http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm
News Intelligence Analysis - letters@yuricareport.com
The Despoiling of America
How George W. Bush became the head of the new
American Dominionist Church/State
By Katherine Yurica
With Editorial and Research Assistant Laurie Hall
February 11, 2004
[Editor's Note: On November 6, 2004 we corrected
two sentences at accompanying endnote 58.]
[Editor's Note: On April 4, 2005 we corrected Gary
North's Phd. from economics to history.]
|
The First Prince of the Theocratic
States of America
It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media.
Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American
Dynasty.[2] On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned
his position as President of the Christian Coalition.
Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with
excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance
of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place
as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.
Robertson's act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and
solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration
was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who
would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of
Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God
would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter
and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation.
As Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
explained a few months later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe "...
that government ...derives its moral authority from God. Government is the
'minister of God' with powers to 'revenge,' to 'execute wrath,' including
even wrath by the sword..."[3]
George W. Bush began to wield the sword of God's revenge
with relish from the beginning of his administration, but most of us missed
the sword play. I have taken the liberty to paraphrase an illustration from
Leo Strauss, the father of the neo-conservative movement, which gives us
a clue of how the hiding is done:
"One ought not
to say to those whom one wants to kill, 'Give me your votes, because your
votes will enable me to kill you and I want to kill you,' but merely, 'Give
me your votes,' for once you have the power of the votes in your hand, you
can satisfy your desire."[4]
Notwithstanding the advice, the President's foreign policy
revealed a flair for saber rattling. He warned the world that "nations are
either with us or they're against us!" His speeches, often containing allusions
to biblical passages, were spoken with the certainty of a man who holds the
authority of God's wrath on earth, for he not only challenged the evil nations
of the world, singling out Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea as the "axis
of evil," but he wielded the sword of punishment and the sword of revenge against
his own people: the American poor and the middle class who according
to the religious right have earned God's wrath by their licentiousness
and undisciplined lives.
To the middle class he said, "I'm going to give you clear
skies clean air and clean water," then he gutted the environmental controls
that were designed to provide clean air and water. The estimated number of
premature deaths that will result: 100,000.[5] He said to the poor and to the middle class: "I'm
going to give you a prescription drug program, one that you truly deserve." Then
he gave the drug industry an estimated $139 billion dollars in increased
profits from the Medicare funds and arranged for the poorest of seniors to
be eliminated from coverage, while most elderly will pay more for drugs than
they paid before his drug benefit bill passed.[6] After
that he arranged for the dismantling of the Medicare program entirely, based
on the method outlined by his religious mentors.[7] He said to the people
of America, "I'm going to build a future for you and your children," then
he gutted their future with tax breaks to the rich and a pre-emptive war
against Iraq, and the largest spending deficit in history.[8]
This article is the documented story of how a political
religious movement called Dominionism gained control of the Republican
Party, then took over Congress, then took over the White House, and now is
sealing the conversion of America to a theocracy by taking over the American
Judiciary. It's the story of why and how "the wrath of God Almighty" will
be unleashed against the middle class, against the poor, and against the
elderly and sick of this nation by George W. Bush and his army of Republican
Dominionist "rulers."
How Dominionism Was Spread
The years 1982-1986 marked the period Pat Robertson and
radio and televangelists urgently broadcast appeals that rallied Christian
followers to accept a new political religion that would turn millions of
Christians into an army of political operatives. It was the period when the
militant church raised itself from centuries of sleep and once again eyed
power.
At the time, most Americans were completely unaware of the
militant agenda being preached on a daily basis across the breadth and width
of America. Although it was called "Christianity" it can barely be recognized
as Christian. It in fact was and is a wolf parading in sheep's clothing:
It was and is a political scheme to take over the government of the United
States and then turn that government into an aggressor nation that will forcibly
establish the United States as the ruling empire of the twenty-first century.
It is subversive, seditious, secretive, and dangerous.[9]
Dominionism is a natural if unintended extension
of Social Darwinism and is frequently called "Christian Reconstructionism." Its
doctrines are shocking to ordinary Christian believers and to most Americans.
Journalist Frederick Clarkson, who has written extensively on the subject,
warned in 1994 that Dominionism "seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic
elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of 'Biblical Law.'" He
described the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate "...labor unions,
civil rights laws, and public schools." Clarkson then describes the creation
of new classes of citizens:
"Women would
be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would
be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that
it would extend capital punishment [to] blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and
homosexuality."[10]
Today, Dominionists hide their agenda and have resorted
to stealth; one investigator who has engaged in internet exchanges with people
who identify themselves as religious conservatives said, "They cut and run
if I mention the word 'Dominionism.'"[11] Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy
Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at
Cornell University wrote, "In March 1986, I was on a speaking tour in Iowa
and received a copy of the following memo [Pat] Robertson had distributed
to the Iowa Republican County Caucus titled, "How to Participate in a Political
Party." It read:
"Rule the world
for God.
"Give the impression
that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
"Hide your strength.
"Don't flaunt
your Christianity.
"Christians
need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties
and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership
positions whenever possible, God willing."[12]
Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican
Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they
continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social
programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised
under false labels that confuse voters. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Dominionism
maintains the necessity of laissez-faire economics, requiring that
people "look to God and not to government for help."[13]
It is estimated that thirty-five million Americans who call
themselves Christian, adhere to Dominionism in the United States,
but most of these people appear to be ignorant of the heretical nature of
their beliefs and the seditious nature of their political goals. So successfully
have the televangelists and churches inculcated the idea of the existence
of an outside "enemy," which is attacking Christianity, that millions of
people have perceived themselves rightfully overthrowing an imaginary evil
anti-Christian conspiratorial secular society.
When one examines the progress of its agenda, one sees that
Dominionism has met its time table: the complete takeover of the American
government was predicted to occur by 2004.[14] Unless the American people reject the GOP's control of the
government, Americans may find themselves living in a theocracy that has
already spelled out its intentions to change every aspect of American life
including its cultural life, its Constitution and its laws.
Born in Christian Reconstructionism,
which was founded by the late R. J. Rushdoony, the framers of the new cult
included Rushdoony, his son-in-law Gary North, Pat Robertson, Herb Titus,
the former Dean of Robertson's Regent University School of Public Policy
(formerly CBN University), Charles Colson, Robertson's political strategist,
Tim LaHaye, Gary Bauer, the late Francis Schaeffer, and Paul Crouch, the
founder of TBN, the world's largest television network, plus a virtual army
of likeminded television and radio evangelists and news talk show hosts.
Dominionism started with the Gospels and turned the concept
of the invisible and spiritual "Kingdom of God" into a literal political
empire that could be taken by force, starting with the United States of America.
Discarding the original message of Jesus and forgetting that Jesus said, "My
kingdom is not of this world," the framers of Dominionism boldly presented
a Gospel whose purpose was to inspire Christians to enter politics and execute
world domination so that Jesus could return to an earth prepared for his
earthly rule by his faithful "regents."
How Machiavellianism, Communism, Secular Humanism and Neo-Conservatism Inspired
a New Militant and Evil Anti-Christian Religion
In the fifties and sixties, right-wing Christians worried
about communists and communism taking over the world. Along with communism,
another enemy to Christianity was identified by ministers. In 1982, Francis
Schaeffer, who was then the leading evangelical theologian, called Secular
Humanism the greatest threat to Christianity the world had ever seen. Soon
American fundamentalists and Pentecostals were seeing "humanists" everywhere.
Appearing on Pat Robertson's 700 Club show, Schaeffer claimed that
humanism was being forced on Christians; it taught that man was the "center
of all things." Like communism, secular humanism was based on atheism, which
was sufficient enough for Schaeffer to conclude that humanism was an enemy
to the Kingdom of God.[15]
"The enemy is this other view of reality," Schaeffer spoke
emotionally. Citing the Declaration of Independence as his authorizing document,
he said:
"Today we live
in a humanist society. They control the schools. They control public television.
They control the media in general. And what we have to say is we live in
a humanist society....[Because] the courts are not subject to the will of
the people through elections or re-election... all the great changes in the
last forty years have come through the courts. And what we must get in our
mind is the government as a whole, but especially the courts, has become
the vehicle to force this view on the total population, even if the total
population doesn't hold the view."[16]
Schaeffer claimed that the major "titanic changes" to America
occurred since 1942:
"If you don't
revolt against tyranny and this is what I call the bottom line, is that not
only do you have the privilege but [you have] the duty to revolt. When people
force upon you and society that which is absolutely contrary to the Word
of God, and which really is tyranny...we have a right to stand against it
as a matter of principle. And this was the basis upon which the founding
fathers built this country."
The appeal to evangelicals went further. On April 29, 1985,
Billy Graham, the respected and world famous evangelist, told Pat Robertson's
audience on the 700 Club show that:
"[T]he time
has come when evangelicals are going to have to think about getting organized
corporately....I'm for evangelicals running for public office and winning
if possible and getting control of the Congress, getting control of the bureaucracy,
getting control of the executive branch of government. I think if we leave
it to the other side we're going to be lost. I would like to see every true
believer involved in politics in some way shape or form."
According to Schaeffer, Robertson, and Billy Graham, then
arguably the three most famous and influential leaders in the American protestant
church world, "God's people" had a moral duty to change the government of
the United States.[17]
Significantly, at the time, many other fundamentalist ministers
were identifying communism and secular humanism as religions. However,
the equating of a political ideology on the one hand, and a philosophy that
rejects supernaturalism on the other hand, with religions was not
accidental.[18] It allowed the preachers to revile an economic-political
system as well as a philosophy as false religions, even demonic religions,
which Christians should reject at any cost.[19]
Underneath the pejoratives, however, there was a grudging
admiration on the part of Pat Robertson and the other politically astute
Dominionists, for they saw that a political agenda that wrapped itself in
religious robes had the innate power to explode exponentially into the most
politically dynamic movement in American and world history.
The result of the new religion was that by the year 2000,
thirty-five million Americans would declare war on the remaining 245 million.
Karl Rove, President Bush's political advisor, told the Family Research Council
in 2002, "We need to find ways to win the war."[20] One is tempted to
respond, "Wait a minute, they're in power so why do they need to continue
the war?" That is the salient question. The answer is frightening.
Starting with a simple idea, Robertson perceived the enormous
advantage of placing an otherwise unacceptable political theory into a religious
context. By doing so it would stand Christianity up-side-down and end American
democracy.
A Machiavellian Religion Was Born
American Christianity had already seen extremes. For Dominionists,
perhaps the single most important event in the last half of the twentieth
century occurred when the Reverend Jim Jones proved that the religious would
follow their leader to Guyana and even further, to their deaths. That
fact could hardly have escaped the notice of even the dullest of politically
minded preachers.
Indeed, Jim Jones' surreal power over his congregants leaps
out from the grave even today. If a man desired to change the laws in America-to
undo Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal for instance, and allow corporations
the unbridled freedom they enjoyed prior to the Great Depression (which included
the freedom to defraud, pillage, and to destroy the land with impunity on
the way to gathering great fortunes), what better way to proceed than to
cloak the corruption within a religion? If a few men wanted to establish
an American empire and control the entire world, what better vehicle to carry
them to their goal than to place their agenda within the context of a religion?
Jim Jones proved religious people would support even immoral political deeds
if their leaders found a way to frame those deeds as "God's Will." The idea
was brilliant. Its framers knew they could glorify greed, hate, nationalism
and even a Christian empire with ease.[21]
The religion the canny thinkers founded follows the reverse
of communism and secular humanism, it poured political and economic ideology
into a religion and that combustible mixture produced "Dominionism," a new
political faith that had the additional advantage of insulating the cult
from attacks on its political agenda by giving its practitioners the covering
to simply cry out, "You're attacking me for my religious beliefs and that's
religious persecution!"[22]
But how could a leader get away with a religious fraud that
barely hides its destructive and false intent?
Jim Jones's history holds the answer. He not only proved
the obvious fact that people are blinded by their religious beliefs and will
only impute goodness, mercy, and religious motivations to their leader, but
Jim Jones proved the efficacy of the basic teaching of Machiavelli: a leader
must only appear to have the qualities of goodness-he need not actually
possess those attributes.
In fact, Machiavelli taught that it is dangerous for a leader
to practice goodness. Instead, he must pretend to be good and then
do the opposite. Machiavelli taught that a leader will succeed on appearances
alone. A good leader puts his finger to the wind and changes course whenever
it is expedient to do so. Machiavelli wrote this revealing passage that could
be applied not only to false religious leaders but to a false President:
"Alexander VI
did nothing else but deceive men, he thought of nothing else, and found the
occasion for it; no man was ever more able to give assurances, or affirmed
things with stronger oaths, and no man observed them less; however, he always
succeeded in his deceptions, as he well knew this aspect of things."
"Everybody sees
what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those few will not dare
to oppose themselves to the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend
them; and in the actions of men, and especially of princes, from which there
is no appeal, the end justifies the means." (p. 93)
Chillingly Machiavelli advises his readers:
"Let a prince
therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will
always be judged honourable and praised by every one, for the vulgar is always
taken by appearances and the issue of the event; and the world consists only
of the vulgar, and the few who are not vulgar are isolated when the many
have a rallying point in the prince." (p. 94)
Machiavelli also wrote how to govern dominions that previous
to being occupied lived under their own laws. His words eerily reflect the
Bush Administration's decisions on how to rule Iraq:
"When those
states which have been acquired are accustomed to live at liberty under their
own laws, there are three ways of holding them. The first is to despoil them;[23] the second
is to go and live there in person; the third is to allow them to live under
their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a
government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you. Because this
government, being created by the prince, knows that it cannot exist without
his friendship and protection, and will do all it can to keep them. What
is more, a city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens
than in any other way, if you wish to preserve it." (p. 46)
However Machiavelli has second thoughts and follows with
this caveat:
".... [I]n truth
there is no sure method of holding them except by despoiling them. And whoever
becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be
destroyed by it, for it can always find a motive for rebellion in the name
of liberty and of its ancient usages..."[24] (p. 46)
(The above quotes are from The Prince in the original
Oxford University Press translation by Luigi Ricci, 1903; revised by E. R.
P. Vincent, 1935)
Machiavelli's books, The Prince and The Discourses are
not abstract treatises. Christian Gauss, who wrote an important introduction
to the Oxford edition, called them by their rightful name: they are in fact
a "concise manual-a handbook of those who would acquire or increase
their political power." Gauss tells us that a long line of kings and
ministers and tyrants studied Machiavelli, including Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin
and Stalin.
How Can Evil Deeds Be Reconciled With Christian Beliefs?
It's important to understand that the founders of Dominionism
are sitting on the horns of a moral dilemma: How can a leader be both good
and evil at the same time? For if biblical moral proscriptions are applicable
to him, he will certainly suffer some form of censure. And if proscriptions
are applicable, the leader could not lie to the citizenry with impunity or
do evil so that "good" could be achieved. The answer to the dilemma of how
a Dominionist leader could both do evil and still maintain his place of honor
in the Christian community lies in the acceptance and adoption of the Calvinistic
doctrine that James Hogg wrote about in The Private Memoirs and Confessions
of a Justified Sinner. (W.W. Norton, N.Y. 1970.)
This novel, published in 1824, is concerned with psychological
aberration and as such, anticipates the literature of the twentieth century.
The protagonist is a young man named Robert, who drenched in the religious
bigotry of Calvinism, concluded that he was predestined before the beginning
of the world to enter heaven, therefore no sin he committed would be held
to his account. This freed Robert to become an assassin in the cause of Christ
and His Church.
Fifty years ago a variation on the concept was expressed
disapprovingly as, "Once saved-always saved." In this view, salvation had
nothing to do with "good works or a holy life." A drunk who had a born again
experience would be among God's chosen elect whether he stopped drinking
or not. But the logical extension of the reasoning is the idea that Christianity
could have within itself not ex-sinners but active sinners: as Christian
murderers, Christian pedophiles, Christian rapists, Christian thieves, Christian
arsonists, and every other kind of socio-pathological behavior possible.
As we have sadly witnessed of late the concept is broadly accepted within
the American churches.
But the Dominionists needed the
aberrant extension of Calvinism; they believe as did Calvin and John Knox
that before the creation of the universe, all men were indeed predestined
to be either among God's elect or were unregenerate outcasts. And it is at
this point Dominionists introduced a perversion to Calvinism-the same one
James Hogg utilizes in his The Private Memoirs and Confessions
of a Justified Sinner-its technical name is "supralapsarianism." It means
essentially that the man called from before the foundation of the world to
be one of the elect of God's people, can do no wrong. No wonder then
observers noted a definite religious swing in George W. Bush from Wesleyan
theology to Calvinism early in his administration.[25]
How comforting the Calvinistic idea of a "justified sinner" is
when one is utilizing Machiavellian techniques to gain political control
of a state. It's more than comforting; it is a required doctrine for "Christians" who
believe they must use evil to bring about good. It justifies lying, murder,
fraud and all other criminal acts without the fuss of having to deal with
guilt feelings or to feel remorse for the lives lost through executions,
military actions, or assassinations.
If this doctrine seems too wayward to believe as it might
have done had I not heard a recent interview with a Pentecostal minister-rest
assured the twisted doctrine is horribly alive and thriving in America today.
The interview conducted by Brian
Copeland a news talk show host for KGO, San Francisco on September 5, 2003,
was with the Reverend Donald Spitz of Pensacola, Florida who is involved
with a Pro Life group in Virginia and with the Army of God. The occasion
was the execution of Paul Hill, another Pentecostal minister who murdered
a doctor and his body guard outside an abortion clinic. Hill was caught and
convicted of the crimes. Spitz admitted that he was Paul Hill's spiritual
counselor. He said Hill died with the conviction he had done the Lord's work.
Spitz who approved of the murder said, "Someone else is going to handle the
publishing of Paul Hill's book On How to Assassinate."
Spitz believed that Hill was completely justified in murdering
the physician because, according to him, "twenty-six babies' lives were saved
by the killing." When Copeland pointed out that the scheduled abortions
for the morning of the murders would have simply been postponed to another
day-and that the lives of the fetuses were only extended for a day or so,
Spitz refused to accept the argument.
Not surprisingly, Spitz opposed the use of birth control
methods. Copeland asked, "If a woman is raped should she be forced to carry
the fetus to term?" Spitz said, "Yes."
"What if the pregnancy will kill the mother?" Spitz replied
that under no circumstances could "the baby be killed." When Spitz was asked, "Why
haven't you gone out and killed an abortionist?" he replied calmly, "God
hasn't told me to do the killing."
The Neo-Conservative Connection with Dominionists and Machiavelli
I suspect that most Americans have never heard of Machiavelli,
nevertheless, it should be no surprise to us that Machiavelli has been accepted,
praised, and followed by the Neo-Conservatives in the White House and his
precepts are blindly adopted by the so-called "Christian" Dominionists. Kevin
Phillips tells us in his masterful book, American Dynasty that Karl
Rove, political strategist for President George W. Bush, is a devotee of
Machiavelli, just as Rove's predecessor, Lee Atwater had been for the elder
Bush.[26] In fact,
there has been an incredible effort to dilute the immoral implications of
Machiavelli's teachings. Today's best apologist for Machiavelli is one of
the most influential voices in Washington with direct connections into the
oval office.
Michael A. Ledeen was a Senior Fellow with the Center for
Strategic and International Studies and a counselor to the National Security
Council and special counselor to former Secretary of State, Alexander Haig
in 1985. His relationship with Pat Robertson goes back at least to the early
1980's.[27] Like Robertson, Ledeen was an advocate for military
intervention in Nicaragua and for assistance to the Contras. (Ledeen was
also involved in the Iran-Contra affair.)[28]
Today, in 2004, Michael Ledeen is a fellow at the conservative
think tank, the American Enterprise Institute and according to William O.
Beeman of the Pacific News Service, "Ledeen has become the driving philosophical
force behind the neoconservative movement and the military actions it has
spawned."[29]
Ledeen made a number of appearances on the 700 Club show
during the 1980's. Always presented as a distinguished guest, Robertson interviewed
him on April 30, 1985 and asked him on this occasion: "What would you recommend
if you were going to advise the President [Ronald Reagan] as to foreign policy?"
Ledeen responded:
"The United
States has to make clear to the world and above all to its own citizens, what
our vital interests are. And then we must make it clear to everyone that
we are prepared to fight and fight fiercely to defend those interests, so
that people will not cross the lines that are likely to kick off a trip wire." (Emphasis
added.)
If Ledeen's advice sounds ruthless and Machiavellian-it
may be because it is Machiavellian. (By definition his statement presupposes
the existence of something or several things that are life threatening to
the nation by the use of the word "vital." Yet Ledeen asserts that which
is life threatening must be made manifest or defined. If an interest must
be defined, then it is not apparent; yet the nation will nevertheless ask
its sons and daughters to fight and die for something that is not apparent.
Therefore, whatever "interests" Ledeen wanted to be defined, cannot have
been vital interests, which are apparent-so in reality he advised
the President to call discretionary interests vital-which is a lie.)
Be aware that Ledeen is in complete accord with Machiavellian
thinking. And so is Pat Robertson.[30] Robertson
agreed to virtually every nuance Ledeen presented. In fact, it's not clear
which of the two first proposed invading Syria, Iran and Iraq back in the
1980's,[31] a refrain that also echoed in the reports
of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), one of the major homes
for neo-conservatives in 2000. Both Ledeen and Robertson targeted the same
nations that PNAC lists as America's greatest enemies in its paper, "Rebuilding
America's Defenses" (published in September 2000.)[32]
In 1999, Ledeen published his book, Machiavelli on Modern
Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today
as Five Centuries Ago. (Truman Talley Books, St. Martin's Griffin,
N.Y. 1999.) Here is a sample of how Ledeen smoothes rough edges and presents
a modern Machiavelli:
"In order to
achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to 'enter into
evil.' This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared,
admired, and challenging. It is why we are drawn to him still..." (p. 91)
Again, Ledeen writes:
"Just as the
quest for peace at any price invites war and, worse than war, defeat and
domination, so good acts sometimes advance the triumph of evil, as there
are circumstances when only doing evil ensures the victory of a good cause." (p.
93)
Ledeen clearly believes "the end justifies the means," but
not all the time. He writes "Lying is evil," but then contradictorily
argues that it produced
"a magnificent
result," and "is essential to the survival of nations and to the success
of great enterprises." (p. 95)
Ledeen adds this tidbit:
"All's fair
in war . . . and in love. Practicing deceit to fulfill your heart's desire
might be not only legitimate, but delicious!" (p. 95)
William O. Beeman tells us about Michael Ledeen's influence.
Writing for the Pacific News Service he says:
"Ledeen's ideas
are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and
Paul Wolfowitz...He basically believes that violence in the service of the
spread of democracy is America's manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become
the philosophical legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq."[33]
In fact, Ledeen's influence goes even further. The BBC,
the Washington Post and Jim Lobe writing for the Asia Times report
that Michael Ledeen is the only full-time international affairs analyst consulted
by Karl Rove.[34] Ledeen has regular conversations with Rove. The Washington
Post said, "More than once, Ledeen has seen his ideas faxed to Rove,
become official policy or rhetoric."[35]
Leo Strauss the Father of Neo-Conservatism
Leo Strauss was born in 1899 and died in 1973. He was a
Jewish scholar who fled Germany when Hitler gained power. He eventually found
refuge in the United States where he taught political science at the University
of Chicago. He is most famous for resuscitating Machiavelli and introducing
his principles as the guiding philosophy of the neo-conservative movement.
Strauss has been called the godfather of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." More
than any other man, Strauss breathed upon conservatism, inspiring it to rise
from its atrophied condition and its natural dislike of change and to embrace
an unbounded new political ideology that rides on the back of a revolutionary
steed, hailing even radical change; hence the name Neo-Conservatives.
The father of neo-conservatism had many "spiritual" children
at the University of Chicago, among them: Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky,
who received their doctorates under Strauss in 1972. Harry V. Jaffa was a
student of Strauss and has an important connection to Dominionists like Pat
Robertson as we shall see below. However, Strauss's family of influence extended
beyond his students to include faculty members in universities, and the people
his students taught. Those prominent neo-conservatives who are most notable
are: Justice Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Irving Kristol and his son William
Kristol, Alan Keyes, William J. Bennett, J. Danforth Quayle, Allan Bloom,
John Podhoertz, John T. Agresto, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer,
Michael Ledeen and scores of others, many of whom hold important positions
in George W. Bush's White House and Defense Department.
To understand the Straussian infusion of power that transformed
an all but dead conservative realm, think of Nietzsche's Overman come to
life. Or better yet, think of the philosophy most unlike Christianity: Think
of pure unmitigated evil. Strauss admits that Machiavelli is an evil man.
But according to Strauss, this admission is a prerequisite to studying and
reading Machiavelli: the acknowledgement is the safety net that keeps the
reader from being corrupted. One is tempted to talk back to Strauss and point
out an alternative: the admission could be the subterfuge that keeps a man
from being ridiculed and rejected for espousing Machiavellian methods.
In one of the most important books for our times, Shadia
Drury's Leo Strauss and the American Right, undertakes to explain
the ideas behind Strauss's huge influence and following. Strauss's reputation,
according to Drury, rests in large part on his view that "a real philosopher
must communicate quietly, subtly, and secretly to the few who are fit to
receive his message." Strauss claims secrecy is necessary to avoid "persecution."[36]
In reading Strauss, one sometimes encounters coded contradictory
ideas. For example, Strauss appears to respect Machiavelli because-as
he points out-in contrast to other evil men, Machiavelli openly proclaimed
opinions that others only secretly expressed behind closed doors. But we
have just noted that Strauss teaches that secrecy is essential to the real
philosopher. Strauss concluded, some would say that Machiavelli was after
all, a patriot of sorts for he loved Italy more than he loved his own soul.
Then Strauss warns, but if you call him a patriot, you "merely obscure something
truly evil."[37] So Strauss dances his way through the Machiavellian field
of evil, his steps choreographed with duplicity and it's opposite. The reader
cannot let go.
In Strauss's view, Machiavelli sees that Christianity "has
led the world into weakness," which can only be offset by returning the world
to the ancient practices of the past. (Implied is not a return to the pagan
past, but rather a return to the more virulent world of the Old Testament).
Strauss laments, "Machiavelli needed ...a detailed discussion revealing the
harmony between his political teaching and the teaching of the Bible." [38]These statements of
Strauss, by themselves, were sufficient to send neo-conservative Christians
to search for correlations between Machiavellianism, radical conservatism
and the scriptures.[39]
Strauss's teaching incorporated much of Machiavelli's. Significantly,
his philosophy is unfriendly to democracy-even antagonistic. At the
same time Strauss upheld the necessity for a national religion not because
he favored religious practices, but because religion in his view is necessary
in order to control the population. Since neo-conservatives influenced by
Strauss are in control of the Bush administration, I have prepared a brief
list that shows the radical unchristian basis of neo-conservatism. I am indebted
to Shadia Drury's book (Leo Strauss and the American Right) and published
interviews for the following:
First: Strauss believed that a leader had to perpetually
deceive the citizens he ruled.
Secondly: Those who lead must understand there is no morality,
there is only the right of the superior to rule the inferior.
Thirdly: According to Drury, Religion "is the glue
that holds society together."[40] It
is a handle by which the ruler can manipulate the masses. Any religion
will do. Strauss is indifferent to them all.
Fourthly: "Secular society...is the worst possible thing," because
it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, all of which encourage
dissent and rebellion. As Drury sums it up: "You want a crowd that you
can manipulate like putty."[41]
Fifthly: "Strauss thinks that a political order can be
stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli,
he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured."[42]
Sixthly: "In Strauss's view, the trouble with liberal
society is that it dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries
to found society on secular rational foundations."
Strauss's Student, Harry Jaffa on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson
For four days in 1986, from July first through the fourth
of July, Pat Robertson interviewed neo-conservative Dr. Harry Jaffa, a former
student of Leo Strauss, on the 700 Club show. The topic was the importance
of the Declaration of Independence. Joining with Jaffa was Robertson's own
man, Herb Titus, the Dean of CBN's School of Public Policy. This series of
interviews was one of the most important philosophical moments in the development
of the political agenda and political philosophy of the Dominionists.
Robertson found in Harry Jaffa, the champion he needed,
whose reasoning would influence how the Constitution should be interpreted
by conservatives and would provide a "Christian" view of the establishment
of the United States that excluded the secular social contract view. Harry
Jaffa would influence both Clarence Thomas (who would be appointed to the
Supreme Court by President George Bush senior in 1991) and Antonin Scalia
(who would be appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan on
September 26, 1986).
During the four days of interviews Jaffa and Titus agreed
that the Declaration of Independence was the premier document and it superceded
the Constitution. Titus said, "The Declaration...is the charter of the nation.
It is what you might call the articles of incorporation, whereas the Constitution
is the bylaws. The Constitution is the means by which to carry out the great
purposes that are articulated in the Declaration."
Robertson asked: "Let's assume that eighty percent of the
people are just totally immoral, they want to live lives of gross licentiousness
and they want to prey on one another, that's what they want and they want
a government to let them do it. How does that square with the Declaration
of Independence and its consent of the governed?"
Titus said, "Even the people can't consent to give away
that which God says is unalienable."
Robertson then asked, "The principles enunciated in the
Declaration of Independence, how far have we gone from it and what can we
do to redress some of these problems?"
Jaffa responded cryptically:
"I'd say that
today, for example in the Attorney General's [Edwin Meese's] warfare with
the liberals on the Supreme Court, in his appeal to original intent,
he appeals to the text of the Constitution. Jefferson and Madison said together
in 1825, 'If you want to find the principles of the Constitution of the United
States, you go first to the Declaration of Independence.'"
First, Jaffa means by the term "original intent" that the
Constitution must be interpreted according to what it meant when it was originally
adopted. It is a revolutionary and brilliant idea that will allow the Dominionists
to effectively repeal most of the judicial decisions made in the last century. [43]
Secondly, if we take Jaffa and the Dominionists at their
word and go to the Declaration of Independence, we can see just how radical
the conservative revolution and Dominionism are. The only portion that is
ever quoted publicly are these words:
"We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed,"
The quote stops in the middle of the sentence-the part that
is never quoted is this:
"That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right
of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Dominionism then, takes its authority to overthrow the government
of the United States from our own Declaration of Independence. By the time
all Americans wake up to the Dominionist's intent, it may be too late.
Though Harry Jaffa speaks with a high minded sense of political
righteousness, Shadia Drury exposes his Machiavellian side. Like Strauss,
he "clearly believes that devious and illegal methods are justified when
those in power are convinced of the rightness of their ends."[44] Jaffa and Robertson
saw eye to eye on more than one topic: for instance, Jaffa like his host
Pat Robertson, found Oliver North to be a hero (and by extension Michael
Ledeen) when both North and Ledeen went around the law to provide military
aid to the contras.[45]
How Dominionism Stealthily Swept Over America
Within a period of twenty to thirty years beginning in the
1970's, Dominionism spread like wild fire throughout the evangelical, Pentecostal
and fundamentalist religious communities in America. It was aided and abetted
by television and radio evangelists. More than any other man, Pat Robertson
mobilized the millions of politically indifferent and socially despised Pentecostals
and fundamentalists in America and turned them into an angry potent army
of political conquerors.[46]
But it would be a mistake to limit Dominionism to the Pentecostals
and fundamentalists alone: conservative Roman Catholics and Episcopalians
have joined and enlarged the swelling numbers.[47] Robertson, like other media preachers, used
every form of communication: television, radio, books and audio tapes available
for sale. One book stands out. Originally published in 1982 and written with
Bob Slosser, a key Robertson loyalist, Pat Robertson's The Secret Kingdom soared
on the bestseller charts. It underwent four printings during its first year.
By 1984 Bantam published a mass paperback in cooperation with Thomas Nelson,
the original publisher. (Though the book has since been revised, my quotes
are from the original version.)
However, it was the Pentecostals and fundamentalists who
made up the core of Robertson's audience. To a people who were largely uneducated
and who often remained ignorant even if they went through college because
of their fear of becoming tainted by the "world and worldliness," Dominionism
came as a brilliant light that assuaged their deep sense of inferiority.
Pentecostals in particular could take comfort from the notion that no longer
would the world think of them as "Holy Rollers" who danced in the "Spirit" and
practiced glossolalia. This time, they would be on top-they would be the
head and not the tail-and the so-called elite, the educated of the world,
would be on the bottom.
A new world was coming. To help the transition along, Pat
Robertson, along with other pastors, evangelists and churchmen, founded schools,
universities and colleges throughout the United States to train "Christians" how
to run for office, how to win, and how to manage the affairs of government
after they gained office. To get an idea of how successful the plan was,
Robertson's Regent University now has a $100 million endowment. After watching
the Dominionists takeover the Republican Party and observing their ruthless
methods, it is indeed apparent that Machiavellian principles are the fuel
running their "How to Manual."
Starting with a class of only twelve in 1985, Robertson
began his Journalism Department at CBN University where 800 other graduate
students were earning Master degrees in a fully accredited institution. Later
Robertson changed the name of CBN University to "Regent University"-based
on Dominionism's teaching that the national government of America and governments
of the world will be ruled by Dominionists, who will act as regents on an
interim basis, that is, until the true King-Jesus Christ-will return to earth
again and gratefully accept His Kingdom from the hands of His faithful regents.
The Dominionist Plan: Today Control the USA, Tomorrow the World
Significantly, Dominionism is a form of Social Darwinism.[48] It inherently includes the religious belief
that wealth-power is a sign of God's election. That is, out of the masses
of people and the multitude of nations-wealth, in and of itself, is thought
to indicate God's approval on men and nations whereas poverty and sickness
reflect God's disapproval. The roots of the idea come from a natural twist
of an Old Testament passage, which I discuss below. Essentially there were
two elements necessary to establish Dominionism among Christians who previously
believed helping the poor was a mandate of Christianity.[49]
First, Old Testament law had to be accepted as an essential
part of a Christian's theology.
Secondly, the Christian had to undergo a second conversion-like
experience that went beyond being born again and demanded not only
a commitment to reestablishing the Old Testament legal structure but required
the implementation of that law in the nations of the world (including
the U.S.) based upon a different understanding of the Great Commission (Matthew
28: 18-20).[50] Under this concept Dominionists are
to go into all the world to take dominion and "make disciples" teaching the
disciples to "observe all" that Jesus "commanded." All nations under Dominionist's
teaching are to convert to biblical laws, which are ranked superior to secular
laws that were not God given or God directed and are found wanting. The Christian
therefore must be willing to overthrow all laws that are secular.
In other words, a measure of one's spirituality rested upon
the individual's willingness to accept the concept of taking dominion over
not only the people of America, but taking dominion over the people of the
entire world. From Dominionists' actual words, the taking of America is perceived
as a violent act. Ben Kinchlow who co-hosted CBN's 700 Club with Pat
Robertson told an audience, "We need to grab the American dream by
the short hairs and snatch it back to where it was originally designed
to be."
As Robertson wrote approvingly in his book, The Secret
Kingdom, the kingdom of heaven "suffers violence, and violent men take
it by force." He explained, "Zealous men force their way in. That's what
it means." (Page 82.)
What "Dominion" Means
There were an estimated 110,000 Pentecostal and fundamentalist
churches in America in the 1980s. Robertson taught them-through his vast
television network and through his books-that the role of the Christian is
to rule over the wicked. Dominionism's purpose is to create theocrats (a
Christian class of rulers). But in order to successfully place only certain
Christians in positions of power, Dominionism divides Christian believers
into classes based upon political ideology and certain hot point issues
such as the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, freedom to decide
on medical procedures with ones own physician, freedom of the press and freedom
of speech, freedom of the arts, and certain rights like the right to a fair
trial and protection from governmental intrusion into the privacy of marriage
and adult associations.
The believers who are destined to rule are called the "elect," and
are separated from those believers who do not and will not accept the predestined
superiority of the chosen ruling class. A Christian who raises his voice
against the "elect" could be labeled a "false prophet or a dreamer of dreams," and
therefore, according to the Deuteronomic law "shall be put to death."
Placing his own words in the mouth of God, Robertson wrote
in The Secret Kingdom:
"It is clear
that God is saying, 'I gave man dominion over the earth, but he lost it.
Now I desire mature sons and daughters who will in My name exercise dominion
over the earth and will subdue Satan, the unruly, and the rebellious.
Take back My world from those who would loot it and abuse it. Rule as I would
rule.'" (p. 201.)
On his 700 Club television show (5-1-86) Robertson
said:
"God's
plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen to take dominion...What is dominion?
Well, dominion is Lordship. He wants His people to reign and rule with Him...but
He's waiting for us to...extend His dominion...And the Lord says, 'I'm going
to let you redeem society. There'll be a reformation....We are not
going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme Court and in Washington
ruling over us any more. We're not gonna stand for it. We are going to say,
'we want freedom in this country, and we want power...'"
Charles
Colson, the former Special Counsel to Richard Nixon, who was called "Nixon's
Hatchet Man," pled guilty to charges in the Daniel Ellsberg case during
the Watergate Scandal. He served a prison sentence, and started a prison
ministry afterward. Pat Robertson has called him "the most brilliant political
strategist in the world." Over the years, Colson made many appearances
on the 700 Club. On one occasion, he laid out the battle lines:
"It always has
been a conflict between the kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdom
of man. When you really look at what Jesus is saying, He is saying the time
is fulfilled, repent and believe, the kingdom is at hand. And He is calling
for the kingdom of God to rule over the affairs of man. And so inevitably
there's going to be a conflict." (The 700 Club 5-21-86)
Robertson said on his program the 700 Club (5-13-86):
"We've sat idly
by long enough and said, 'Well religion and politics don't mix.' Don't you
believe it. If we don't have moral people in government then the only other
people that can be in government are immoral. That's the only way it goes.
Either you have moral people in there or you have immoral people."
On another show (5-7-86) he revealed a partial list of changes
the Dominionists planned for America:
"We can change
the government, we can change the court systems, we can change the poverty
problem, we can change education...We can make a difference."
Who Rules? And Who Are to Be the Ruled?
In an earlier section, I discussed the principle held by
both Machiavelli and Leo Strauss that religion is necessary as a tool for
a leader to control the masses. If conformity-not dissent is required, then
religion is the power tool of choice, for it will insure a controlled populace.
We're about to examine its uses, its ingenious gifts and its powers, in this
and the following sections. Be aware that Dominionism is in fact, a brilliantly
executed road that leads to total power.
In his book, which tended to be more formal and less expansive,
Pat Robertson began the listing of those Americans not fit for public office:
"Obviously the
drunk, the drug addict, the lustful, the slothful do not have the discipline
to rule the earth and to correct its evils." (p. 82)
"If we remain
unrighteous, the Bible says, we will miss the kingdom." (p.83)
Then he quoted Paul's epistle to the Corinthians:
"Or do you not
know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) (p.
83)
If "Secular Humanists are the greatest threat to Christianity
the world has ever known," as theologian Francis Schaeffer claimed, then
who are the Humanists? According to Dominionists, humanists are the folks
who allow or encourage licentious behavior in America. They are the undisciplined revelers.
Put all the enemies of the Dominionists together, boil them
down to liquid and bake them into the one single most highly derided and
contaminated individual known to man, and you will have before you an image
of the quintessential "liberal"-one of those folks who wants to give liberally
to the poor and needy-who desires the welfare and happiness of all Americans-who
insists on safety regulations for your protection and who desires the preservation
of your values-those damnable people are the folks that must be reduced to
powerlessness-or worse: extinction.
Dominionists determine who is among God's elect-not solely
by a religious experience such as being born again, but by a political determination
of whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative
or simply a person who questions the deeds of Dominionist political figures.
The politics of exclusion, including bigotry, is in fact wide spread throughout
the United States.
Take, for instance, Sean Hannity's remarks to Time Magazine, "You
can play golf with liberals, be neighbors with them, go out to dinner. I
just don't want them in power."[51] Or take Ann Coulter's assertions: "Liberals
have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason." Or, "Whenever
the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the
enemy." (It turns out that every single "liberal" in the country is a member
of the Democratic Party and therefore is a traitor.)[52]
The Machiavellian nature of the Dominionist cult explains
why Bill Clinton who is a Christian believer was attacked so viciously for
his sexual folly but Newt Gingrich, Bill Livingston, Henry Hyde, Strom Thurmond
and scores of other Republicans escaped the punishment of public ridicule,
verbal abuse, and humiliation for the same sexual peccadilloes. (It appears
only Democratic "liberals" must be held to the fire of biblical standards
and biblical punishments because as we all know, they are "unregenerate
from the beginning of time.")
Robertson's book acknowledges that his followers, the "Christian" army
raised up for political purposes are the elect chosen to rule. Robertson's
transcribed television interviews and dialogs give shocking evidence to the
legitimization of greed, hatred, violence and cruelty by members of the various
fundamentalist branches of the American clergy and by elected officials of
the Republican Party, which can be cited as evidence that Dominionism is
not a Christian religion-that above everything else, Dominionism is synonymous
with Machiavellianism: the ends justify the means. Under Dominionism, true
Christianity is a target to destroy, not a goal to achieve.
Who Lives and Who Dies? How Justice Scalia Would Expand
the Death Penalty
In one of those peculiar moments when a host on television
seems to have a disconnect with his guest, I realized that Pat Robertson
was using "code" with Herb Titus, his "guest" on the show on May 27, 1985. Titus
was the Dean of CBN University's School of Public Policy and was a known
Christian Reconstructionist (Dominionist) who had written position papers
arguing that government has exceeded its authority by requiring individuals
such as doctors, lawyers, and teachers to be licensed by the state. Robertson,
himself, revealed what the School of Public Policy was teaching on a later
show (July 5, 1985). "What are we going to teach them? We'll teach them the
foundation of our government. We're going to teach them how to win elections."
This exchange with Titus occurred on May 27, 1985:
Robertson: "We
have with us today Constitutional authority, Herb Titus. Herb . .
. . How about the biblical concept of war? You know there are many people
who don't think we should ever fight wars and yet we're talking about brave
men who died for freedom." (Emphasis added)
Titus: "Well
I believe the scripture is very clear that if you are attacked by evil whether
within the country or outside the country, that it's the duty of the civil
authorities to defend the nation and the people of the nation from evil whether
it comes from an aggressor outside or an aggressor inside. We can see that
in Romans 13 for example."
Curious about the meaning of what was being said, particularly
since Robertson had asked a question about war, and Titus' answer included
war against one's own population, I looked up Romans 13. I had always read
this passage to be St. Paul's concept of a good government providing beneficial
services to the governed and I restricted its meaning to only a lawfully
constituted government that rules justly.
But read Romans 13 in the light of Machiavelli's and Leo
Strauss's discourses on religion and its uses by a political leader, and
one glimpses the danger that Dominionism represents to the American people
and to the American way of life. For it can be read to mean that any lawful
government is ordained by God to execute retribution and punishment upon
those who challenge (resist or rebel against) unjust policies of a government.
When read this way, it takes on a new and sinister meaning. Or, it can be
read to mean that once a new government of the United States of America
has been established under biblical law-then no citizen will have the right
to resist it or rebel against its edicts. In other words, the Declaration
of Independence will no longer be applicable to the regency established by
the Dominionists. This is how Romans 13 reads in the New English Version:
"Every
person must submit to the supreme authorities. There is no authority but
by act of God, and the existing authorities are instituted by him; consequently
anyone who rebels against authority is resisting a divine institution, and
those who so resist have themselves to thank for the punishment they will
receive. For government, a terror to crime, has no terrors for good behaviour.
You wish to have no fear of the authorities? Then continue to do right and
you will have their approval, for they are God's agents working for your
good. But if you are doing wrong, then you will have cause to fear them;
it is not for nothing that they hold the power of the sword, for they are
God's agents of punishment, for retribution on the offender. That is why
you are obliged to submit. It is an obligation imposed not merely by fear
of retribution but by conscience. That is also why you pay taxes. The authorities
are in God's service and to these duties they devote their energies."
This section, if taken literally as fundamentalists are
apt to do, appears to prohibit any kind of resistance against the policies
of a government, including peaceful protests, petitions, and writings. Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears to endorse that position, for he quoted
this same Romans 13 passage in his article, "God's Justice and Ours," to
prove that Christian doctrine states "government-however you want to limit
that concept-derives its moral authority from God."[53] Government is not only the "minister of God" but
it has the authority to "execute God's wrath."
The power of the sword is surely
the power to kill or maim and certainly the power to intimidate. Scalia believes
the power of the sword in this passage is "unmistakably a reference
to the death penalty."
At this point, Scalia demonstrates the absolute brilliance
of the judicial rule created by neo-conservatives that requires a judge to
determine the "original intent" of the writers of the Constitution. As Scalia
himself describes it, "The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not
living but dead...It means today not what current society...thinks it ought
to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted."[54] Once the original thinking is determined,
the judge can enforce the Constitution only as a document that is bound by
the time zone in which a particular passage was written.
When I first read articles by authors who were exposing
the Dominionists' intention to extend the death penalty to cover "crimes" like
adultery, rebelliousness, homosexuality, witchcraft or effeminateness, I
found the death penalty extension goal to be laughable. It couldn't be done
in America.
I was wrong. I now realize that we are very close to seeing
the Dominionists achieve their goal. All they need to do is to appoint a
majority of judges who will adhere to the "dead Constitution" construction
rule of Scalia (or what Harry Jaffa called "the original intent" construction
rule). At the point when the Dominionist's control the judiciary-that judiciary
can roll back America's body of legal jurisprudence to a century or more
ago as Law Professor Patricia J. Williams pointed out.[55]
Scalia spilled the beans in his article, "God's Justice
and Ours" when he explained how he would determine whether the death penalty
is constitutional or not. His reasoning goes like this: since the death penalty
was "clearly permitted when the Eighth Amendment [which prohibits 'cruel
and unusual punishments'] was adopted," and at that time the death penalty
was applied for all felonies-including, for example, the felony of horse-thieving, "so
it is clearly permitted today."[56] Justice Scalia left no doubt that if the crime
of horse stealing carried a death penalty today in the United States-he would
find that law constitutional.
All a willing Dominionist Republican controlled congress
need do to extend the death penalty to those people who practice witchcraft,
adultery, homosexuality, heresy, etcetera, is to find those particular death
penalty laws existing as of November 3, 1791, and re-instate them. No revolution
is required. That's why the battle over Bush's judicial appointments is so
crucial to the future of the America we know and love. And that's why the
clock is running out on freedom loving Americans.
Scalia himself appears to be
a Dominionist, for he believes that Romans 13 represents the correct view-
that government authority is derived from God and not from the people; he
asserts his view was the consensus of Western thought until recent times.
Like Pat Robertson, he laments that the biblical perspective was upset by "the
emergence of democracy."[57] Taking his cue from Leo Strauss, Scalia argued,
a democratic government, being seen as "nothing more than the composite will
of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they
do as individuals..." Democracy, according to Scalia, creates problems: It
can foster
civil disobedience.[58]
As Patricia Williams wrote: "God bless America. The Constitution
is dead."[59]
Dominionism's Theocratic Views
What would a "reconstructed" America look like under the
Dominionists? K.L. Gentry, a Dominionist himself, suggests the following "elements
of a theonomic approach to civic order," which I strongly suggest should
be compared to the Texas GOP platform of 2002, which reveals that we are
not just talking about imaginary ideas but some things are already proposed
on Republican agendas.[60] Dominionism's concept
of government according to Gentry is as follows:
"1. It obligates government to maintain just monetary
policies ... [thus prohibiting] fiat money, fractional reserve banking,
and deficit spending.
"2. It provides a moral basis for elective government
officials. ...
"3. It forbids undue, abusive taxation of the rich.
...
"4. It calls for the abolishing of the prison system
and establishing a system of just restitution. ...
"5. A theonomic approach also forbids the release, pardoning,
and paroling of murderers by requiring their execution. ...
"6. It forbids industrial pollution that destroys the
value of property. ...
"7. It punishes malicious, frivolous malpractice suits.
...
"8. It forbids abortion rights. ... Abortion is not only
a sin, but a crime, and, indeed, a capital crime."[61]
The fourth item in Gentry's list, "abolishing of the prison
system and establishing a system of just restitution" has been worked on
extensively by Dominionist Gary North, who holds a doctorate degree
in history. North has written volumes of books, essays and articles, (many
of which falsely predicted that the year 2000 computer problem would bring
down modern civilization.) He is most famous among Dominionists for reconciling
economic theory with Old Testament passages.
Gary North describes the 'just restitution' system of the
bible, which happens to reinstitute slavery, like this:
"At the other
end of the curve, the poor man who steals is eventually caught and sold into
bondage under a successful person. His victim receives payment; he receives
training; his buyer receives a stream of labor services. If the servant is
successful and buys his way out of bondage, he re-enters society as a disciplined
man, and presumably a self-disciplined man. He begins to accumulate wealth."[62]
The Immorality of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs
If the blithe acceptance of slavery isn't shocking enough,
here is one of the coldest attitudes I ever heard expressed in an interview
on American television. I can't help reading it in light of the coercive
bullying tactics resorted to by Dominionist leaders in the House of Representatives
to get the necessary votes to pass the controversial new Medicare Prescription
Drug law.[63] The following interview reveals the deep seated
hatred Dominionists have against governmental medical assistance to the elderly.
The interview was conducted on August 1, 1985 with Dr. Walter Williams, professor
of economics at George Mason University and author of thirty-five books.
Danuta Soderman was a co-host on Pat Robertson's 700 Club. She began
the interview with a question about Medicare and Medicaid fraud, suggesting
cost possibly "millions and billions" of dollars:
Williams: "Well,
I think that the abuse and fraud in and of itself is a relatively minor problem.
That is, the bigger problem is the whole concept of funding somebody's medical
care by a third party. And I might also mention here, that is, I saw in the
audience many older and senior citizens. Now whose responsibility is it to
take care of those people? I think it lies with their children and it also
lies with themselves. That is, I think Christians should recognize that charity
is good. I mean charity, when you reach into your pocket to help your fellow
man for medical care or for food or to give them housing. But what the government
is doing in order to help these older citizens is not charity at all. It
is theft. That is, the government is using power to confiscate property that
belongs to one American and give, or confiscate their money, and provide
services for another set of Americans to whom it does not belong. That is
the moral question that Christians should face with not only Medicare, Medicaid.
But many other programs as well....Well, people should have insurance. But
I would say if our fellow man is found in need, does not have enough, well
that's a role for the church, that's a role for the family, that's a role
for private institutions to take care of these things."
Danuta Soderman: "I
thought it was interesting you talked about Medicare and Medicaid as not
being a moral issue. A lot of people would think that to want to eliminate
the program is rather uncompassionate-that there is something immoral about
taking away something that people are relying so heavily upon, but you said
that there is no moral issue here."
Williams: "I
think the moral issue runs the other way. That is, we have to ask ourselves,
'What is the moral basis of confiscating the property of one American and
giving it to another American to whom it does not belong for whatever reason?'
That is, I think we Americans have to ask ourselves is there something that
can justify a legalized theft? And I think that even if the person is starving
in the street that act, in and of itself, doesn't justify my taking money
from somebody else."
How to Destroy the Social Security Program
On August 14, 1985, Pat Robertson
unveiled his ingenious program on how to get rid of Social Security. The
plan amazingly resembles sections of the Bush Administration's Medicare Prescription
Drug bill passed in December of 2003. Robertson, however, outlined what to
do twenty years ago as follows:
1. "We
should say to all the elderly, 'You're going to be taken care of. The government's
going to pay you. Don't worry about it. [You'll] get your Social Security
like you're expecting, 'cause you're counting on it."
2. "There should
be a gradual moving [up] of [the retirement] age to reflect the fact that
we're healthier and we live longer and people should have dignity and be
allowed to work a little bit longer."
3. "The last
thing we should do is to begin to let the younger workers slowly but surely
go into private programs where the money is tax sheltered and over the years
build up their own money and that would in turn, through the intermediary
organizations, banks, insurance companies, would invest in American industry.
They would buy plants and equipment, put people to work and it would help
a tremendous boom. Imagine ...$100 billion dollars a year flowing into American
industry. It would be marvelous."
Wealth is a Sign of God's Favor, Poverty is a Sign of God's Disfavor
How did the Dominionists get so far from the Lord's edict
to help the poor, the sick, and the elderly? Using the text of Deuteronomy
28, which is a list of God's blessings and curses, Robertson and other Dominionists
believe that the chapter reveals God's covenanted economic law. God only
bestows "material wealth or blessings" upon those who are among his elect
and he does so because these are the individuals and nations who obey his
commandments and laws. So what about the poor? Dominionist Gary North explains
it this way:
"God is sovereign
over the poor. He raises them up-not all of them, but some of them. 'The
Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.'"[64]
I grant that the verse cited leaves government assistance
out of the picture. North claims, the blessings and sanctions of Deuteronomy
28 are historical. He says, "They are predictable. Covenantal rebellion by
a society will lead to God's imposition of these sanctions."[65] North then ties the
package up neatly: "The blessings and cursings of God under the Mosaic Covenant
were sure. They were not disconnected from God's law. There was a bedrock
objectivity that united covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers."[66]
To understand what North is talking about, we have to read
a portion of the text of Deuteronomy 28:
"The Lord shall
establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee...and
the Lord shall make thee the head and not the tail; and thou shalt be above
only, and thou shalt not be beneath..."
A conclusion drawn by the scripture itself is that a nation
who follows the commandments or laws of God will be "high above all nations
of the earth...and all people of the earth shall see that thou art called
by the name of the Lord, and they shall be afraid of thee." On the other
hand, the Dominionists believe those who are poor, sick, and weak are so
situated because God's wrath has been visited upon them-they are the "wicked" of
this earth and they deserve the wrath of God because their behavior is bringing
the entire nation under condemnation.
The litany of the curses of God on those who do not keep
his laws and commandments are among the most horrendous descriptions of torture
in literature. Here is a sample from Deuteronomy 28:
"The Lord shall
cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies...thy carcass shall be food
unto all fowls of the air...The Lord will smite thee with [boils]...and with
...tumors, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be
healed. The Lord shall smite thee with madness and blindness and astonishment
of heart [fear]; thou shalt grope at noonday; thou shalt not prosper in thy
ways; and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore...thou shalt
betroth a wife and another man shall lie with her; thou shalt build an house,
and thou shalt not dwell therein, and thine ox shall be slain before thine
eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof; thine 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 always..."
Gary North explained: "The point of Deuteronomy 28 is this:
the way to wealth, both individual and corporate, is through systematic adherence
to God's Bible-revealed law."[67]
Hence the idea that should a nation minister to the poor
or attempt to lift the poor out of poverty or save people from poverty and
ill health, that nation is contravening the will of Almighty God and such
legislation is contrary to the laws of God. It is only one step further to
say that if this is God's attitude toward the poor, it is morally wrong to
help them. So it's easy to see how Social Security and Medicare are viewed
by Dominionists as "evil" programs that rob money from some citizens to enrich
others.
There's one other little trap for the unwary Dominionist;
when a government is seen to be the enforcer of the Deuteronomic laws, it's
easy to take the next step and say that it is the duty of the "Christian" Dominionist
government to subdue the wicked of the world, especially the vast American
middle class, because its collective licentious life style is bringing the
nation down as a whole; therefore the government must "minister the wrath
of God" against the citizens of America as punishment for "rebelliousness." That
the entire scheme is an unending circular argument, escapes the notice of
the rank and file sitting in the pews.
In their new role as ministers of God's wrath against this
nation, Dominionist political strategists are aware they must not be seen
as being cruel and hateful. So at first, until the population is completely
subdued and dominated by the elect, Dominionists are forced to devise laws
that will create the political, social, and medical environment that will
ultimately ensure that the wicked are punished-but it will appear-at first
blush to be a gift. The truth, of course, according to Machiavellian/Straussian
dictates, must be hidden from the population; not just once or twice, but
over and over again.
In the end, Dominionism should be viewed as a backboard
that bounces the New Deal and FDR's social safety net programs, social security
(as well as Medicare) into its political opposite: laissez-faire economics
(the motto of 18th century French economists who protested excessive government
regulation of industry.) Laissez-faire is a doctrine opposing governmental
interference (as by regulation or subsidy) in economic affairs beyond the
minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights. Dominionism
opposes the licensing and regulating power of the government.
One last comment on Pat Robertson. On November 3, 1986,
the 700 Club ran a piece on the use of computers in counting votes.
Robertson ended his Perspective by saying there should be some kind
of control on computer voting to assure an honest count. How prescient this
man is! And how worrisome his prescience is.
Who Is on the Side of Freedom? Let Him Speak Now!
There is an infection, a religious and political pathology
that has corrupted our churches. Those we trusted the most have embraced
evil. That knowledge is almost more than we can bear. Who among us will stand
in the gap and make up the hedge to save our nation?
When we look for help-for the wealthy leaders with the means
to help rescue America, we find they have all defected to the Dominionists.
They do not realize that if the middle class of America is wiped out-there
will be no one to buy their cars, their computers or their products. Only
one or two brave souls like George Soros have made massive contributions
to combat the think tanks and the organized political machine of the Dominionists.
The corporate press lies sleeping, not realizing they will be allowed to
report only what they are instructed to report.
Freedom is under siege. There is only one free major political
party still left in America. I know the Democrats look chaotic, unfocused
and generally unsmooth and thank God, unprogramed. Make no mistake, these
plain ordinary citizens are holding the candles that together form the great
torch of liberty. For all their faults, they love America and they love freedom
and they love the Bill of Rights. America's independents, its true Conservatives,
its sensible Republicans, and its Libertarians must join hands together with
the homely Democrats and take back America for all Americans.
The livelihood of the working people of America is at stake.
The Dominionists have lost more American jobs in the last three years than
since the days of Herbert Hoover. And now they want to eliminate the minimum
wage laws too. America's unions have helped to create a better life for millions
of workers. The Dominionists want to break all unions apart (especially the
teacher's union). As Americans, we love our schools and are proud of our
educational system. The Dominionists want to destroy all public education
in America and force Americans to be educated in their religious schools.
Americans love our culture and the arts. The Dominionists want to destroy
that culture.
The election of 2004 is not just another election. It is
the battle of the century. It is the gravest political war since the Civil
War, which if lost, spells the end of Independence Day and every right in
the Bill of Rights that we have fought so hard to preserve. Is there an American,
regardless of his or her party, who would not fight for our Democracy? It's
in jeopardy now. Our friends and cousins in Britain, France, Australia, New
Zealand and scores of other nations have seen our jeopardy and have been
crying out for months and days and years to wake up America!
Let me see your face and look into your eyes. Let me hear
you say, "There is no difference between the two parties." May God help us
and grant us discernment when we vote.
Notes to The Despoiling
of America
(By clicking on the endnote
number, you will be returned to the referenced text)
[1] "Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office," 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, "God's Justice and Ours," 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: "...[O]ne ought not
to say to someone whom one wants to kill, 'Give me your gun, I want to kill
you with it,' but merely, 'Give me your gun,' for once you have the gun in
your hand, you can satisfy your desire."
[5] Osha Gray Davidson, "Dirty Secrets," Mother Jones,
September/October 2003 at page 53. "The 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." The subtitle reads: "No president
has gone after the nation's environmental laws with the same fury as George
W. Bush and none has been so adept at staying under the radar."
[6] Alan Sager, Ph.D. and Deborah Socolar, M.P.H. "61 Percent
of Medicare's New Prescription Drug Subsidy Is Windfall Profit to Drug Makers," 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 Robertson's prescription on how to eliminate Social
Security by clicking here.
[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 Robertson's 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, "I must speak out." Mr. Cronkite
continued, "I am deeply disturbed by the dangerous and growing influence
of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on our nation's political
leaders."
Former Governor of Delaware, Russ Peterson in his new book, Patriots,
Stand Up!, wrote, "Our 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.
"Deception 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."
The author calls on patriots to apply the principles of
democracy now to retake America from a conservative elite that controls the
country.
The author's 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] "Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic
Dominionism Gains Influence," 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., 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 everyone-just to interested people. "Let
word of mouth tell the story. You need not become very visible if you choose
not to." 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 Bokaer's article in "The Rise
of the Religious Right in the Republican Party," 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 CBN's charities
program "Operation Blessing." On March 27, 1985, while criticizing farmers
for wanting a government bailout he said: "What's wrong in this country
is that so many people have substituted the government for God. Instead
of looking to God to supply their needs, they're looking to government." Railing
at financially stressed people was very common on the show.
[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.
[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 was
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 "Dominionism" or "dominion" in this interview series they
used the word "dominant" 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 "Christians" had
to regain dominance.
[18] The most successful ministers knew the
psychological importance of creating "enemies" that were attacking the
church. Jerry Falwell maintains the rule: "To be successful, keep a good
fight going all the time."
[19] Psychiatrist Scott Peck has written about
the phenomena groups resort to almost universally in his book, The People
of the Lie, "There 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 narcissism...group pride....A less benign
but practically universal form of group narcissism is what might be called
'enemy creation,' or hatred of the 'out-group.'"
[20] "War on Secular Society" 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 "communistic" principles
of the early church (Acts 2:42-47), where the early Christians sold all
their possessions, gave them to the needy, and held "all things [in] common." Such
Christian ideas were a direct threat to capitalism's 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 nation's 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):
"If you look at some of the questions that
are being asked by some of the senators of judges, they don't have to do
with their background, their training, whether or not they understand the
law, they have to do with personal beliefs. That's not where we have been
in the past, and that's a very dangerous turn..."
During the same period of time (August-September)
Pat Robertson easily turned the legitimate questioning of Herb Ellingwood's
agenda into an attack on Christianity by framing it this way on his 700
Club Show on August 9, 1985:
"Can 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. He's 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 government...and
you don't think that Christians should be discriminated against...here's
the number of the White House: 202 446-7639..." (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 Iraq's museums, which
contained the greatest collection of ancient relics, art, and ancient treasures
in the world, and in so doing, allowed the looting-the despoiling-of that
nation's 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] Robertson's and Ledeen's 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 government's Sandinistas. However, Congress had
voted to cut off U.S. aid to the Contras and therefore any such transaction
was illegal.
[29] William O. Beeman's article, "Who Is Michael
Ledeen?" 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 CBN's employment, he went to work for ABC's "General Hospital" 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 "pastoral" role and his actual business conduct is stark evidence
that he understood Machiavelli's rule that only appearance counts. Straub
wrote: "In 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 dissent...His television followers
never get to see the tough-minded, hard-driving cut-throat leader." 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 Robertson's daily team, asked Pat Robertson how the
United States should deal with middle-east terrorist groups: "Speaking
about being decisive in dealing with terrorists' 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: "Just like the last guest in that
clip our news department did, he said it's 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 now- 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. We've got to go after the source. If
you want to go after a snake you don't cut inches off his tail."
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 "Principles": http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm and "Rebuilding
America's Defenses" http://newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
[33] William O. Beeman's article, "Who Is Michael
Ledeen?" 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, "Veteran neo-con advisor moves on Iran," 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 "Flirting with Fascism: Neocon theorist Michael
Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the American Right," 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 27 above.
[35] As quoted by Jim Lobe in "Veteran neo-con
advisor moves on Iran" published in the Asia Times. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF26Ak03.html
[36] Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss and the American
Right, St. Martin's 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, "The Covenantal Wealth of Nations," 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, "Moses' Law for Modern Government:
The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist
Movement," 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: "...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."
[40] Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss and the American
Right, St. Martin's 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. Martin's Press, 1999 at page 23.
[43] I'm indebted to Patricia J. Williams, Professor
of law at Columbia University for this insight. See her article, "Infallible
Justice," The Nation; October 7, 2002 at http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20021007"&"s=williams Not
only is the concept of "original 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
Dominionist's 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] Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss and the American
Right, St. Martin's Press, 1999 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 "Moses Law for Modern
Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian
Reconstructionist Movement," Premise, Vol. II Number 5, May 27,
1995. http://capo.org/premise/95/may/ssha2.html.
[48] Social Darwinism is the discredited extension
of Darwin's evolutionary theory to the human social condition. Social Darwinism
takes Charles Darwin's concept, "the survival of the fittest," and applies
it to the idea that the ladder to material wealth and to the "good life" may
be climbed only after one has successfully engaged in group battles and
conflicts and prevailed in the pit of life by drop kicking one's 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 monies-unless of course-it is a so-called "faith based" 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 "good faith based charitable work." 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 America's 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 "leveraged" contributions, in which CBN had
joined with other charities. Robertson admitted they gave only $10 million.
Deducting the $2 million of CBN's contributions to the Contras in Central
America, CBN's 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: "Unhappily,
evangelical Christians have for too long reduced the born-again experience
to the issue of being 'saved.' 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: 'All 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.' [Matthew 28:18-20
New American Standard Bible]. The commission was to make followers and
learners-converts-and 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 world...The invisible was to rule the visible. Christ has authority
over both." Emphasis is Robertson's. (p. 51)
[51] James Poniewozik, "10 Questions for Sean
Hannity," Time Magazine, Nov. 11, 2002.
[52] Mark S. Zaid, "The 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, "God's Justice and Ours," in
First Things 123 (May 2002): 17-21, http://www.firsthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html
[54] Ibid. On November 6, 2004, in response
from a letter to the editor, I changed the following sentences in the original
text: "Taking his cue from Leo Strauss, Scalia argued,
'a 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.' Democracy, according to Scalia,
creates problems, 'It fosters civil disobedience.'" This passage was changed to:
[55] Patricia J. Williams, Professor of law
at Columbia University. See her article, "Infallible Justice," The Nation;
October 7, 2002 at http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20021007"&"s=williams
[56] Ibid.
[57] Antonin Scalia, "God's Justice and Ours," in
First Things 123 (May 2002): 17-21, http://www.firsthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html
[58] Ibid. The original text read as follows: "Taking
his cue from Leo Strauss, Scalia argued, 'a 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.' Democracy,
according to Scalia, creates problems, 'It fosters civil disobedience.'"
The original text was corrected to the following: "Taking
his cue from Leo Strauss, Scalia argued, a democratic government, being
seen as 'nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens,
has no more moral power or authority than they do as individuals...' Democracy, according to Scalia, creates problems: It can foster
civil disobedience." (The link takes the reader to the full discussion
in the Yurica Report's Mailbag.)
[59] Patricia J. Williams, Professor of law
at Columbia University. See her article, "Infallible Justice," 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: "The Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United
States of America is a Christian Nation ...
"1. 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.
"2. 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.
"3. 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.
"4. 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.
"The
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.
"5. 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.
"Support
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.
"6. 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.
"7. THE MIDDLE EAST: ...
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel ... therefore, the United States should
move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem."
To read the complete
Texas GOP Platform click here to go to a PDF file: more
[61] J. Ligon Duncan, III "Moses Law for Modern
Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian
Reconstructionist Movement," Premise, Vol. II Number 5, May 27,
1995. http://capo.org/premise/95/may/ssha2.html.
[62] Gary North, "The Covenantal Wealth of Nations," 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, "Rogue Republican Dons
in Congress Tear Up the Constitution, Exclude Democrats and Accept a New
Title: The Godfathers," at http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/RogueRepublicanBillsUnconstitutional.htm
[64] Gary North, "The Covenantal Wealth of Nations," 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 Robertson's television show, The 700 Club covering
several years in the mid 1980's. In 1987 she conducted a study in response
to informal inquiries from the staff of the Subcommittee on Oversight of
the House Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representives,
which was investigating whether television and radio ministries were violating
their tax-exempt status by conducting grass roots political appeals, endorsing
candidates, and making political expenditures as defined under Section
527 of the IRS code. The Subcommittee on Oversight published Katherine's
study in Federal Tax Rules Applicable to Tax-Exempt Organizations Involving
Television Ministries on October 6, 1987, Serial 100-43. (Published
in 1988.)
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm
With
international pressure mounting on Nigeria to hand Taylor over to the Freetown
Court, the stage now appears set for a Taylor trial that is dubbed by legal
minds as one of Africa’s most anticipated trials. And former president
Taylor has already begun preparing his defense, according to a Taylor friend,
Chuck Bradley who also said Taylor is getting what he sowed. He said Taylor
and his supporters were bent on one thing: That “Taylor will not go down
easily,” whatever that may mean. He is determined, Bradley said, to do
everything to undermine his soon-to-be trial by questioning the legitimacy
of the Court, making bizarre accusations to embarrass both the Court and
those advocating for his trial and, at the same time, using proxy groups
and some Liberian legislators to simultaneously call for a reversal of
his handover decision and cause sustained unrest and chaos in Monrovia.
This comes on the heels of recent news reports that President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf
has officially requested that Taylor be handed over to the UN-backed Court
in Freetown, Sierra Leone. The trial itself, according to legal
observers, is expected to be characterized by unprecedented media grandstanding,
outrageous claims, long and irritating political speeches, bold denials
and toxic statements.
According to diplomatic sources in Washington and West Africa, as well as
friends and aides, Taylor has already contacted some of his friends and lawyers
in the United States, Europe and Africa. On his defense team, Taylor wants
former United States attorney general Ramsey Clarke, a one time Taylor attorney
in the early 1980’s when the Liberian Government, under Samuel Doe, sought
his extradition from the US on a charge that he embezzled almost one million
US Dollars when he served as director general of Liberia’s General Services
Agency. Also expected on the team are a French lawyer, a Nigerian lawyer,
a South African lawyer named Paul N’Gozie, and an unnamed Liberia lawyer.
It is not known, however, how Ramsey Clarke, who defended Taylor before,
will manage to form part of the team since he has taken on a new assignment
as an advisor to Saddam Hussein’s defense team in Iraq. But with the state
of the art technology of today, such thing is a possibility.
Commenting on a possible Clarke’s role on Taylor’s defense team, an aide
to congressman Ed Royce said “we don’t really care about who will defend
him; the United States is a free country and citizens are free to do what
they like as long as their actions remain within the confines of the law.
At the end of the day someone has to defend him.”
Another source closed to the former US attorney general Clarke, Randall Burke,
also said if the services of Ramsey Clarke were requested, “chances are that
Clarke might give it a thought”.
One Taylor friend and advocate, television evangelist Pat
Robertson, who enjoyed gold mining rights in Liberia, when Liberians
did not have food to eat, is expected to call for “a fairer trial”, citing
Taylor’s concerns that a United States funded and UN backed war crimes Court
in Freetown may be prejudiced against him. Robertson is digging in his heels
and probably remaining convinced that Taylor may not get a fair trial. Robertson,
noted for making bizarre comments, recently said it would be better if the
United States Central Intelligence Agency assassinated Venezuela’s Marxist
president, Hugo Chavez. His comments were later disowned by the US State
Department.
A TRICKY DEFENSE
Defending Taylor, a man who created and presided over one of Africa’s most
notorious criminal enterprises is a tricky one, as he might be wanted for
other alleged crimes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, USA. A mad man
consumed by a murderous demon, Taylor lived in Boston for many years during
the peak days of the “Boston Mafia”, then led by William Whitey Bulger, one
of the FBI’s most wanted men. Taylor’s wrap sheet appears to be longer than
what people see. There are now talks in Boston of a “Taylor-Bulger contacts” during
those years, which, if proven to be true, could open a new dimension to the
case, aside from the fact that Taylor remains a wanted man by the Boston
Police for his alleged prison break and escape. It is not yet clear whether
authorities in Boston will request an extradition for a Taylor trial on those
charges, once he is in custody. The Boston Police would not comment on this
specific aspect. But back in September, 1997, a Boston Sheriff Deputy spokesperson
told the BBC Taylor remained a wanted man since he violated federal law,
irrespective of his position then, as president. “We don’t care if he’s a
president, American laws were violated, and that’s the most important thing
here,” the spokesperson had told BBC’s Robin White.
On September 15, 1985, after spending about year in prison, Taylor, along
with several fellow prisoners, cut through his cell bars with a hacksaw blade,
and, with a rope of knotted bed sheets, climbed down a three storey building
to freedom. But Taylor would later say at a press conference in Monrovia
that one day he was in jail and he saw the prison door and gates open wide
and with nobody around, he added, “I just walked out with ease. Nobody asked
me anything.” A man who killed children and raped women would also tell the
Liberian people at the same press conference, “It was God who opened the
prison doors for me.”
Mike Seeley, spokesman for the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department, in Massachusetts
says this particular escape is noteworthy. “ The other inmates were quickly
recaptured in the following days.” He explained that Taylor was not recaptured
and “he remains the only person who has ever escaped from the Plymouth County
jail without being recaptured.”
GENERAL DEFENSE STRATEGY
Taylor has planned two approaches to his defense, according to sources closed
to him. One approach is the legal aspect, once he his in custody and the
other is a planned chaotic approach inside, Monrovia, Liberia. The legal
approach has a gradation of strategies. Legal analysts say this approach,
if argued effectively in court with convincing pieces of evidence, could
dig potholes in the road to his conviction. That is, if the prosecution cannot
produce a smoking gun. Sensing all of these, Taylor executed Sam Bockarie
in his effort to destroy evidence, especially, the kind of smoking gun prosecutors
would have loved to have.
Refugee Defense
As part of his defense, the Taylor team is expected to employ a familiar
strategy: He will categorically deny any involvement in the Sierra Leonean
civil war. He will deny influencing leaders of the Revolutionary United Front
in any form or shape. He is expected to argue that there were Sierra Leonean
refugees, not the rebel Revolutionary United Front, RUF, in Liberia. Taylor
will explain that Liberia was under “treaty obligation” not to reject Sierra
Leonean refugees who had sought refuge in Liberia because their country was
at war. Additionally, he will say as West Africans, the “free movement” clause
in the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, Charter obliged
him to open the doors of Liberia to these refugees. He will contend that
those who came to Liberia were peaceful people and that his government lacked
the capacity, due to the lack of international support for it, including
a United Nations imposed sanction on his country, to monitor the activity
of every Sierra Leone in Liberia. He will also claim there was no way he
could tell an RUF fighter from an ordinary Sierra Leonean refugee because
no RUF fighter carried arms in Liberia.
.
RUF Statements
On the question of RUF commanders, such as Sam Buckarie(alias Mosquito) and
Issa Sesay, making official statements inside Liberia on international news
wires like the BBC and VOA and the Government of Liberia making statements
in behalf of the RUF, as being proofs of RUF presence in Liberia and Taylor’s
support for and influence on them, his defense is expected to argue that
Taylor only got involved with the RUF when ECOWAS set up the “Committee of
Five”, of which Liberia was a part, to help find a lasting solution to the
conflict in Sierra Leone, in 1997. He will say what he did was in line with
ECOWAS request at the time.
But back in 1997 when the Committee of Five was scheduled to meet in Abuja,
Nigeria, Taylor neither sent a representative nor asked the Liberian Embassy
to attend, in protest over what the Liberian Government termed as “ …being
too tough on the RUF.” The move was viewed and interpreted in West Africa
at the time as “undermining the peaceful resolution of the conflict,” according
to the mediation committee itself.
Gun for Diamond Defense
On the question of “trading guns for diamonds” being a motivation for his
support to the RUF, Taylor defense will argue that Liberia has large deposits
of diamonds and as such, Taylor didn’t need Sierra Leonean diamonds since
Liberian diamond mines still existed and had not been exhausted or depleted.
He will name Lofa Bridge, Weasua, Balla and Bassa Camps and many other mining
towns in Liberia as been rich in diamonds. The defense will argue that therefore
it did not make sense for Taylor to have left those mines and eyed diamonds
across the border in conflict zones, a claim Taylor repeatedly made when
he was still president.
However, what he may not be able to effectively explain is where he got his
new arms from since there was a UN imposed arms embargo on Liberia. His own
statements could also come back to hunt him. He had always argued that since
the UN had imposed arms embargo on Liberia, he would “seek to get arms from
anywhere I can”.
But claims that some RUF members Eddie Kanneh, Kennedy, a Lebanese diamond
dealer named Mohammed and others taking diamond to Taylor in Monrovia may
be harder to refute by Taylor’s defense team. Kanneh, Mohammed and Kennedy
were seen by many people on many occasions in Monrovia. Their regular presence
in Monrovia’s bars and wide-mouthed comments, after taking one or two glasses
of beer may be an embarrassment for Taylor. At one point, the three men lived
on VP Road, just behind Pastor Isaac Winker’s house, on the Old Road. In
this case, people who lived in such area might have seen and known them and
could be possible “smoking guns.” The house, a two storey four apartment
building, was a major base for transferring smuggled arms into Sierra Leone.
Soldiers of Fortune Defense
On the question of Taylor sending former NPFL combatants to fight in Sierra
Leone, Taylor will argue that those who went to Sierra Leone were “soldiers
of fortune.” He will say he did not send any body to Sierra Leone to fight.
His defense will attempt to boost this argument by adding that those who
fought in Sierra Leone did not only consist of former NPFL soldiers. They
also included former ULIMO and LPC fighters. To suggest that Taylor sent
the NPFL components of those armed outlaws to fight, the defense team will
argue, will logically mean those from ULIMO and LPC were also sent there
by their former bosses. He will blame the United Nations for reneging on
its promise to help reintegrate former combatants in civil society and retrain
them once they were disarmed. This refusal by the UN to honor its commitments,
he will say, turned these fighters into soldiers of fortune. But he may entrap
himself if he decides to go down this road. How does he explain that there
were NPFL fighters in Sierra Leone as far back as 1992, when Taylor was still
a guerilla leader headquartered in Gbarnga, central Liberia.
Incriminating Statements
The Taylor team will also be making some bizarre accusations at the trial
.The team is expected to declare that as part of the grand plan of the National
Patriotic Front of Liberia during its formative stage, the organizers realized
there was a large pool of dissenters from Sierra Leone in exile and had wanted
to tap into this pool. To do this, Taylor will allege, the organizers agreed
to entice these Sierra Leonean dissidents to join the NPFL’s ranks and file
by promising them a reciprocal help to oust the government of the late President
Joseph Seydou Momo of Sierra Leone. He will then name high profile Liberians,
who were in exile when the when NPFL invaded Liberia as on December 24th
1989, in the hope of ousting the Doe Regime. According his aides, Taylor
will name President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Dr. Amos Sawyer among others.
His defense will then proceed to claim that Taylor rejected the idea of invading
Sierra Leone later, thus setting the basis for a bitter disagreement between
him and the “organizers and financiers,” who had allegedly wanted to honor
their promise to Sierra Leoneans who joined them in their times of need.
A wide-mouthed man who spoke loudly on the BBC, he will then have to explain
his earlier threats of invasion of Sierra Leone for “harboring ECOMOG,” the
West African Peacekeeping Force set up to stop the fighting and restore sanity
to Liberia.
But these accusations are not strange to Taylor’s lip. Over the years, Taylor,
in his effort make his future trial difficult, has always said “every Liberian
is guilty of war crimes.” Oh, well, the difference this time is that he is
not charged for any crimes he might have committed in Liberia. Instead, he
is charged with alleged war crimes in Sierra Leone and the charges only take
into account Taylor’s alleged involvement with the RUF after he became president,
not earlier.
Security in Prison
Faced with the inevitability of his trial, Taylor has begun to shape how
his security in prison should look like as well as the frequency of visitation
rights for his family. He is contemplating politicizing his security by asking
the court to include among his prison guards, two Burkinabe soldiers, one
Nigerian soldier and two of his former body guards, one of whom has been
identified as Momo Jibba, his former aide camp. All are expected to be armed
during the trial. But calls to the Freetown war Crimes Court about whether
the Court would allow him to determine who would be on his prison security
team were not returned, even though the person answering the calls said the “proper
authorities will get back to you. This is a serious matter.”
THE “GAMBLE” STRATEGY
The second approach to his defense is more of Gamble reflecting a
true NPFL style-cocktail, in this case, violence. This strategy
will be far from the scene of the trial. It will be in Monrovia. And those
execute it will range from lawmakers to proxy organizations and outlaws,
mostly former combatants. This is probably the dangerous phase.
Recently, Taylor began making contacts with some former combatants and associates.
Daniel Chea, Edwin Snowe, Emmanuel Shaw, Roland Duo and a high-profile person
from the Congress for Democratic Change- Liberian a political- have been
contacted. It is not known if these people have agreed to participate in
the plan. The CDC as a political entity is not aware of this and
has got nothing to do with it.
According one of Taylor’s aides who is closed to the plan, his name withheld
for his personal security reason because he continues to release more information,
the proxy groups will mobilize support amongst former fighters to join a
series of protests and demonstrations in Monrovia to call for a complete
reversal of the “handover” decision. At some point, these protests are expected
to turn violent as occasional irritants for the security forces. They will
attempt to draw the security forces into attacking demonstrators and create
a sense of instability and confusion in Monrovia.
In the ensuing chaos, they hope to achieve two objectives: One is to draw
criticisms from international pro-democracy and human rights organizations
and western governments by portraying the new government as intolerant and
disrespectful of the basic human rights of its citizens, freedom of speech,
movement and opinion.
The second objective is to cause a tensed situation, create a state of lawlessness,
make Monrovia ungovernable and turn the population against the Government’s
decision to hand over Taylor to the War Crimes Court in Freetown. Aware of
the fact that Liberians do not want to entertain any form of chaos, Taylor
and his associate plotters hope there will be, at some point, a massive show
of disagreement and protest by the people of Liberia and as such, the people
will call for a reversal of the decision.
From all indications, it appears the cult of one man is still looming large
over Liberia. If Liberians are wondering how this can be possible, they may
want to look at the new legislature, the House Representatives. The election
of a FRAUD as speaker of the House was purely Taylor’s handiworks. In the
months leading to the election of a speaker, Taylor made frantic efforts
to see one of his stooges elected to the position. He channeled money to
Edwin Snowe, personally placed calls some candidates who were in the contest
asking them drop out of the race for the post of speaker and contacted some
other members for their support with promises of money. Such calls and contacts
were a clear violation of the back room deal he cut with Obassanjo to provide
him sanctuary in Nigeria.
Taylor had wanted to get control of the highest position in the House of
Representatives and the third position in line to the presidency. And now
he has got that. A troubling scenario is, in the event the president and
vice president are both incapacitated and unable to run the affairs of the
state, the speaker of the House of Representatives, in this case Edwin Snowe,
will become the President of Liberia. And by the way, what is the difference
between a President Edwin Snowe and a President Charles Taylor?
While this may be a dangerous venture for Taylor himself, the real catastrophe
will come if Liberians call for a reversal of the decision to hand Taylor
over to the Court. With such calls, Liberia’s opportunity to shed its brutal
past will be lost. And all that is needed for evil to happen is that good
men do nothing.
Post Trial Period
When future Liberian and African historians look back at the rise and fall
of Charles McArthur Gankay Taylor, they may see some similarities between
him and Maximilien Robespierre, a French revolutionary leader in the 1700’s,
who got rid of those who disagreed with him by beheading them at the GUILLOTINE-
a machine employing a heavy blade that falls freely between upright guides
to behead a condemned prisoner. The rise of both men to the helm of power
was made possible when they seized advantage of the decaying political and
social systems of their respective times and played on and exploited the
fears of, their people. They both ruthlessly killed their opponents in rather
crude ways- Robespierre by use of the guillotine and Taylor by execution
style using the AK-47. And by the time they fell from grace to grass, they
had killed so many people, spilled so much blood that the people had no more
tears to shed.
About the Author:
Hassan Bility is the Director of Communications and Public Affairs at the
International Institute for Justice and Development in Boston, Massachusetts.
He is the former editor-in-chief of The Analyst Newspaper in Monrovia, Liberia
and former press officer of European Union Mission in Monrovia, Liberia.
As a journalist, he was arrested several times by the Liberian Government
for his writings and views. In June 2002, he was arrested and accused of
plotting to assassinate Taylor with the alleged help of the American Government.
He was held incommunicado detention for six months without trial. He served
prison terms in many places including Foya, in upper Lofa County and in an
underground cell in Klay, Bomi County. Among other things, Taylor had wanted
him to confess the names of Bishop Michael Francis, Sheikh Kafumba konneh,
Abraham Mitchell and President Ellen John-Sirleaf, then an opposition leader,
in a non-existent coup plot. In December 2003, the Liberian Government succumbed
to international and local pressure from human rights and pro-democracy groups
as well as the United States and the European Union. As a result, he was
released to the custody of American Ambassador, John Blaney, on condition
that he is immediately flown out of the country and officially exiled. He
was driven in a convoy of fifteen cars, including that of Defense Minister
Chea and US Ambassador Blaney and Tom White, directly to the Robert International
Airport, put on a plane and flown out of Liberia. The Americans facilitated
his travel and took him to Boston, the United States. He is the recipient
of several local and international awards, including the Amnesty International
Human Rights Journalism under Threat Award, 2003, London. Currently, he is
an advocate for the Global Wellness Fund Treaty, New York, and he sits on
the Advisory Council of the International Rescue Committee, IRC, in Boston,
Massachusetts. He is also a regular campaigner on human rights and democracy
issues. As a public speaker, he has served as guest speaker at more than
40 American colleges and universities, including Harvard, Boston College,
Boston University, Brown University in Providence, George town Law School,
university of Indianapolis, Seaton Hall and the University of Cincinnati
in Ohio, among others. He has also served as guest speaker at many amnesty
international organized events and conferences. He has done promotional videos
and speeches for the International Rescue Committee, IRC in Boston.
Hassan Bility may be contacted at hbility@iijd.org or humanrightsfirst@yahoo.com
.
Article Source: http://www.theliberiantimes.com/article_2006_03_26_5318.html
Pat Robertson Slams Bush On Liberia
NORFOLK, Virginia, July 11, 2003
(CBS) Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson accused
President Bush of “undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim
rebels” by asking Liberian President Charles Taylor, recently indicted
for war crimes, to step down.
“How dare the president of the United States say
to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down,'" Robertson said Monday
on “The 700 Club,” broadcast from his Christian Broadcasting
Network.
“It's one thing to say, we will give you money if
you step down and we will give you troops if you step down, but just to order
him to step down? He
doesn't work for us.”
Robertson, a Bush supporter who has financial interests
in Liberia, said he believes the State Department has “mismanaged the situation in nation
after nation after nation” in Africa.
“So we're undermining a Christian, Baptist president
to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country,” he said in the
broadcast.
Robertson told The Washington Post in an interview published
Thursday that he has “written off in my own mind” an
$8 million investment in a Liberian gold mining venture he made four years
ago, under an agreement
with Taylor's government.
“Once the dust has cleared on this thing, chances
are there will be some investors from someplace who want to invest. If I
could find some people to sell it
to, I'd be more than delighted,” he said in the article.
He said his investment was intended to help pay for humanitarian
and evangelical efforts in Liberia.
Angell Watts, a spokeswoman for Robertson, said Robertson
was not available to comment Thursday because he was traveling. She also
declined to comment.
Taylor waged war for seven years as a rebel leader before
being elected president in 1997.
The United Nations and European leaders have sought U.S.
troops to enforce a repeatedly violated June 17 cease-fire between forces
loyal to Taylor and
rebels fighting for three years to oust him. Under the deal, Taylor promised
to step down, clearing the way for a transitional government that will oversee
fresh elections.
Mr. Bush, speaking Wednesday in South Africa, promised
to help enforce the cease-fire and “see to it that Mr. Taylor leaves office so there can
be a peaceful transition in Liberia.”
On Sunday, Taylor accepted an offer of asylum from Nigeria,
but on condition that an international force is deployed in Liberia.
A U.N.-backed tribunal indicted Taylor on June 4 for war
crimes in neighboring Sierra Leone.
Robertson told the Post that the war crimes
indictment “is nonsense
and should be quashed.”
He said Taylor has “become such a lightning rod” that he should
leave office, but in an orderly transition accompanied by the insertion of
U.S. peacekeepers.
“Frankly, the president's call for Taylor to step
down immediately is not wise, because if Taylor leaves immediately, the country
will descend into
chaos,” he told the paper.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/11/national/main562915.shtml
Africa trial opens without Taylor
Monday, 4 June 2007, 10:01 GMT 11:01 UK
The war crimes trial of Liberia's ex-President Charles Taylor
has opened in The Hague with the accused refusing to attend proceedings.
Mr Taylor said his trial would not be fair because he had
a single defence lawyer. His counsel left the court, defying the judge's
order to stay.
Mr Taylor is accused of backing rebels in Sierra Leone
in an 11-year campaign that killed thousand of civilians.
It is the first case of its kind against a former African
leader.
Judge Julia Sebutinde ordered the trial to continue without
Mr Taylor, amid intense protests from his lawyer, Karim Khan.
Mr Khan then left the court, saying he was not in a position
to represent his client without further instruction from him.
After nearly one hour of wrangling, the prosecution began
opening statements.
Proceedings are expected to last between a year and 18
months, and the UK has offered to imprison Mr Taylor if he is convicted.
The former Liberian leader has been indicted on 11 charges
of war crimes, crimes against humanity and violations of
international humanitarian law over his alleged role in the brutal civil
war
in Sierra Leone.
Mr Taylor denies them all.
'Not fit for purpose'
Judge Sebutinde repeatedly pressed Mr Khan on the failure
of his client to appear.
"He has not thumbed his nose at the court," said Mr Khan before producing
a letter in which Mr Taylor said he felt he would "not receive a fair
trial at the Special Court at this time".
The court, he said, was not "fit for purpose",
adding that he would not appear until "adequate time and facilities
are provided".
"I cannot take part in this charade that does injustice to the people
of Liberia and the people of Sierra Leone," he said in the letter. "I choose
not to be a fig-leaf of legitimacy for this process".
The charges against Mr Taylor include terrorising the civilian
population, murder, sexual violence, physical violence, using child soldiers,
enslavement
and looting.
Mr Taylor pleaded not guilty to all the charges at his
first appearance at the court in Freetown, Sierra Leone, in March 2006.
He initially refused to plead, arguing that the court had
no right to try him and that it had no jurisdiction over Liberia or its former
president.
The Special Court for Sierra Leone has been approved by
both the UN and the government of Sierra Leone.
It is sitting in the facilities of the International Criminal
Court (ICC) in The Hague because of the risks that the trial might lead
to tensions
within Sierra Leone itself.
The Dutch government agreed to host Mr Taylor's trial,
as long as he was imprisoned in another country if convicted.
Blood diamonds
The BBC's David Bamford says the trial hinges on determining
the degree to which Mr Taylor helped start, prolong and deepen the brutal
civil war in Sierra Leone.
Mr Taylor started Liberia's civil war in 1989 and became
one of a number of warlords competing for control in the West African country.
He later emerged as Liberia's most powerful politician
and won the 1997 presidential election that ended the war there.
Meanwhile in 1991, one of Mr Taylor's comrades-in-arms,
Foday Sankoh, also started his own rebellion in neighbouring Sierra Leone.
The prosecution claims Mr Taylor provided the Revolutionary
United Front (RUF) leader with training, money, arms and ammunition to start
the rebellion
and even lent him fighters to take part in the initial attack.
The RUF became notorious for hacking off the hands and
legs of civilians during their decade-long war.
It is alleged that Mr Taylor shared a common plan with
the RUF's commanders to gain power and control over Sierra Leone, so he could
gain access
to its diamonds and have a government in Freetown that would support
his aims.
However, the rebellion in Sierra Leone collapsed. Its war
crimes court indicted the rebel leaders and Mr Taylor as well. Mr Sankoh
died in
2003.
That year, Mr Taylor himself lost power in Liberia after
rival militias rose up and forced him into exile in Nigeria.
He was deported by Nigeria last year in controversial circumstances
and flown to The Hague to await his trial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6717485.stm
home