Weyrich to be the “most powerful man in American politics today.” There is no question of his immense influence in conservative circles. He is also considered the founder of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank made possible with funding from Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon-Scaife. Weyrich served as the Founding President from 1973-1974.

One does not have to think very hard to recall multiple demonstrations of this plan of action in and out of the election campaign season.  We have provided documentation earlier in this document of the tactics of intimidation by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in muzzling the press; tactics that are not far removed from the above plan of action.  It bears reiteration that Weyrich has said, "If we didn't know the Pope agrees with us, we Catholics in the New Right would have serious conscience problems. I would never work counter to the Church's official position."

It is left to the reader to make the connections between the Bush administration's economic policies and the Roman Catholic principle of subsidiarity.  Santorum makes it easy.  Here is further evidence that the social policies of Roman Catholicism and the Christian Reconstructionist Religious Right are enmeshed in the current governance of the United States.

Election Results Manipulated?

In an undated pre-election article, titled "Bush's Catholic Courtship Strategy," by Deborah Caldwell, which appears on Beliefnet.com, describing itself as an independent multi-faith e-community, the following was reported:

President Bush was so eager for a meeting with Pope John Paul II that he recently flew overnight to Rome to cram in a visit before the pontiff--who said he couldn’t rearrange his schedule--left town the next day. While there, Bush was greeted by angry anti-war protesters and had his knuckles rapped by the pope over the war in Iraq.

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

The congealing conventional wisdom is that super-religious, born-again Protestants—a.k.a. the religious right—carried President Bush to victory in 2004. A new Beliefnet analysis of the election data reveals this is only half right.

There was indeed a flood of evangelicals to the polls-—but it now appears that the shift in the Catholic vote was just as important and, in crucial states, probably more so. . .

Bush’s strong performance among Catholics, it turns out, was crucial to his victory. Bush won Catholics 52%-47% this time, while Al Gore carried them 50%-46% in 2000. If Kerry had done as well as Gore, he would have had about a million more votes nationwide. According to Gallup Polls, only one Democrat since 1952 (Walter Mondale in 1984) lost the Catholic vote by this large a margin.

The Catholic impact was starker in key states. In Ohio, Bush got 55% of the Catholic vote in 2004 compared to just under 50% of them in 2000. That means a shift of 172,000 votes into the Republican column. Bush won the state by just 136,000 votes this year.

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

Bush also did better among Hispanic Catholics, getting 42% of the vote in 2004 compared to 31% in 2000.

Purging voter lists is just the beginning: the U.S. has embraced a form of electronic voting that is unreliable, unverifiable and funded by the radical Christian right. . .

Helping America Vote Right

“The Christian worldview is the answer.  We need Christian statesmen who press for the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ in all areas of life.  This isn’t political salvation or an overnight fix.  It will take decades of mobilization and confrontation to undo a century of godless socialism.  It must be a grassroots movement that starts in individual families and churches and then moves outward to take dominion.  It must encompass every area of life and not just the political arena.  Finally, it must start soon, for there isn’t much time left.  The Florida elections have taught us that the Democrats with their liberal/socialistic worldview will stop at nothing to seize control of the government.”

– Dr. Val Finnell, published by the Chalcedon Institute

If the connections between Hagel and ES&S seem suspect, the origins of America’s largest electronic voting machine companies may be just as distressing, especially for those who venerate the separation of church and state.  The convoluted system of renaming and buyouts of America’s voting system companies is a complicated story.  However, once the various corporate trails have been followed, a disturbing picture comes into focus.

Brothers Bob and Todd Urosevich founded American Information Systems.  Bob is currently president of Diebold, and Todd Urosevich is Vice President of Aftermarket Sales for ES&S.  (In 1999, American Information Systems purchased Business Records Corp to become ES&S.)

American Information Systems (AIS) was primarily funded with money from Ahmanson brothers, William and Robert, of the Howard F. Ahmanson Co.  The majority stake in ES&S is still owned by Howard F. Ahmanson and the Ahmanson Foundation.

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

The 2004 election will be the first to use nation-wide electronic voting.  With the purging of voter lists, secrecy surrounding voting machines, the lack of a verifiable paper trail combined with voting machine companies with strong Republican ties and funding from the radical right, a Bush victory is all but inevitable.  Welcome to the machines.  http://www.tom-davis.org/activism/unverifiable-voting/voting-summary.html (Emphasis added.)

There is another indicator pointing to a questionable result in the 2004 presidential election.  Time Magazine's December 27, 2004/January 3, 2005, issue names George W. Bush "Person of the Year."  From the related article, by Nancy Gibbs and John F. Dickerson, we quote:

Asked about his re-election, he replies, "I think over the Christmas holidays it'll all sink in."

As he says this, George W. Bush is about to set a political record.  The first TIME poll since the election has his approval rating at 49%.  Gallup has it at 53%, which doesn't sound bad unless you consider that it's the lowest December rating for a re-elected President in Gallup's history.  (Emphasis added.)

We have entered into hard political facts here; but it is the only way to get behind the carefully crafted and highly deceptive propaganda to which we are relentlessly subjected.  The final paragraph of the April, 2001, Special Issue of Watchman, What of the Night? included this statement:

This Is the alarm bell that should be sounding.  Instead, there is a seductive sound, the deceptive ring of a bell of peace and tranquility.  In reality it is tolling the impending death of democracy and its civil and religious freedoms. The call now is to all religions to come and worship the image of the beast.

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

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