POLITICS AND RELIGION
Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
(Update on Javier Solana and the power elite's larger plan: I mentioned that the power elite usually uses economics as the driving force to implement their design by undermining national sovereignty and linking regional arrangements. Relevant to this, THE FINANCIAL TIMES (March 20, 2007) published Solana's "Europe in the World in 2057," in which he remarked: "Globalization is here to stay. It will develop from today's principally economic phenomenon to also include political, security and cultural dimensions....Already, our notion of 'sovereignty' is changing....Regional organizations, like the European Union, will have an even greater role than today." The next day (March 21, 2007), Solana spoke at the Brookings Institution on "Managing Global Insecurity," revealing that "Globalization has unleashed forces that governments can neither stop nor control....I am convinced that we need stronger regional organizations.")
In the current presidential political campaign, the candidates' religious values are a major topic of discussion. In the past, it seemed that only Republicans desired to express their beliefs and how they effected their positions on issues. However, in the current political contest, Democrats as well are discussing their religious values. Unfortunately, many of the candidates only want to speak in general terms, and become agitated when asked about specifics. For example, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do not like being asked why they believe Jesus would approve of women violently killing their preborn children by abortion, which they support. The same is true of Republican Rudy Giuliani, and Republican Mitt Romney doesn't like being asked specifics about his religion (one might ask why Mormons believe in a "Mrs. God").
But the candidates' specific religious beliefs and how they are politically influenced by them are of critical importance. The nationally syndicated cartoonist Benson once showed President Lincoln delivering a speech saying, "Personally, I'm against slavery, but, hey, if you want to own one, that's your business." Benson was illustrating the hypocrisy of candidates who say they're personally opposed to abortion, but say they can't take any political action to end this killing because they would be imposing their religious beliefs on others. They're hypocrites because they'd vote to "impose their views" against slavery in a heartbeat.
It is entirely appropriate for political candidates, and all Americans, to have their religious views influence their political decisions. As President John Adams said on October 11, 1798: "Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Similarly relevant, U.S. Senator George Badger's "Report of the United States Senate on the Founders' Intent of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment," adopted on January 19, 1853, stated: "Our fathers were true lovers of liberty, and utterly opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience. They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit 'an establishment of religion' such as the English Church presented, or anything like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their character as legislators; they did not intend to send our armies and navies forth to do battle for our country without any national recognition of that God on whom success or failure depends; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted. On the contrary, all had been done with a continual appeal to the Supreme Ruler of the world, and an habitual reliance upon His protection of the righteous cause which they commended to His care."
A few years after this Senate report was adopted, Americans ended slavery with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, largely due to the efforts of religious people. Similarly, religious people would later be responsible for making amends to American Indians for promises broken by the government (which had guaranteed them all lands west of the Mississippi River "in perpetuity"). In the 20th century, it was also largely due to the political efforts of religious people that discrimination against racial minorities was ended.
Yet today, there seems to be far less effort on the part of most Americans to see that their religious values impact politicial decisions. It is the consensus among historians that if President John F. Kennedy's illicit sexual escapades had been revealed, he would not have been elected. However, in the 1990s, many so-called Christians had no problem voting for Bill Clinton, who was widely known for his extramarital sexual activities. Many so-called Christians also re-elected members of the Congress who supported Most Favored Nation status for Communist China, even though that nation's widespread persecution of Christians was widely recognized.
These same people likewise today support "free trade" agreements which hurt the poor. A recent report by Oxfam International found that so-called "free trade" agreements "victimize the poor while benefiting the wealthy....Nevertheless, a trend toward regional agreements and globalization continues....In an increasingly globalized world, these agreements seek to benefit rich-country exporters and firms at the expense of poor farmers and workers." The report also said NAFTA has brought 1.3 million job losses to Mexico in 10 years, and some studies show Mexico's real wages in 2004 were less than in 1994. According to a WorldNetDaily column March 31, 2007, "other studies have explained how cheap agricultural imports from U.S. agribusiness concerns have made it nearly impossible for small farmers to compete. Many reportedly have been forced from their land and become illegal migrant workers in the U.S." Might this have been the power elite's intention all along?
And many so-called American Christians were practically silent in 2001 when the federal government was giving over $100 million to the radical Muslim Taliban in Afghanistan while they were harboring Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for killing Americans on the U.S.S. Cole, and in Africa, and in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. Why? It had become "religiously and politically incorrect" to speak out against radical Muslims. On November 25, 1981, the U.N. General Assembly had adopted the Declaration on Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. More recently, on February 2, 2007, Democrats with heads bowed were led in prayer by a Muslim imam. And on July 12 in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate, the session was opened by Rajan Zed, a Hindu religious leader.
Those religious people in the U.S. most often speaking out on political issues have been fundamentalists, who have now been branded "enemies" by church growth leader Rick Warren. In the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER (January 8, 2006), he's quoted as predicting that fundamentalism of all varieties will be "one of the big enemies of the 21st century. Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism---they're all motivated by fear. Fear of each other."
Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians first flexed their national political muscles in the 1980 presidential campaign, electing Ronald Reagan, who then proceeded to call for a "new world order" and referred to "points of light." That's right! It was Reagan, not George H.W. Bush, who first used both terms as president. In his October 12, 1982, State Dinner toast, President Reagan pronounced that "all nations, big or small, strong or weak, (should) strive together, motivated by the firm determination to build a new world order which guarantees political justice, economic justice, and social justice." Then at a Conference on Religious Liberty on April 16, 1985, he declared that "throughout the world the machinery of the state is being used as never before against religious freedom. At the same time, throughout the world new groups of believers keep springing up. Points of light flash out in the darkness...."
Note the word "world" followed by "new groups." Have you heard these words together before? This speech was written for President Reagan by Peggy Noonan, who also wrote President Bush's famous 1988 reference to "points of light." Regarding where she said she got the term for President Bush's speech, in her book WHAT I SAW AT THE REVOLUTION (1990) she explained: "Is it possible it was on file in my unconscious and bubbled up when I needed the right phrase? Yes." This is curious, given that she had already used the term in a speech for President Reagan!
The "new world order" that the power elite has planned for us includes monitoring all our activities, even whether we go to church. An article in the London DAILY MAIL (June 27, 2006) titled "Big Brother database to record the lives of all children" indicated that "the home life of every child in the country is to be recorded on a national database . . . . Computer records holding details of school performance, diet, and even whether their parents provide a 'positive role model' will be held by the government. . . . The 'children's index' will even monitor whether youngsters are getting five portions of fruits and vegetables a day, whether they go to church. . . ."
And in the U.S., Big Brother now will have the ability to proclaim a dictatorship with ease, thanks to President Bush's May 9, 2007, signing of National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20. Now, without issuing an emergency proclamation describing the emergency, or even consulting Congress, the president can simply declare an emergency and take over all executive functions of government in the U.S. down to the local, and even tribal, level. On John Loeffler's "Steel-on-Steel" radio program, Dr. Jerome Corsi asked why President Bush wanted these powers now? After all, it's 6 years since the attacks of 9/11. What's about to happen that President Bush is making this tremendous power grab at this time late in his presidency? Also on the radio program, Dr. Corsi asked why Americans correctly believe it's wrong to have blacks as slaves in the U.S., but then think it's acceptable to buy products produced by what amounts to Chinese slaves in Communist China?
Some believe the power elite will use the radical religious views of Iranian politicians to cause a Third World War. My view is that there probably will be a confrontation involving Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons within the next year and a half, probably later rather than sooner. The power elite, however, usually uses shocking but limited events in pursuing their agenda rather than a "real" global war which can be difficult to manage. If it's a "real" rather than a "managed" war, Iranian religious political fanatics would destroy Iranian oil production as well as flooding Iraq with operatives who would attack that nation's oil production. It would also not be difficult for them to block oil tankers' outlet from the Persian Gulf at the Strait of Hormuz and to cripple Saudi Arabia's Abqaiq facility and Ghawar and Safaniya oil fields. This would send the world economy into a tailspin, which the power elite doesn't seem to desire at the moment. If the Iranians don't do these things, suspect a "managed" not "real" war.
The "managed" war would primarily involve Iran against the U.S. and/or Israel, which feels most directly threatened by an Iranian missile program. The power elite's plan for both the U.S. and Israel is to have both continue to exist, but economically to be subsumed within regional entities. Regarding the U.S., the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) began the North American Future 2025 Project on July 1, 2006, and it will end September 30, 2007. Via roundtable discussions (Round Table groups were part of Cecil Rhodes' Association of Helpers' activities), the Project is developing "collaborative policies that integrate governments" in North America which will bring about "a mobile labor supply" and "free flow of people across national borders." Concerning Israel, Rhodes' plan was implemented by Lord Alfred Milner, who told the House of Lords in 1923 that Jews could be the majority population in the region west of the Jordan River, but the region "must never become a Jewish state." While Israel did become a nation in 1948, the power elite plans to subsume it economically within a Middle East Free Trade Agreement, just like the U.S. is to be economically subsumed within a North American Union.
And in case you think the power elite doesn't know in advance what's going to happen, remember that Sir Julian Huxley on December 5, 1941, said he hoped America and Japan would be at war "next week," and the attack on Pearl Harbor was Sunday, December 7, the first day of the next. Similarly, King George on May 7, 1915, at 11:30am in Buckingham Palace told President Wilson's chief adviser Col. Edward M. House, "Suppose Germany should sink the LUSITANIA with American passengers on board." At 2:00pm the LUSITANIA was sunk. And even earlier, President William McKinley on January 24, 1898, sent the battleship MAINE to Havana. It arrived the next day, and six days later Henry Cabot Lodge ominously stated, "There may be an explosion any day in Cuba which would settle many things." Just two weeks later, on February 15, an explosion sank the MAINE.
So what's the power elite's plan? It's revealed in the last 2 sentences of "father of the European Union" Jean Monnet's MEMOIRS (1978), which state: "The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present. They cannot ensure their own progress to control their own future, and the (economic) community itself is only a stage on the way to the organized world of tomorrow." The reference to "community" is communitarian, which downplays individualism, including individual nation's sovereignty. And communitarianism is only a stage on the way to "the organized world" Socialist government "of tomorrow" in which "communities" (regions) are formally and federally joined, no longer simply economically integrated.
As I have written before, the power elite's plan doesn't just involve economic and political control, but spirituality as well. Both Mikhail Gorbachev and Rio Earth Summit chairman Maurice Strong have described the Earth Charter as like a new Ten Commandments. The Charter, endorsed in 2001 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, calls for redistribution of wealth within and among nations (Socialism). It's housed in the Ark of Hope, designed to resemble the Biblical Ark of the Covenant, and has recently been on traveling display in Michigan. From March 31-April 9 at Marygrove College (Catholic) in Detroit; April 10-14 at the Swords into Ploughshares Peace Center and Gallery in Detroit; and April 15-29 at the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Motherhouse in Monroe, Michigan. Thus it seems clear that not only are the mayors of the U.S. ready to embrace Socialism, but so too are many religious people.
Yet, someone may ask how the power elite plans to "manage" the conflict they have created between Jews and Muslims in the MIddle East. They plan to accomplish this the same way they did in the West. Under the banner of "separation of church and state," the affairs of state in the U.S. have become based more on secular than religious values. Therefore, in the Middle East, the concepts of "separation of synagogue and state" as well as "separation of mosque and state" (recently emphasized in Turkish elections) will be promoted. Thus, the power elite will allow individuals to maintain their own private religious beliefs, but the affairs of state will be conducted on a secular basis. Those who resist this will be branded as "religious extremists," unwilling to be governed by those secular values upon which most Jews and Muslims can agree in order to have peace.
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.
E-Mail: Not Available
Unfortunately, many of the candidates only want to speak in general terms, and become agitated when asked about specifics.