WELCOME TO THE NEW "NATIONAL SECURITY STATE"
http://www.endtimesnetwork.com
In war, truth is often the first casualty. -- George Orwell
January 8, 2002
by: S.R. Shearer
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
THE WAR ON TERRORISM AS A CAMOUFLAGE
The "War on Terrorism" that was unleashed by the catastrophic events of
September 11, 2001 has proven to be the perfect CAMOUFLAGE - indeed, the
almost exquisite deceit - behind which the American elites have
"fortuitously" (at least from their point of view) been enabled to extend
the more Orwellian aspects of their New World Order System, both internally
(i.e., within the United States) and externally (i.e., within their system
of client states). Internally, the elites - under the Javert-like control of
Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY manifests an almost
palpable aura of menace and great peril - have been moving with
extraordinary speed to suppress dissent against their New World Order System
in the United States, as attested to by the speed it took to pass the
draconian and brutish U.S. Patriot Act. And externally, they've been moving
with equal dispatch to ruthlessly crush all those who might pose a threat to
their system from the outside - as attested to by the alacrity with which
they crushed the Taliban in Afghanistan.
RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY AND OPUS DEI
And make no mistake about it: it's RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY that's fueling the
ferocity of Bush's "War on Terrorism" - and the Bush Administration is
certainly full of religious fanatics ready to pile high the fuel on Bush's
fire. While the "War on Terrorism" is many things to many people, to these
zealots, it is the means through which they can cleanse the nation of their
"secular-humanist" enemies, bring the Gospel (or at least their perverted
rendition of it) to the world (at the point of a gun, no less), and prepare
the way for Christ's return. [If you haven't already, we urge you to read
our last article, "George Bush, The Promise Keepers, And The Principles Of
Messianic Leadership."] And it's not just evangelicals who are involved in
this religious zealotry, Catholics are involved as well. Indeed, while it
might come as a shock to many "old-line evangelicals" and "old-line
Catholics," the two (i.e., Catholic zealots and evangelical zealots) are "in
bed together" on this one.
Most of the Catholics who are involved with the Bush Administration (at
least those "who count" or who are "on the make") are linked directly or
indirectly to a radical-right wing Catholic organization known as Opus Dei
(meaning "God's Work"). Juan Martin Velasco calls Opus Dei "A MAFIA SHROUDED
IN WHITE." And no question about it, it is indeed a sinister and very
ominous Catholic "brotherhood;" the fact is, WHAT AL QAEDA AND HAMAS ARE TO
ISLAM, OPUS DEI IS TO CHRISTIANITY. Among other things, Opus Dei seeks to
"favorably" influence society in the direction of a Catholic world-view (and
a very radical, right-wing one at that) by inserting its own members into
key positions in the government. To this end, each member is obliged to seek
to advance the careers of other members at whatever cost and in whatever
sphere of activity they are engaged in with the aim of placing as many
members as possible in the highest reaches of the government. Its world-view
and eschatology ("doctrine of end times") is remarkably similar to the
world-view and eschatology of the Promise Keepers. Both groups are RADICALLY
"dominionist" in their thinking.
"Dominionism," as we have indicated on other occasions, is a militant
post-millennial eschatology which pictures the seizure of earthly (temporal)
power by the church as the only means through which the world can be
rescued; only after the world has been thus "rescued" can Christ return to
"rule and reign." [Please see chapter XV of the Antipas Papers for a more
thorough discussion of Catholic eschatology.]
Opus Dei was founded in 1928 by Jose-Maria Escriva who believed that the
church was locked in a death-struggle with the "godless forces of socialism
and communism," a struggle that Escriva believed the church was losing - a
perspective that was not without merit in the years following World War I.
"Atheistic communism" was on the march everywhere. Russia had collapsed
before the communist onslaught; Germany, Austria, and Hungary had all been
threatened. And both Portugal and Spain had fallen under the influence of
socialist- dominated governments - and wherever socialism and communism were
in the ascendancy, the Church was in decline.
Escriva threw himself into the struggle against socialism and communism in
his native Spain and was soon working hand-in-glove with the fascist
Francisco Franco to overthrow the socialist ("Republican") government of
Spain. To this end, Opus Dei was influential in gaining support for Franco
from the fascist governments of Germany and Italy.
After the collapse of the socialist government in Spain in 1936, Opus Dei
(which had done so much to bring that collapse about) began expanding its
reach beyond the Iberian Peninsula, and was soon operating in Latin America
- and so much so that it can safely be said that no right-wing dictatorship
in Central and South America since the end of World War II has been free of
Opus Dei influence.
Indeed, one of its latest paladins was the corrupt Peruvian president
Alberto Fujimora. In this connection, it goes without saying that - like the
Promise Keepers - Opus Dei is not very much given to democratic proclivities.
AN INTERSECTION OF INTERESTS
It was in Latin America and the struggle against socialism and Liberation
Theology that the paths of Opus Dei and the various Protestant missionary
groups that were active in that area [like the Wycliffe Bible Translators
(SIL)] first intersected - largely as a result of the machinations and
invidious stratagems of the CIA. The partnership they (i.e., the Catholics
and evangelicals) formed there eventually spread to the United States, and
since that time, both groups have been acting pretty much in consort with
one another.
This, of course, is not what is commonly portrayed by the many "boosters" of
Catholic and evangelical ecumenicism, particularly charismatics like Harald
Bredesen, Paul Crouch, David and Justin Du Plessis, Jack Hayford, Cardinal
Krol, John Wimber, Father Dene Braun, Father Tom Forrest, Dr. Kevin
Ranaghan, Ken Metz, etc. The fact is, however, the genesis of the new
Catholic / evangelical partnership doesn't lie so much in the hands of these
men and women as it does in the hands of the CIA and men like Oliver North,
Elliot Abrams, Vernon Walters, and Joseph McChristian. The reality of the
matter is, the present-day Catholic and evangelical rapprochement was not
forged in the quiet and peace of a prayer meeting or the joyous praise of a
worship service, but in the murderous and bloody struggle against communism
and socialism that has been raging for decades in the rain forests of
Central and South America - AND THAT'S THE TRUTH!
Brothers and sisters: Listen to me here! - THIS CORRUPT AND DEPRAVED
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RIGHT-WING ELEMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL
CHURCHES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WORLDLY POWER
- AND BY THAT I MEAN, THE KIND OF POWER THAT FLOWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF A
GUN. It is precisely those people that promote such power - i.e., those
people who today form the core- constituencies of the Promise Keepers
movement and Opus Dei - that are now at the center of what's going on in
Washington D.C. And be clear here! - we're not the only ones who have
noticed what's happening; besides Gail Sheehy - who exposed Bush's
connection to the Promise Keepers (again, please see our last article) -
there is also Gore Vidal, who has managed to garner a great deal of
information concerning the Bush Administration's connection to Opus Dei. As
we have said on so many other occasions (and as the Bible says) -
"... the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the
children of light." (Luke 16:8)
"DOMINIONISTS" TAKE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT Commenting on the presence of
the vast numbers of religious zealots in the Bush Administration, Vidal -
who is one of the greatest social and political commentators living today
(for example, both R.W.B.
Lewis of the New York Times Book Review and Michael Dirda of the Washington
Post Book Review label Vidal the "the master-essayist of our time") - writes
that,
"... HE (i.e., Bush) IS ALREADY SOLID WITH FUNDAMENTALIST PROTESTANTS ..."
This is, of course, what Gail Sheehy wrote about in Vanity Fair in October,
2000. But it's the presence of Opus Dei in the Bush Administration and
throughout the government that sets alarm bells off for Vidal. Vidal - a
non-practicing Catholic, writing in Vanity Fair a year after Sheehy's
landmark article on Bush's relationship to the Promise Keepers - has been
utterly appalled by what he has found insofar as Opus Dei's connection with
the government is concerned. He writes:
"And to think that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams opposed the presence of
the relatively benign Jesuit order (benign at least in comparison to Opus
Dei) in our land. (All this is indicative of how) ... Bush has been
'reaching out' to the Roman Catholic far right."
Vidal claims that the accession of Opus Dei into the highest precincts of
the government is a fact that simply cannot be written off as the inchoate
rantings of a crazed "conspiracy theorist." The presence of Opus Dei is
ubiquitous throughout the entire government.
Take the FBI, for example: according to Vidal, the presence of Opus Dei is
pervasive in that organization - extending even to the head of the FBI
itself, Louis Freeh. Indeed, Vidal, remarking on Freeh's Opus Dei
connections, writes:
"It is most disturbing that in the ... United States, a nation whose
Constitution is based on the perpetual separation of church and state, an
ABSOLUTIST (Catholic) religious order ... has placed one of its members at
the head of our secret ... police ..."
OPUS DEI AND THE SUPREME COURT
While Freeh is now gone (it is rumored that he resigned to avoid a scandal
concerning Opus Dei's involvement in a clandestine effort in the FBI to
suppress evidence in the Timothy McVeigh case), the presence of Opus Dei in
the FBI, as well as the Justice Department, continues unchecked - so that
now, according to Vidal, BOTH GROUPS HAVE BEGUN TO TAKE ON THE APPEARANCE OF
RELIGIOUS ORDERS. Vidal says that Attorney General Ashcroft presides each
morning (eight o'clock sharp) over a prayer meeting in his office which is
attended by a whole host of Catholics (Opus Dei-types) and Promise
Keeper-like evangelicals eager to get ahead in the new
"dominionist-oriented" Justice Department - "morning prayers" reminiscent of
"Morning Watch" in a medieval monastery with Ashcroft playing the part of
the "Grand Master."
And it's not just the presence of Opus Dei at the Justice Department and the
FBI that disturbs Vidal, it's also the presence of Opus Dei on the Supreme
Court that rattles him. Vidal alleges that there is actually -
"... a plurality of members on the present Supreme Court's five to four
(conservative) majority ..." [Please see pg. 410 in Vidal's September 2001
article in Vanity Fair.]
He names two of them: Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia; he leaves the
third unnamed.
THERE IS NOTHING SO FIERCE AS PEOPLE
WHO ARE ON A "MISSION FROM GOD"
Think about it! If Catholic and evangelical dominionists have come to
dominate the government to such an extent, doesn't that go a long way in
explaining the ferocity and speed with which Ashcroft and his minions have
been moving to suppress civil rights in the United States? Of course it
does! - THERE IS, AFTER ALL, NOTHING SO FIERCE AND SAVAGE AS PEOPLE WHO
BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE ON "A MISSION FROM GOD." Wow! - Catholic and
Protestant religious zealots working together to "bring in" the "Kingdom of
God." This is unheard of! But it's happening, nonetheless - and that should
give pause to secularists in this country. The disciples of John Calvin and
Torqamada working together in a new Inquisition aimed at "purifying the
earth" for the Lord's return! Now that's something to be worried about if
you ever find yourself the target of one of their "investigations" (maybe
"inquisitions" would be the better word).
This is certainly a "turn of events" with very medieval implications, that's
for sure! The relationships that are "at play" here are not ordinary
relationships; there is a primitive aura about them; a gothic and antique
quality that evokes feelings of "yesterday" and "long ago," and brings to
remembrance the priestly brotherhoods of Crusader Knights of a thousand
years ago - tales of the Templars, the Knights of Malta, the Teutonic
Knights, and the other armed religious military orders dedicated to bringing
the "Kingdom of God" to earth.
There is, moreover, a missionary fervor about these new "Crusader Knights"
associated with the Bush Administration - a revivalist desire to "spread the
truth" of what they perceive to be "God's Plan and Purpose in the Ages." For
example, take the successful effort by Maureen Scalia and Father Paul
Scalia, Justice Antonin Scalia's wife and son respectively, to convert
Justice Clarence Thomas to Catholicism four years ago and conscript him into
the secrets of Opus Dei - an effort that reminded some who witnessed it of
the excitement one would feel when one's friend is saved at a Billy Graham
crusade.
But this was no Billy Graham crusade, and Justice Thomas wasn't being
recruited to sing in a church choir, but rather was being enlisted in the
Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda or what Juan Martin Valasco says is a
"Christian Mafia."
>From all accounts, however, Thomas has fervently embraced Catholicism and
Opus Dei. For example, Thomas recently gave a fiery speech at the American
Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, to an audience FULL OF BUSH
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS praising the pope and the Catholic world-view as
espoused by Opus Dei - and all this from a sitting justice on the Supreme
Court.
John Ashcroft's meetings at the Justice Department and his speeches "out on
the stump" also exhibit the same kind of "Christian frenzy" that Clarence
Thomas now exhibits. Both Ashcroft and Thomas are close friends, and have
been so for years since they were roomates at Yale. Karl Rove and Don Evans
(both Promise Keeper-types) are also closely tied to Thomas and Ashcroft -
all of them share the same world-view, and it doesn't seem to matter much
that some of them are coming from a "Promise Keepers" perspective and others
from an Opus Dei viewpoint. After all, both perspectives are dominionist,
and - therefore - essentially the same!
And make no mistake about it, the list of all those in the Bush
Administration (or who are connected in one way or another with it) and who
are at the same time associated with a Christian dominionist world-view is
endless, and includes such people as Kenneth Starr, an evangelical who is
inextricably linked to right-wing ideologue (and Opus Dei devotee) Theodore
B. Olson. Olson is a key Ashcroft aide at the Justice Department. Olson
played a leading role in getting Starr named as Clinton's "Grand Inquisitor"
who, for the better part of four years, pursued Clinton from "Travelgate" to
"Filegate," to the death of Vince Foster to "Troopergate," to Mena and the
charges of drug running, to Whitewater and finally the "Lewinski affair"
with a religious fanaticism that was "medieval" and bespoke feelings of
"dungeons and dragons" - strange things, frightening things, and "things
that go bump in the night." [For a more detailed description of all these
people, and the "Crusader mindset" that envelopes them, please see our
articles, (1) "The Olson Salon," (2) "The Religious Right Panics," (3)
"Richard Mellon Scaife, The Evil Money Can Do," and (4) "The Rutherford
Institute." While these articles were written several years ago during the
Clinton Administration, they nevertheless very plainly reveal the mindset
that is driving these people.]
CREATING FACTS TO FIT THE SITUATION
These people are all "True Believers." They are the "straight-arrow
soldiers" who feel that in the heat of battle they can unleash their
terrible swift sword against everyone and every thing that gets in their
way, and who - in their appointed mission - consider themselves bound by a
"higher moral code" than that which binds ordinary mortals. They're fighting
a war against demons, and anything is "in play" in this kind of combat -
even bending the truth for "the greater good." These are the kind of people
of whom Justice Brandeis said -
"... they feel that they can commit crimes in order to secure the greater
good ... who feel that the ends justify the means."
So brutal and outrageous is the battle that Ashcroft and his minions have
unleashed against their enemies since the events of September 11th that it
could probably be said without much fear of contradiction that the actions
they are taking in connection with this battle would have been unimaginable
absent the "emergency" created by the terrorist attack against the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon - WHICH HAS CAUSED MANY "CONSPIRACISTS"
(SO-CALLED) TO WONDER WHETHER OR NOT THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11TH WERE
"MANUFACTURED" OR "CONTRIVED" IN THE INTEREST OF THE "GREATER GOOD" THESE
MEN PURPORT TO SERVE; that "facts were created" in order to "facilitate"
("necessitate") the current "War on Terrorism" and the clamp down on civil
liberties this war has expedited.
And it isn't as if the government is new at "creating facts" to "fit" a
given situation. It's been doing so for years - it's only that this time the
"facts" they have created insofar as the events of September 11th are
concerned are so much greater than anything they have ever attempted before.
Still, the difference between what has gone on previously and what happened
last September is one of "degree" rather than one of "kind."
RUBY RIDGE, WACO, AND TIMOTHY McVEIGH
As proof of what the government is capable of insofar as "creating facts" to
match a "given situation" is concerned, Vidal offers up what happened to
Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, and subsequently to the Branch Davidians in
Waco, Texas. In both instances, Vidal says, the government "created facts"
to "match" their version of the truth.
Vidal has also come to believe that that's what happened with Timothy McVeigh.
Ordinarily, at least at this point, one might be tempted to write Vidal off
as a "nut case" - but nothing could be further from the truth. Vidal's
scholarship is simply unimpeachable, and no one has ever dared to call him a
"nut case." Commenting on what led him to such a dour assessment of the
government's ability to simply tell the truth, especially as it relates to
the government's war against its own citizens and its concomitant effort to
curtail civil liberties, Vidal writes:
"Briefly it all began in the November, 1998 issue of Vanity Fair. I had
written a piece about "the shredding of our Bill of Rights." I cited
examples of IRS seizures of property without due process of law, warrantless
raids and murders committed against innocent people by various
drug-enforcement groups, government collusion with agribusiness's successful
attempts to drive small farmers out of business, and so on ... Then, as a
coda, I discussed the illegal but unpunished murders at Ruby Ridge, Idaho (a
mother and child had been killed in cold blood by the FBI): then, the next
year, Waco. The Media expressed little outrage in either case. Apparently,
the trigger words had not been spoken. Trigger words? Remember The
Manchurian Candidate? George Axelrod's splendid 1962 film, where the
brainwashed (by North Koreans) protagonist can only be set in murderous
motion when the gracious garden-club lady, played by Angela Lansbury says,
'Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire'?
"Since we had been told for weeks that the Branch Davidian leader, David
Koresh, was not only a drug dealer (which he was not) but the sexual abuser
of the 27 children in his compound (Waco social services had cleared him of
all such accusations two months previous to the BATF's raid), the maternal
Ms. Reno in essence decreed, Better that they all be dead than defiled.
Hence the attack. Later, 11 members of the Branch Davidian Church were put
on trial for the "conspiracy to commit murder" of the federal agents who had
attacked them. The jury found all 11 innocent on that charge. But after
stating that the defendants were guilty of attempted murder - the very
charge which they had just been acquitted - the judge sentenced eight church
members up to 40 years on lesser charges. One disgusted juror said, 'The
wrong people were on trial'."
Again - all this to say that the government is very practiced in "creating
facts" to "fit the occasion."
JUSTIFYING ACTS OF GREAT EVIL
This at last brings us to what happened on September 11, 2001. A simple
glance at what actually occurred that day is enough to make one believe that
the government "was up to its old tricks" - but, as we just indicated, this
time the scope of their crime (i.e., their effort to create "facts" that
could justify their current onslaught against civil rights in this country)
was so great that it could have been orchestrated only by people who are
controlled by a mindset that leads them to believe that they are acting in
the "interests of God" - the kind of people we've been talking about; the
kind who can say with "evangelist" Cubie Ward:
"Killing for the joy of it is wrong, but killing because it is necessary to
fight against an anti-Christ system ... is not only right, but the DUTY of
every Christian."
Or who could say with the so-called "Christian" Contras (that Pat Robertson
and Tim LaHaye did so much to support) when they raided the Nicaraguan
village of San Francisco del Norte, on the western border with Honduras in
July 1982,
"... we don't massacre people ... we massacre demons, and these people are
demon possessed: they're communists." [And all this while praising God,
speaking in tongues and singing hymns.]
RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY BEGETS RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY This is the kind of mentality
that drives religious zealots! And that is so not only insofar as the
Islamic extremists who hijacked the four planes on September 11th and
crashed two of them into the World Trade Center and a third into the
Pentagon, that's also true for the people on the U.S. side who colluded
(yes! - "colluded;" please see below) with these extremists by turning a
blind eye to what was happening - especially when so many lives were at
stake. I repeat, this is not something that "ordinary" people do! The
psychology of it is simply too great (too devastating) to bear absent the
thought that there is a "greater good" to be achieved. If it took ISLAMIC
terrorists to initiate the attack on the World Trade Center, only CHRISTIAN
zealots could have turned a blind eye to what was happening, knowing that
such an act would open the way for them to attack their enemies in a way
that otherwise would be impossible (which is, of course, the so-called
"greater good" the Christian zealots were seeking). Listen, brothers and
sisters! - there is a reason why ordinary people are frightened by religious
wars. They are the most terrible kind of wars. More slaughter has been
committed in the name of religion than there ever had been in the name of
communism and socialism. THAT'S THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER! - and sadly, that
is as true of Christianity as it is true of Islam.
PUZZLES AND CONUNDRUMS
So the question is, was there government collusion in what happened on
September 11th? Was there some kind of conspiracy? And if there was a
conspiracy, will we find "Christian dominionists" at the bottom of it? Well,
the second question - i.e., if there was a conspiracy, will we find
Christian dominionists" at the bottom of it? - is perhaps easier to answer
than the first because, IF the Bush Administration was involved, then
Christian dominionists would have to be implicated as well if only because
the presence of Christian dominionists (both Catholic and evangelical) in
the administration is so pervasive that it is impossible to conceive how
their inclusion could have been avoided (after all, the president himself is
a Christian dominionist)! All this is to say nothing about what we were just
discussing - i.e., that this kind of collusion has historically been
undertaken only by religious zealots; that only they possess the mindset
capable of carrying it off.
So the only real question before us is, Was there a conspiracy? And that
shouldn't be that difficult to answer either if only because the random
chain of events that would have been necessary to "permit" the attack on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon to occur in the absence of collusion is
- on the face of it - so completely implausible. It would have had about as
much a chance of occurring on a coincidental basis as one would have in
being dealt five straight flushes in a row in a game of poker. In "real
life," (i.e., in a real poker game) if someone came up with five flushes in
a row, he would be shot dead on the spot. Five flushes dealt to the same
person one hand after another would be proof enough that the person being
dealt the hand was cheating! So also with the events of September 11th.
For example, under normal circumstances, it is simply impossible for four
giant commercial jets to veer off their authorized flight paths without
being immediately intercepted and challenged by Air Force and/or Air
National Guard aircraft - especially in the New York and Washington D.C.
areas. Take what happened two years ago when golf pro Payne Stewart's small
private Learjet went off course and out of communication just after takeoff
in Florida: It took the FAA just ten short minutes - THAT'S TEN MINUTES - to
alert the Air Force, scramble interceptor jets, and get them in direct
proximity to Stewart's aircraft - and all over a landmass far less critical
than New York and Washington D.C.
In the light of this and numerous other similar examples, are we now
supposed to believe that four huge commercial jets could simultaneously veer
off course and fly around the east coast for almost an hour without ever
being intercepted and challenged? - and all this while passengers on the
planes were making frantic calls to their loved ones on the ground telling
them what was happening.
Remember here! - not one of these planes was ever intercepted. NOT ONE!
THE NEW YORK ENIGMA
The conundrum regarding all this only grows worse when one considers the
fact that just across the river from New York City - in New Jersey - there
is a very special MISSILE BATTERY which is specifically designed to knock
down any planes which fly toward buildings in the New York City area (a
nightmare scenario that officials have been guarding against for almost
fifty years). In addition, there is also a special RADAR unit on Long Island
operated by the FAA which has the single purpose of detecting planes
(private or commercial) which veer off course and begin flying toward
Manhattan. This unit is redundantly tied into the missile battery just
discussed, and - in addition to that - into several different squadrons of
interceptor jets in Massachusetts that have been triggered to scramble and
intercept any planes trying to fly into NYC airspace not on approved flight
paths.
Are we supposed to believe that all of these very sophisticated protections
failed SIMULTANEOUSLY on September 11th? That's quite a stretch! Yet that's
what we are forced to accept as the truth if we refuse to believe that there
wasn't some kind of elite collusion involved in the tragic events of
September 11th. Now this isn't to say that one is compelled necessarily to
believe in a conspiracy from the beginning to the end of these dreadful
events; but it does mean that it might not be too far-fetched to believe
that the events of September 11th - while not deriving their genesis from
elements within the United States - were permitted to occur by elite forces
once they were set in motion by elements outside the country. This is, after
all, what most historians now believe happened at Pearl Harbor - a view that
has taken more than sixty years to gain academic legitimacy despite the fact
that it was plain to see early on. This kind of elite treachery is, after
all, not a new thing for the elites in the United States to be engaged in.
THE WASHINGTON D.C. ENIGMA
And what about the Pentagon? The Pentagon was placed on high alert over 30
minutes before the plane attack. This means that all the Pentagon's defense
systems should have been on hair-trigger alert status - and in this
connection, it should be noted that the Pentagon is tied into three - that's
THREE - extremely sophisticated defense systems! Two of these systems have
been specifically designed to monitor the air space immediately surrounding
the Pentagon. In addition, there is the regular FAA radar system which has
alarms that go off when any airplane in the Washington D.C. area veers off
its approved flight path.
All these systems are tied into interceptor jets nearby in Virginia and
Maryland which are AUTOMATICALLY scrambled when planes fly into the
restricted air space over the Pentagon or the White House! All of these
systems should have been going off full blast as the plane which eventually
crashed into the Pentagon circled erratically for more than twenty minutes
over the totally restricted air space above the Pentagon and the White House
- AND, AGAIN, ALL THIS WHILE PASSENGERS ON THE PLANE WERE MAKING FRANTIC
PHONE CALLS TO THEIR LOVED ONES ON CELL PHONES.
In addition to the three systems mentioned above, the Pentagon also has its
own low altitude radar system that is connected to a battery of missiles
designed to shoot down any low flying object at least 500 feet before it
reaches the building! Moreover, in all these systems, plus the systems in
place in New York, there are "fail safe" devices and techniques built into
them that are designed to minimize, if not eliminate, human error.
Again, are we supposed to believe that all these systems failed
SIMULTANEOUSLY? The odds, of course, for this happening are staggering. It's
easier to believe in an "X-File" kind conspiracy than to believe that all
these systems, plus the systems in New York, could have failed all at once -
and if people don't see this, it's because they don't want to see it, though
I suppose it makes life simpler to just not think about it all.
LIES AND DECEIT
Vice President Dick Cheney - while being interviewed by Tim Russert on NBC's
"Meet the Press" on September 16th - claimed that the military needed
authorization from the president before scrambling fighter jets to intercept
the planes. Cheney portrayed the entire situation surrounding the question
of what to do with these four planes as a terribly troubling and agonizing
ethical decision involving their shoot down - a decision that only the
president (who was conveniently busy reading rabbit stories to Florida
school children at the time) could have authorized.
But that's simply not true - and Cheney knows it. There was no need for any
order to shoot down the planes; there was only a need for Air Force/Air
Guard units to carry out standard (and very routine) intercept procedures.
Such intercepts are very common and do not require "presidential
authorization." These intercepts should have taken place AUTOMATICALLY -
again, as a matter of simple procedure - on September 11th. After all,
nobody had to go into the White House and pull Clinton away from his
presidential duties to authorize the intercept of Payne Stewart's jet.
And here is something more to think about! - according to CNN, as the Payne
Stewart intercept took place, officers at the Joint Chiefs of Staff were
monitoring Stewart's Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National
Military Command Center - and all this for one small, private Learjet! One
can only wonder that if the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was "in on"
the Payne Stewart intercept, who would have been "in on" the intercept of
four gargantuan commercial jets which very obviously were off course and
wandering around some of the country's most restricted airspace in the
northeast.
Given all these facts, what does that say about the events of September
11th? At the very least, it certainly raises questions about what really
happened. Nonetheless, in this day and age where no one in his right mind
wants to be labeled a wild-eyed "conspiracy nut," who wants to "seriously"
raise the question of a possible conspiracy?
But then, what is history if not the tale of conspiracy after conspiracy?
That certainly is what U.S. history has been all about for the last sixty
years - from Pearl Harbor, to the JFK assassination, to the Warren
Commission, to the RFK assassination, to the Martin Luther King (MLK)
assassination, to the Pentagon Papers, to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, to
MK-ULTRA, to COINTELPRO, to the origins of LSD, HIV, ebola, ad nauseum.
There's no end to it.
There's a reason why the elites do everything in their power to trash
conspiracy theories - because they are so involved in conspiracy themselves.
It's the same reason why they trash people who remark on the vast difference
in the way the rich live in this country as opposed to the way the poor
live. Such people are dismissed as "Do Nothings" who are engaging in "Class
Warfare." But the very real fact of the matter is, that's what the elites
are engaged in! - class warfare and conspiracies - AND THAT'S THE "STUFF" -
THE "REAL STUFF" - THAT HISTORY IS MADE OF.
A CONVENIENT CAMOUFLAGE FOR
ANTI-DEMOCRATIC PROCLIVITIES
But leaving all this aside, suffice it to say that no matter how the events
of September 11, 2001 transpired, no matter what murky forces may or may not
have been behind these events, they have certainly proved to be a very
convenient CAMOUFLAGE behind which Christian dominionists and their allies
in the economic elite (please see our article on "Capitalism and
Christianity") have been able to push their antidemocratic agenda both here
in the United States and throughout the world.
And make no mistake about it, the agenda the elites and their Christian
dominionist allies are pushing is a very anti-democratic one indeed. From
their perspective they simply have no choice in the matter; there is no
other way for them to go. The greedy and avaricious economic policies they
are pursuing are so ruinous to the well-being of average people, that these
policies cannot help but engender intense opposition - and so much so that
despite elite control of the press, and the flow of untold amounts of money
into the legislative and electoral processes to buy influence, the policies
had been effectively stalled prior to the events of September 11th.
The fact is, so abhorrent had these policies become in the view of average
people, and so unpopular had the elites become who were championing them,
that a point had been reached where it had actually become dangerous for the
elites to openly meet anywhere in the world to discuss and further refine
them. Indeed, whenever the institutions of elite power had dared to openly
unveil themselves in order to push their globalization policies forward
(i.e., in Athens, in Seattle, in Washington D.C., in Philadelphia, in L.A.,
in Quebec City, in Prague, in Genoa, etc.), they had been met with disorder
and street riots, and so much so that the elites had been reduced (almost
comically) to meeting in dictatorships like Communist China (Shanghai) and
Quatar where demonstrations were not permitted.
ANTI-CAPITALIST SENTIMENTS SPREAD
And we are not exaggerating the situation here. The reality is - according
to David McNally, a professor at the University of Toronto who writes for
the scholarly periodical New Politics (Vol. VIII, No.
3) - anyone wanting evidence of how unpopular the economic policies the
elites were pushing had become in the eyes of average people throughout the
world need only to have come to Quebec City during the third week of April,
2001 (just four months prior to the incidents of September 11th). What the
demonstrations in Quebec City proved is that the anti-corporate/anti-elitist
forces that had been set in motion in Seattle in 1999 had grown
exponentially in intensity.
Not only did the protests against the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City
(which had been designed to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas by the
year 2005) draw a larger crowd than had the event in Seattle, the people
participating in the demonstration had grown much more radical in the
interim. This radicalization, according to McNally, was measurable in the
stronger positions taken by the popular organizations which came together in
the so-called Hemispheric Social Alliance, and in the widespread support for
ANTI- CAPITALIST ideas among the thousands of participating activists who
took to the streets in Quebec City on April 20th and 21st, holding their
ground against club wielding, tear gas firing riot police on two successive
days. McNALLY REPORTS THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES, IT HAD BECOME
POSSIBLE FOR CAPITALISM'S OPPONENTS TO REALISTICALLY ENVISION THE EMERGENCE
OF AN ACTIVIST ANTI-CAPITALIST LEFT ANIMATED BY THE ENERGY AND RESOLVE OF
THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF YOUNG PEOPLE.
THE ELITES ARE IN DANGER
OF LOSING THE STREETS
As a result, by the summer of 2001 it was becoming evident to the elites and
their Christian dominionist allies [who were horrified by the social agenda
of the Left (i.e., feminism, abortion, gay rights, etc.)] that they were
faced with a growing and very powerful challenge, a challenge that was not
being mounted against them so much in the institutions of government they
controlled (which institutions they had already corrupted and perverted in
their (i.e., the elite's) favor and against average people) but in the
streets where the masses have historically resorted when elite manipulation
has rendered governmental institutions "off limits" to average people - and
nothing so frightens the elites than MOBS IN THE STREETS! The elites and
their Christian allies have long memories.
They remember what happened to "their class" and the institutions of
Christianity (so-called) in the French Revolution of 1789 and in St.
Petersburg during the Russian Revolution of 1917.
The elites were frightened - and they should have been. Their money can "buy
up" the legislative process and control the press, but the streets are
something else altogether, at least in the absence of extraordinary police
powers - police powers that are simply not available to the elites in a
democratic setting. The elites were in big trouble! - and while most
Christians may not have been aware of what was happening, the elites were.
This fact is attested to by a spate of articles that began appearing in
elite publications like Foreign Affairs, the Harvard Review, etc. denouncing
what had been occurring in the streets whenever elite institutions like the
WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, etc. tried to meet. This was "Big Stuff" to
the CEOs at Exxon, General Electric, Citicorp, Chevron, IBM, Viacom, Bank of
America, Microsoft, AT&T, Seagrams, Cargill, etc. It sent chills down their
spines; if these kinds of demonstrations were left to grow unchallenged, the
American New World Order System was in for big trouble.
THE POLITICAL PROCESS IS
LOST TO THE "MONEY MEN"
These demonstrations were testimony to the fact of how badly democracy in
the United States and throughout the American New World Order System had
been perverted in the interests of elite power. And just how perverted the
elites had distorted democracy in the United States was plain enough for
anyone to see. So glaring and "out front" had these distortions become that
it was no longer possible to hide them. Washington was not a place where the
"people's work" was done anymore, it was a place where Senators and
Congressmen (and women) were up "for sale" to the highest bidder. Jeff
Birnbaum, a well-known political commentator, writes:
"Almost everyone who works in official Washington eventually has what can be
described as the Moment: that instant when they finally realize that money
is ... (what counts) in politics ... One of my friends experienced his
Moment in the mid-1980s when he worked as a press secretary for a ...
congressman. At the time, the lawmaker was a hot commodity: He was undecided
on whether to vote to fund construction of the B-1 bomber. The Reagan
administration, frantic for support, wanted his backing very badly, so White
House aides were eager to bargain. In a meeting one day, my friend witnessed
the deal as it was struck. The congressman pledged to vote to fund the
aircraft in exchange for a VIP tour of the White House for twenty or thirty
of his largest and most loyal campaign contributors. The congressman didn't
ask for a new dam or a new road or a new grant to help his neediest
constituents. Instead, he traded his greatest power, his vote on the House
floor, to please the handful of people who really mattered to him: the money
men who were so key to his reelection."
Now understand what this Congressman wanted to do: he wanted to impress his
"moneymen." He didn't care about his average constituents. Birnbaum writes:
"The more money, the more votes. It's that simple and that venal.
Money talks ..."
The fact of the matter is, the so-called "people's business" revolves around
money today. And the people who have the kind of money the Senators and
Congressmen (and women) are looking for is a very small group indeed.
Birnbaum continues:
"The number of people who give is quite small. In 1968, only 8 percent of
the adult population gave contributions in any amount to any candidate or
party - local, state, or federal. By 1992, the figure had dropped to 4
percent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 1992, almost 80
percent of all the funds contributed to congressional campaigns came from
... less than one- third of 1 percent of the total population."
Think about that - ONE-THIRD OF ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL U.S.
POPULATION! Where does that leave democracy. It means that if you don't have
any money - and lots of money - you don't count in the United States anymore.
THE PAST AS PROLOGUE TO THE FUTURE
Obviously, then, average people have no place else to go but to the streets,
and that's what they have been increasingly doing since the riots in Seattle
in 1999. Clearly then, THE TASK BEFORE THE ELITES WAS TO REGAIN CONTROL OF
THE STREETS AT ALL COST! However, for the police to go much beyond the
brutal tactics they had already adopted, democracy as we know it would have
to be suspended - and to do that, they would have to act under a deceit or a
camouflage. An "incident" would have to be "created" to make it seem that
the suspension of democracy was a "necessary evil" in defense of the nation.
What the elites needed was an "event" that would enable them to "crack down"
on all the unrest - something like Hitler's Reichstag fire which "permitted"
Hitler to push through the so-called "Enabling Act" which granted him
emergency dictatorial power.
It is said that "THE PAST IS PROLOGUE TO THE FUTURE," and it certainly is
insofar as the Reichstag fire of February 1933, and the events in New York
and Washington D.C. in 2001 are concerned. The seeming parallel here is
shocking and not a little ominous for all of us: In late January, 1933
Hitler had been made Chancellor of Germany even though his Nazi Party had
received only 39 percent of the vote.
But 39 percent of the vote in the Reichstag was simply not enough to govern
with. Hitler needed a much broader "mandate" from the people, and he needed
to crush his opposition (the Left) in order to get it.
He, therefore, called for new elections for the 5th of March in order to
increase his voting bloc in the Reichstag. But despite the best efforts of
his followers, it looked like he was going to fall well short of the mandate
he needed.
Then, on the 27th of February, the German parliament building - the
Reichstag - caught on fire ("fortuitously" for Hitler). Hitler blamed the
fire on the Left, and whipped the country up into a rage against his
socialist opponents. Even then, however, Hitler won only 44 percent of the
vote on the 5th of March. Nevertheless, with his partners in the so-called
"Conservative Party," Hitler was able to establish a majority coalition in
the Reichstag. Then using as a pretext a "War against the Left" - which the
Reichstag fire of February 27th seemed to justify [and which Goering later
bragged that he had started] - Hitler pushed through the Reichstag
legislation which permitted him to arrest his opponents and jail them
without "due process," to search homes without warrants, to freeze the bank
accounts of all those deemed "enemies of the state," and to try people
before special military courts.
It was the beginning of the end for democracy in Germany! Over the course of
the next few years (1933-1939) Hitler expanded these powers until he had
created his monster, the Third Reich, which he said was to rule the world
for a thousand years (Hitler's "Millennial Kingdom"). It only lasted twelve
years; but in those twelve years, Hitler created more misery and heartache
than man had ever before known. IS THIS WHAT'S HAPPENING IN AMERICA - RIGHT
UNDER OUR VERY NOSES - BY MEN WHO CLAIM TO BE ACTING AS THE "AGENTS OF GOD
(I.E., GEORGE BUSH, JOHN ASHCROFT, CARL ROVE, DON EVANS, ETC.)? Have the
events of the 11th of September, 2001 become our "Reichstag fire" - the
excuse that the elites and George Bush needed to push through their own
"Enabling Act" - the so-called USA Patriot Act, an omnibus law of 342 pages
enacted under in terrorem threats from Attorney General John Ashcroft? -
i.e., the threat by Ashcroft that if another terrorist incident occurred
before Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, the blame would not be his - it
would rest on his opponents' heads.
The kind of hysteria generated by such statements differs little from the
hysteria that Reichsmarshal Hermann Goering used to push through Hitler's
Enabling Act. Isn't this what Ashcroft is doing now? - acting in the place
of the Reichsmarshal. Ashcroft has asserted that those who criticize the
constriction of civil liberties in the United States "aid terrorists,"
"erode our national unity," and "give ammunition to America's enemies." Joel
Beinin, a professor of history at Stanford University says that what
Ashcroft is very obviously suggesting is that dissent in the United States
is now "tantamount to treason." Suggestions like this from the Attorney
General of the United States are enough to give anyone pause about not
getting on the "band wagon" to a new "national security state."
COWERING THE LEFT
David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, reports that
the nuts and bolts of the new law were worked out in a couple of all-night
sessions and approved by large majorities the day it was introduced into
Congress, despite the fact that no member could possible have had the time
to read the bill before voting on it. Cole says that the Patriot Act imposes
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION on immigrants, rendering them deportable for wholly
innocent, nonviolent associational activity on behalf of any organization
blacklisted as "terrorist" by the state. In addition, it allows for their
secret imprisonment, and their trial before clandestine military tribunals.
Moreover, the Patriot Act authorizes the Attorney General to lock up aliens,
potentially indefinitely, on mere suspicion, WITHOUT ANY HEARING AND WITHOUT
ANY OBLIGATION TO ESTABLISH TO A COURT THAT THE DETENTION IS NECESSARY TO
FORESTALL FLIGHT OR DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY. Naturally, the definition of
what constitutes a "terrorist" has been purposefully left vague. In other
words, the term - while at present still limited to those groups and
associations that have "used force or threatened to use force" against the
government - is EXPANDABLE pretty much at the discretion of the Attorney
General. This is precisely what happened in Germany as the population was
whipped into a frenzy by a "controlled press" against what was perceived to
be threats from both inside and outside of Germany - and so much so that in
less than a year (1934-1935) people who should have known better - who felt
in their guts that something was wrong - had been cowered into submission.
People became afraid to speak out.
Isn't that what's occurring today? For instance, take what's happened to
professor Laurence Tribe, a leftist intellectual and ostensibly a stalwart
defender of civil rights and civil liberties, and his colleague, Alan
Dershowitz. Cole reports in the Nation Magazine that Tribe has condoned the
use of military tribunals and the secret detention of legal U.S. residents
in the name of "fighting terrorism." And his associate Alan Dershowitz has
suggested that torture may sometimes be justified, as long as it is
authorized by a warrant. All these men, and many more besides them, know
perfectly well that in the end, the government has no intention of
restricting these procedures to foreigners and non-U.S. citizens; that
eventually they will be expanded to encompass U.S. citizens. But so
frightened have they become in the wake of the changed mood in the country
that they simply refuse to speak out.
TRADING IN ONE'S FREEDOM FOR A SENSE OF SECURITY The fact is, under the
rubric of the "War on Terrorism," the elites in the United States and their
Christian dominionist allies have been rushing towards the establishment of
a virtual Police State - and like the Germans in 1933, most Americans seem
prepared to accept its establishment if that means they will be safe from
future terrorist attacks similar to the ones that occurred in New York and
Washington D.C. They are trading in their freedom for a very false sense of
security.
Concerning this exact point, Molly Ivins, in a syndicated article that
appeared in the press on Sunday, November 25, 2001 entitled "What Do You
Think Happened To Germany In The '30s," writes:
"Whoa! The problem is the premise. We are having one of those circular
arguments about how many civil liberties we can trade away to make ourselves
safer from terrorism, without even looking at the assumption - can we make
ourselves safer by making ourselves less free? There is no inverse
relationship between freedom and security.
Less of one does not lead to more of the other. People with no rights are
not safe from terrorist attack.
"Exactly what do we want to strike out of the U.S. constitution that we
think would prevent terrorist attacks? Let's see, if civil liberties had
been suspended before September 11, would law enforcement have noticed
Mohamed Atta? Would the FBI have opened an investigation of Zacarias
Moussaouri, as Minneapolis agents wanted to do? The CIA had several of the
9-11 actors on their lists of suspected terrorists. Exactly what civil
liberty prevented them from doing anything about it? In the case of a
suspected terrorist, the government already had the right to search,
wiretap, intercept, detain, examine computer and financial records, and do
anything else it needed to do. There's a special court they go to for
subpoenas and warrants. As it happens, they didn't do it. Changing the law
retroactively is not going to change that.
"... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE PREVENTED US FROM
STOPPING 9-11, SO WHY WOULD WE WANT TO CHANGE IT?"
EXPANDING THE REACH
OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT
The reason, of course, is that what the elites are aiming at here is not so
much preventing terrorism as such - that's merely a convenient camouflage -
but in SUPPRESSING THEIR OPPOSITION in this country and abroad, and
"REGAINING CONTROL OF THE STREETS." That's what the USA Patriot Act is
really all about! And while it's true that at present this legislation is
aimed ostensibly only at "foreign nationals," one would have to be an
ignoramus to think that it will stop there. If history teaches anything, it
teaches that once such anti-democratic processes are set in motion, they are
rarely stopped short of a dictatorship.
There is, of course, a lot of talk about the suppression of civil liberties
during past "emergencies," such as Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties
during the Civil War, and Wilson's and FDR's similar suppression of civil
liberties during World War I and World War II.
But in all these cases, there was an absolute time limit that was set on
these "restraints on civil liberties" - i.e., the end of the wars that had
made the "restraints" necessary - and these time limits had been defined and
written into the original legislation. But in the present circumstance,
there is no time limit that has been set insofar as this legislation is
concerned. And who can tell when the "War on Terrorism" will ever end? It's
a totally open-ended proposition! It will end when the elites say it will
end - which is probably to say, "NEVER!"
Again, people feel safe for now insofar as the more brutal aspects of this
law are concerned because the law does not yet apply to U.S.
citizens. But one thing leads to another; one "emergency" builds on the next
and so on and on until such acts become all-encompassing.
We, of course, like to think that American democracy is different.
But it's not - at least not anymore. The very real fact of the matter is,
today the political process is under the almost total control of a small
corporate oligarchy that constitutes, as we have already indicated, less
than one-third of one percent of the entire U.S.
population - a plutocracy (rule by the rich) that has "bought up" Congress
and the mainline media "lock, stock, and barrel." And this plutocracy is now
bending every effort to expand the reach of the USA Patriot Act to include
American citizens. This is what makes the Anthrax case so EXTREMELY
important; this is where it fits so neatly into the equation.
THE IMPORTANCE OF HYPING
THE ANTHRAX SCARE
The mysterious appearance of anthrax in the U.S. postal system is one of
those COINCIDENTAL phenomena that defies all logic. Where did it come from?
This is "weaponized" anthrax - something that is very, very difficult to
produce. This is not something that is readily available to any "dufus" on
the open market. It's not something you can go out and buy. It seemed to
appear out of nowhere - about two weeks after the events of September 11,
2001. Coincidence? At first, most people associated its appearance in
connection with the terrorist attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade
Center. But the government soon began hinting that it probably had a
different origin - a domestic origin rather than a foreign one; that
probably some "right-wing nut group" was behind it. And as time has
progressed, the government has begun to more and more insist that such is
the case.
Now why would that be? Why would the government be so insistent on pinning
this rap on a "domestic terrorist group." The reason is obvious! - because
the government would like to expand its authority under the USA Patriot Act
to U.S. citizens, and if it can pin the "rap" on U.S. citizens, it can do so.
PUZZLES AND CONUNDRUMS
CONNECTED TO THE ANTHRAX SCARE
In this connection, it should be noted that there are a number of very
troubling conundrums connected with all the anthrax incidents.
First, if these are "domestic acts of terror" not connected to the events of
September 11th, isn't it pretty coincidental that these acts would so
"conveniently" appear out of nowhere at a time when the American people had
been whipped up into a frenzy over what happened on September 11th? Why now?
One would think that if a "domestic terrorist group" was trying to draw
attention to itself and its causes, it would wait for a time when the
message it was trying to "convey" wouldn't be drowned out in the hunt for
Islamic terrorists. It doesn't make sense! It's akin to trying to draw
attention to one's self with a firecracker at a time when someone else has
just exploded a 2,000 pound bomb next door. No one's going to hear the
firecracker.
Then there is a second conundrum associated with the Anthrax scare.
Where did the anthrax come from? By now scientists at the CDC have traced
the genetic pattern of the anthrax to a strain produced at the University of
Iowa in Aimes (hence, the name of this particular strain - the so-called
"Aimes strain"). But the University of Iowa never "weaponized" the strain.
That was done EXCLUSIVELY at the Army's germ warfare lab at Fort Detrick in
Maryland. And one must remember that the anthrax that has shown up in the
New York area and in Washington D.C. has been "weaponized" - in other words,
a strain of anthrax that has been refined and elutriated beyond the needs of
any university research program.
The question that should be asked, then, is how did this "weaponized"
anthrax ever get out of Fort Detrick? All this "gives the lie" to the
government's explanation that the "Aimes strain" had been parceled out by
the University of Iowa to other university research labs in the northeast,
and somewhere along the line a "right-wing nut" must have gotten a hold of
it. None of the anthrax that was at the University of Iowa had ever been
"weaponized." Again, the "weaponized" form of the anthrax existed ONLY at
Fort Detrick.
All this bespeaks government collusion at the highest level.
Nonetheless, the government persists in its ridiculous attempt to blame the
anthrax scare on a right-wing terrorist group. And, again, why is that? -
BECAUSE, AS WE JUST INDICATED, IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN LAY THE BLAME FOR THE
ANTHRAX SCARE ON A DOMESTIC TERRORIST GROUP, THEN IT MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO
EXPAND THE REACH OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT BEYOND FOREIGN NATIONALS TO U.S.
CITIZENS. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON HERE! That's what makes the anthrax scare
so important!
ENSHRINING THE CONCEPT
OF GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
The USA Patriot Act enshrines the principle of GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.
One can be secretly arrested, and held incommunicado simply because one has
been seen in the company of a person the police have reason to believe may
be a suspect. And this connection can be stretched out to a considerable
degree; for instance, a person can conceivably be arrested for having
associated with a person who associated with another person who is believed
to have terrorist connections. That's quite a stretch. But already, it is
reliably reported that a number of people are being held for precisely this
kind of extended logic.
But what would be the consequence if such thinking were applied to groups
the Attorney General has associated himself with over the years? Take, for
instance, Ashcroft's past association with the racist magazine Southern
Partisan. Ashcroft applauds the magazine as a journal that "seeks to set the
record straight." Oh really? - is this what ones says about a magazine that
refers to the Emancipation Proclamation (the document that freed America's
slaves) as -
"... a sinister ... invitation to the slaves to rise against their masters" ?
Is this what one says about a magazine that refers to John Wilkes Booth, the
man who assassinated President Lincoln, as -
"... not only sane, but sensible. His background, loyalties, beliefs, and
experience had led him to that end" (i.e., to the assassination of Lincoln) ?
Is this how one describes a periodical that says that KKK Grand Wizard David
Duke was -
"... a candidate concerned about 'about affirmative' discrimination, welfare
profligacy, the taxation holocaust ... a Populist spokesperson for a
recapturing of the American ideal" ?
And, finally, is this what one says about a magazine that characterizes the
"American melting pot" as -
"... an instrument by which distinct forms of distinct material are melted
down into a common sludge; one that dissipates America's original racial
pool from which our democratic government was originally derived" ?
It seems that what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the
gander insofar as Ashcroft is concerned - and that's assuming that he would
no longer associate himself with such statements.
ROUNDING UP CITIZENS BASED ON THE
PRINCIPLE OF GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
Now stop for a moment and think about how all this could "shake out" -
where all this is trending. What the USA Patriot Act is, IS A KIND OF
POLITICAL RICO ACT AIMED AT POLITICAL GROUPS INSTEAD OF ORGANIZED CRIME
SYNDICATES. As with RICO, the primary purpose of the USA Patriot Act is to
facilitate the prosecution of suspected terrorists without having to produce
direct or even much indirect evidence; one must only show that the target of
the investigation is "associated" with a known terrorist group OR A GROUP
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS LABELED A "TERRORIST GROUP." That means that
under the impress of fighting domestic terrorism, the Attorney General can
label a political or religious group that dares to criticize the government
a "terrorist group," and then round up all those associated with the group
and jail them on the basis of that association only, without ever having to
show their direct or even indirect participation in a particular crime.
Think about that for a minute: People can be rounded up for merely
associating themselves with someone who is associated with someone else who
criticizes the government. This brings us back again to what Douglas
Valentine said in Counterpunch Magazine on the 13th of November, 2001: that
the Bush Administration has begun setting up a "counter-terrorist"
organization similar to the Phoenix program that operated in South Vietnam.
It will operate as an integral part of Governor Tom Ridge's "Office of
Homeland Security" (OHS).
LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR
A DOMESTIC PHOENIX PROGRAM
As we indicated in our last article, "George Bush, The Promise Keepers, And
The Principles Of Messianic Leadership," Phoenix was run essentially by a
cadre of "secret police" advised by the CIA and American military
intelligence officers. On the basis of an accusation made by a single
anonymous informant, a VC suspect or sympathizer could be arrested and
detained indefinitely.
Valentine says that like the Phoenix program in Vietnam, the OHS will
establish field offices in the 50 states and all of America's major cities
and will begin extending its informant nets throughout the country. Every
town will probably be required to form an OHS Committee which will be
comprised of citizens that the OHS has deemed "politically reliable." The
job of these committees will be to process reports by "concerned citizens"
(i.e., informants) about the activities of "suspected citizens."
Valentine says that what makes such a system especially dangerous is that
the definition of what a "suspected terrorist" is has been pretty much left
open to the discretion of the Attorney General. This is what happened in
Vietnam too. There was never any consensus about the definition of a VC
sympathizer; at best, it was tacitly understood by the ideologues, and the
security forces under their control, that a person was either "for us" or
"against us."
Moreover, it wasn't enough to be just "for us" in a passive sense; one had
to be actively "against them." So the definition of a terrorist suspect is
deliberately left open, paving the way for political repression.
Now, again, stop and think about all this for a minute. Think about what
this kind of system might mean to you on a personal basis when - as the "War
on Terrorism" expands, and the religious zealots that are already a part of
the Bush Administration begin picking those who will be sitting on the
various OHS Committees throughout the country - this "system" at lasts
visits you in the middle of the night in the guise of an armed SWAT team
kicking in your door, throwing stun grenades, and threatening to shoot
everything that moves. I'll tell you what will happen! - you will at last
begin to find out what Christ meant when He said:
"... take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and
in the ... (churches) ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before
rulers and kings for my sake ..." (Mark 13:9)
EXPANDING THE REACH OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT And there should be no mistake as
to how quickly the government has been moving to expand its police powers
under the camouflage of the USA Patriot Act. The expansion is occurring
along three different axis:
The USA Patriot Act is facilitating the creation of a new federal police
force charged with rooting out domestic POLITICAL DISSENT aimed against
America's New World Order System.
The USA Patriot Act is also facilitating the dismantling of the Posse
Comitatus Act and contributing to the increasing use of the American
military against U.S. citizens, something that even Cap Weinberger, Reagan's
Secretary of Defense, argued against fifteen years ago, saying that
"reliance on military forces to accomplish civilian tasks is detrimental to
... the democratic process." Finally, the USA Patriot Act is facilitating
the use of "secret- evidence."
All three of these things are very obvious "markers" of totalitarianism, and
once they are implemented under the impress of a never-ending "War on
Terrorism," we may never again be free of their tyranny over our lives. The
truth is, we are inexorably heading towards the creation of an all-seeing,
all-encompassing Orwellian police state where every aspect of our lives will
be subject to constant surveillance.
CREATING A FEDERAL POLITICAL POLICE
And just exactly how far advanced are we in this process? Take the first
point above; the establishment of a political police force.
Before September 11th, the number of FBI agents stood at 27,000; the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) stood at 10,000; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms at 4,000; the Secret Service at 6,000; the Border Patrol at
10,000; the Customs Service at 12,000; and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service at 34,000. That's a "federal police force" that
numbers more than 103,000 (and legislation has just been passed that will
double and even triple these numbers) that - under the growing impress of
Attorney General John Ashcroft's monkish Jesuit-like supervision, and the
coordination of Governor Tom Ridge's "Office of Homeland Security" (Ridge
shares Ashcroft's Jesuit- like proclivities) - is increasingly being
oriented towards tracking down individuals and groups that have, God forbid,
been labeled "terrorists" by the Attorney General.
In this connection, it should be noted that what both Ashcroft and Ridge are
up to, whether most people are willing to admit it or not, is the creation
of something this nation has never before allowed - A FEDERAL POLICE FORCE
CHARGED WITH WHAT IS REALLY A POLITICAL MISSION - i.e., TRACKING DOWN
"TERRORISTS." And why, exactly, do we call this a "political mission?" -
because "terrorism" is in the eyes of the beholder; and if that "beholder"
is the elite oligarchy (plutocracy) that presently runs this country, the
people that will eventually be labeled "terrorists" will be those whom the
elites and their Christian dominionist allies perceive threaten their
continued command of the country. And who is that? - all those who oppose
their globalist, elite-oriented economic policies or subscribe in any way to
social policies the dominionists think are "anti-God" or "anti- Christian."
That, of course, will include all those Christians who reject the
dominionist agenda of Bush and Ashcroft and who believe Christ when He said:
"... my kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then
would my servants fight ... but ... my kingdom ... (is) not from hence."
(John 18:36)
SUBVERTING THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT AND USING THE MILITARY AGAINST U.S.
CITIZENS Then there is the matter of the second point above - the increasing
use of the American military against its own citizens. The fact is, both
Ridge and Ashcroft are moving rapidly to set aside the provisions of the
Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted by Congress in 1878
to specifically prohibit the military from performing civilian police
functions.
The effort by the elites to dismantle the Posse Comitatus Act has, of
course, been going on for some time now. The effort began with Reagan's
so-called "War on Drugs" which declared drug trafficking a threat to
"national security," and as such, an appropriate "target" for the nation's
military. From its inception, however, the "War on Drugs" was never anything
but a thinly veiled subterfuge through which the government has been enabled
to make war on its own citizens using the military [and military tactics
(i.e., the use of SWAT teams, armored vehicles, and the implements of war)].
The purpose of the war has been to "crack down" on the "left outs" of the
population and cower them into submission (please see our article, "The
Construction Of A Religio-Political Terrorist State") - and if the real
purpose of the "War on Drugs" had been to really "crack down" on the drug
trade, then why has the government so shamelessly and wantonly condoned (and
even promoted) the movement of drugs over the years into the USA? You're
surprised? Then you probably haven't heard about Gary Webb.
THE WAR ON DRUGS
Among many of America's minority classes and in the poverty-stricken
neighborhoods of America's underclass, the story of the government's
complicity in the drug trade is already well known. But middle class America
has heard very little of what has been going on. But in August 1996, the San
Jose Mercury News initiated a startling and extended series of articles
linking the CIA's "contra" army to the crack cocaine epidemic in Los Angeles
in the 1980s. To a very large extent, there was really no new territory
covered in the series - but it was the first time a major metropolitan daily
had ever carried the story.
Based on a year-long investigation, reporter Gary Webb wrote that during the
1980s the CIA had helped finance its covert war against Nicaragua's leftist
government through sales of cut-rate cocaine.
This story had first surfaced in the Iran/Contra hearings in the Second
Reagan Administration. But Webb took the story further - specifically to
South Central L.A. drug dealer, Ricky Ross - and revealed its impact in a
specific underclass neighborhood. So specific and telling was the story that
Webb told, that the series unleashed a storm of protest in Los Angeles,
spearheaded by black radio stations and the congressional Black Caucus, with
demands for official inquiries. Webb wrote that the CIA's drug network
"opened the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black
neighborhoods of Los Angeles, a city now known as the 'crack' capital of the
world." Black gangs used their profits to buy automatic weapons, sometimes
even from one of the CIA-linked drug dealers.
But if all this was true, what, then, was the government's "War on Drugs"
all about? - it certainly had nothing to do with drugs, despite its name.
One would have to believe that the DEA had no idea of what the CIA was doing
- and to believe that is to reveal oneself either as a moron or an obstinate
Pollyanna.
Naturally enough, the CIA denounced the story, and the then Director of the
CIA, John Deutch, declared that he had found "no connection whatsoever"
between the CIA and cocaine traffickers. Moreover, the elite press joined
the fray on behalf of the CIA - and the New York Times, Los Angeles Times,
and Washington Post ran long pieces refuting the Mercury News series. But
there was too much evidence to the contrary. For example, it was discovered
that CIA-supplied contra planes and pilots had carried cocaine from Central
America to U.S.
airports and military bases on an almost regular basis - and the CIA and the
DEA were not only aware of what was happening, they basically approved of it
as a means of financing their "war against communism" there - and "to hell
with what was happening to people in the United States as a result of the
drug epidemic."
And these are the people who were supposed to have been in charge of the
"War on Drugs?" - if that was true, then it was kind of like putting
Benedict Arnold in charge of the Revolutionary War. [Please see our articles
"Chechnya And The End of Days" for a short chronology of U.S. involvement in
the drug trade; please also see how the U.S. has involved itself in the drug
trade in Kosovo in a second article we prepared on the subject, "The Drug
Lords of Kosovo."]
What the "War on Terrorism" does is finish the process of permitting the use
of the U.S. military against its own citizenry begun by the "War on Drugs."
No longer is it necessary to connect a citizen to the drug trade; all that
is necessary now is to brand someone or some organization close to him a
"terrorist" or a "terrorist organization," and then connect him
"associationally" to that person or organization; then arrest him and (in
the parlance of the "Mothers of the Disappeared Ones" in Argentina,)
"DISAPPEAR" him.
EXPANDING THE SECRET-EVIDENCE
AUTHORITY OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT
Finally, there is the matter of the third point above, the facilitation of
the use of "secret-evidence" cases - and the case of Mazen Al-Naijar is
particularly instructive of what the government has been up to in this
connection For three and a half years Al- Naijar was jailed on
secret-evidence alleging his "association" with unnamed terrorist groups. He
was never told what this evidence was, and was never charged with having
participated in a terrorist act or even planning or advocating such an act -
only with "associating" with unnamed individuals who allegedly were
connected to a terrorist group.
Al Naijar stayed locked up until a no-nonsense federal judge declared his
detention unconstitutional in May 2000. The judge in the case, R.
Kevin McHugh, said that the government's case was "devoid of ANY direct or
indirect evidence to support the continued imprisonment of Al-Naijar." But
shortly after September 11, 2001, he was again "DISAPPEARED." It later
turned out that he was one of the more than 5,000 people (not 1,200, or the
higher figure of 3,000 that Leon Panetta, the former chief-of-staff for
President Clinton says is closer to the truth) that the government
"DISAPPEARED." Al Naijar was "DISAPPEARED" shortly after he left his
apartment near the University of South Florida to get quarters for the
Laundromat. His wife was at work, his three daughters still in bed.
It seems that the federal government had re-arrested him on the same charges
that judge McHugh had said were TOTALLY without merit. Only this time, the
feds were acting under the authority that the USA Patriot Act gave them.
According to the Nation Magazine, Al-Naijar's latest detention appears to be
the leading edge of an alarming strategy by Attorney General John Ashcroft
to legitimize the use of "secret-evidence" in trials aimed against those the
government has declared "suspect." In doing so, he is pushing the limits of
the USA Patriot Act, and he is doing it in territory covered by the Eleventh
Circuit Court, one of the most notoriously pro-prosecution, law-and- order
appellate benches in the country.
Arguments presented by Ashcroft aide Douglas Ginsburg at a November 8
circuit court hearing on Al-Naijar's case suggest a specific goal:
establishing a blank-check policy for secret-evidence prosecutions.
Ginsburg argued that even though Al-Naijar has no connection to the
September 11 attacks, those attacks should convince the appellate court to
set aside a district court ruling that his detention on secret-evidence was
unconstitutional and simply grant the Justice Department virtual
UNREVIEWABLE POWER to bring secret-evidence cases.
Clearly, the Justice Department thinks that in this courtroom it has perhaps
the strongest chance in the nation of securing a new secret- evidence
precedent.
Bruce Shapiro, co-author of the book, Legal Lynching, writes, "Should the
Eleventh Circuit hand the government what it wants in its secret- evidence
authority, people who have never before been indicted or convicted of a
crime could be labeled terrorist and face imprisonment without end."
Al-Naijar is nothing more than a "convenient" tool the government is using
to accomplish its purposes in this matter. Al-Naijar, it seems, was simply
in the wrong place at the wrong time.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AMERICAN POLICE- STATE: YOU'LL NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN
There are those, of course, who will say that if people have nothing to
hide, they shouldn't be afraid of an all-seeing "Surveillance State." But
nothing could be further from the truth. The psychological pathology that
such a state sets in motion in the individuals who are being surveilled is
more venomous and repulsive than most people are capable of imagining, and
it wreaks incredible havoc on all those who become prey to its malevolence.
Their thinking becomes crimped, and channeled into a kind of "group-think"
that eventually shatters their individuality and skewers their ability to
think for themselves. Compliance with the wishes of the "group" is now the
way to "get ahead" and "get along." Conformity and obedience becomes the
"name of the game." No room here for a Luther, or a Savanrola, or a
Wycliffe. And most especially, there is no room here for Christ - Someone
who lashed out at the religious establishment of His day with the words:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs
of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
"And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been
partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
"Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them
which killed the prophets.
"Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of
hell?" (Matt. 23:29-33)
Many, many years ago, in his preface to Panopticon, Jeremy Bentham imagined
the "social benefits" of a ring-shaped "inspection-house" in which
prisoners, students, orphans or paupers could be subjected to constant
surveillance. In the center of the courtyard would be an inspection tower
with windows facing the inner wall of the ring.
Supervisors in the central tower could observe every movement of the
inhabitants of the cells, who were illuminated by natural lighting; but
Venetian blinds would ensure that the supervisors could not be seen by the
inhabitants.
THE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE BEING SURVEILLED WOULD DETER
THE INHABITANTS FROM ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR. Michael Foucault described the
purpose of the Panopticon - "TO INDUCE IN THE INMATE A STATE OF CONSCIOUS
AND PERMANENT VISIBILITY THAT ASSURES THE AUTOMATIC FUNCTIONING OF POWER."
Foucault predicted that this condition of visible, unverifiable power, in
which individuals have internalized the idea that they may always be under
surveillance, would be the defining characteristic of the "modern age."
And Foucault was right. SURVEILLANCE IS A POWERFUL INDUCEMENT TOWARD SOCIAL
CONFORMITY FOR CITIZENS. Under the all-seeing, watchful eye of the
government, people begin very much to care who they are seen with. Constant
surveillance causes people to change the way they live. They are not so
quick to associate themselves with people or groups that the government
might find objectionable; or that their church or employer might feel are
unacceptable. Jobs are at stake, ostracism is a very real possibility.
People find themselves doing little, unconscious things to please their
employers, demonstrate their loyalty to the state, and "brown-nose" their
pastors and other church officers. They behave in self-conscious ways under
surveillance, ostentatiously trying to demonstrate their integrity or
bristling at the implication of disloyalty to the powers that be, or moral
failure on an individual level.
THERE ARE WEEKS WHEN DECADES HAPPEN
While in exile in Switzerland shortly before the Russian Revolution, Lenin
made the following statement:
"There are decades when nothing happens; AND THERE ARE WEEKS WHEN DECADES
HAPPEN."
This is certainly what has occurred since the events of September 11th. A
dam was breached on that fateful day, and the pent-up emotions of millions
of people (mostly Christians) who think the country has been headed in the
wrong direction both politically and spiritually were unleashed like a
tidal-wave - a TIDAL-WAVE that will sweep away all those who dare to stand
up against the frenzied activity of John Ashcroft's new NATIONAL SECURITY
STATE. Each new day brings news of developments only imagined a few short
months ago.
Government "contingency plans" rumored and debated among "patriots" and
Christian dominionists for decades are becoming reality. The unimaginable
has become possible.
The truth of the matter is, "rights" that ordinary Americans once took for
granted are being swept away in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY. The "right"
to associate with whomsoever you wish without drawing suspicion to yourself,
the "right" to openly criticize the government, the "right" to "due
process," the "right" to remain silent, the "right" to have competent legal
representation, the "right" to examine the evidence against you, the "right"
to be formally arraigned before a judge and not be subject to cruel and
unusual punishment, the "right" to be safe in your own home against
warrantless searches and seizures, the "right" to be able to walk the
streets without fear that an unmarked police car will screech up next to
you, that someone will jump out of the car, throw a bag over your head and
"DISAPPEAR" you so that you will never be heard of again.
And that's not the end of it: In a country where the "Office of Homeland
Security" is setting up Phoenix-like OHS Committees charged with guarding
our neighborhoods against "security threats" and "ratting out"
"non-conformists" and others who refuse to "go along to get along" in the
new "national security" environment, ask yourself how long will those
Christians who refuse to submit themselves to the authority of an APPROVED
church organization last?
After all, who do you think will be "manning" these committees? Who do you
think will be their "leading lights." They will, OF COURSE, be those people
Bush and his cohorts can count on; those who put him in power; those who
went "to bat" for him in Texas, in South Carolina and in Florida!
And who exactly were those people? They were people like Charles Stanley, D.
James Kennedy, Tim LaHaye, C. Peter Wagner, Beverley LaHaye, Ern Baxter,
Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell,
Chuck Colson, Jack Hayford, Robert Stearns, Mike Bickle, Reuven Doron, Che
Ahn, Frank Hammond, Cindy Jacobs, Bill Hamon, John Eckhardt, Bobbie Byerly,
Dutch Sheets, Jim Goll, John Paul Jackson, James Ryle, Frank Damazio, Ed
Silvoso, Carlos Annacondia, Claudio Freidzon, Roger Mitchell, Ted Haggart,
Paul Cain, Chuck Pierce, Rick Joyner, Kingsley Fletcher, Jim Laffoon,
Barbara Wentroble, ad infinitum.
And with people like that and their lackeys "manning" the new OHS committees
that Ashcroft and Ridge are setting up throughout the country to "pass on"
or judge the loyalty of their fellow citizens, how long do you think those
Christians who refuse to "toe the line" insofar as the dominionist agenda of
Christian groups like the Promise Keepers and Opus Dei will last? Or do you
naively think that such people will confine themselves to "passing on" and
"judging" only those persons and groups that constitute a political threat?
If you do, you are being very, very STUPID. Remember, in the eyes of
Christian dominionists, there is little to differentiate between political
and religious subversion - or do you perhaps NAIVELY think that the late
W.A. Criswell of the giant First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas was just
kidding when he said,
"There is no such a thing as the separation of church and state. It is
merely a figment of the imagination of INFIDELS."
Or maybe you think that Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition was
merely joking around when he said:
"We (i.e., Christians) were here first. You don't take our shared common
values and say they are biased and bigoted ... WE ARE THE KEEPERS OF WHAT IS
RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG."
Or maybe we shouldn't take Pat Robertson, the former head of the Christian
Coalition, seriously when he said,
"If Christians work together, they can succeed ... in winning back control
of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years.
Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant, BUT AT TIMES BLOODY
... (What is happening) will not be for the faint of heart, but the
resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be
living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it
is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious. But no victory
ever comes without a battle."
These are the people who can say with Pastor Cubie Ward:
"Killing for the joy of it is wrong, but killing because it is necessary to
fight against an anti-Christ system ... is not only right, but the DUTY of
every Christian."
These are also the kind of people who - when they raided the Nicaraguan
village of San Francisco del Norte, on the western border with Honduras in
July 1982 - could say,
"... we don't massacre people ... we massacre demons ..." [And all this
while praising God, speaking in tongues and singing hymns.]
GET INVOLVED BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE
Brothers and sisters, we need to stand up against what is happening today -
AND MOST ESPECIALLY WE NEED TO PROTEST THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE CHURCH IN IT.
The Bible says,
"... the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you ..."
(Rom. 2:24)
And it is true! God's name is reviled by the unbelievers because of the
wicked and perverse testimony of the church today - of people like Charles
Stanley, D. James Kennedy, Tim LaHaye, C. Peter Wagner, Jack Hayford, Robert
Stearns, Mike Bickle, Reuven Doron, Che Ahn, Frank Hammond, Cindy Jacobs,
Bill Hamon, John Eckhardt, Bobbie Byerly, Dutch Sheets, Jim Goll, John Paul
Jackson, James Ryle, Frank Damazio, Ed Silvoso, Carlos Annacondia, Barbara
Wentroble, ad infinitum.
WE NEED TO DECLARE TO THE WORLD THAT THE JESUS WE SERVE IS NOT THE JESUS
THESE PEOPLE SERVE. In the ANTIPAS PAPERS, we wrote:
"Dietrich Bonhoffer, that great German "Man of God" who boldly stood against
Hitler in the darkest days of the Third Reich, once said that from the
moment we accept Christ, we are day by day being called to die for Him. As a
result, we should not be surprised if one day the reality of this catches up
with us. Without a doubt, Bonhoffer knew exactly what the Apostle Paul meant
when he wrote,
"... Christ shall be magnified in (me) ... whether it be by life, or by
death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Phil.
1:20-21)
"And as sure as the "calling" was, so was the reality when - in April, 1945,
just one month short of the end of World War II - Bonhoffer was at last
martyred at the hands of Adolf Hitler's henchmen for the sake of the Gospel
and the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now we too are being called down
a similar path. This is why we have chosen the name, "Antipas Ministries!" -
Antipas was one of the church's first martyrs. In His letter to the Church
in Pergamos, Jesus called him, "my faithful martyr." Specifically, He said,
'I know thy works and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and
thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days
wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan
dwelleth'. (Rev. 2:13)
"Martyrdom? - it sounds so frightening, but it's really not such a bad
thing; after all, someday all of us are going to die - the only question is
how? and for what reason? Of course, I know we all like to think otherwise,
that we're going to live forever - at least I know that I liked to think so
when I was younger. But now I'm quite a bit older and have come to realize
the truth of Psalm 102:26:
'... we all shall perish, but thou (O, God) shalt endure: yea, all of ...
(us) shall wax old like a garment ...(and pass away) ...'
"Again, the only question is, how? and for what reason?
"In the light of this, isn't it better for us to die violently for the sake
of the Gospel and the testimony of our Lord than to live comfortably a
thousand years as lukewarm, compromised Christians, and then die quietly in
our beds - after all, what is a thousand years in the light of eternity?"
PUT FEET TO YOUR FAITH AND JOIN
US IN WASHINGTON D.C. THIS APRIL
If you feel as we do, then we ask as many of you as can to join us in
Washington D.C. on the 27th of April. Thousands of young people from
throughout the country are going there to protest the constriction of civil
rights that has been occurring in this country over the past several months,
and to protest the "War on Terrorism." WE WILL NOT BE GOING SO MUCH TO JOIN
THESE YOUNG PEOPLE IN THEIR PROTEST, BUT RATHER TO DEMONSTRATE BY OUR
PRESENCE THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST SOME CHRISTIANS WHO OPPOSE WHAT BUSH AND
HIS PROMISE KEEPERS AND OPUS DEI COHORTS ARE DOING IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.
That the Christ we serve has NOTHING to do with the American New World Order
System that Bush and his Christian dominionist allies are setting up.
Brothers and sisters, I hope and pray that God will raise up many of you to
join us in our effort in Washington D.C. People everywhere are waiting to
hear us - maybe not the ones in our churches, and maybe not those who call
themselves "Christian" - but they are there, waiting to hear from us. We
need to do what Christ did - we need to take advantage of these kinds of
"demonstrations" - that's, after all, where the unbelievers are!
Two years ago when we went to the demonstration in Philadelphia, our
presence at that demonstration caused quite a stir. The demonstrators
couldn't believe that Christians like us existed - AND THEY WERE OPEN TO THE
JESUS WE PREACHED. Listen, brothers and sisters, we need to go where the
unbelievers are - and they are not home sitting in the pews of the
crystal-chandeliered cathedrals we have erected to our own vanity, but they
are in the streets. We need to quit preaching to the "already saved in our
churches," and get out into the streets. We need to go out into the highways
and byways and tell people about Christ, and we need to "quit preaching to
the choir." As we go out, we will cause a din. And we will be threatened
because of the stand we are taking against the alliance the church has
formed with the elites of this world. Our enemies will be those of our own
household.
But nothing can happen to you unless God permits it. We are in the hands of
God, and as we go, we will find people who will be amazed at what we are
saying, and who will be convinced and converted.
This, of course, is not going to be easy. There is no easy way in this
matter. There was no easy way for Christ, and there will be no easy way for
us either. As Jesus said,
"The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they
will also persecute you." (John 15:20)
And so I say to all of you now -
alea iacta est
[the die is cast]
More next time!
Until then, God bless you,
S.R. Shearer,
|