Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘battle hymn of the republic’

Pope Benedict XVI Plus George Bush Plus Battle Hymn Of The Republic Plus Five Supreme Court Justices Equals FASCISM!

Posted by Job on April 17, 2008

Click Here To Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan!

Now I was going to ignore Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to America. I believe in religious freedom and tolerance, and see nothing to be gained by unnecessarily provoking people concerning their deeply held beliefs. I opposed the re – publication of the Muhammad cartoons for the same reason. Not only does such behavior fail to advance the cause of Jesus Christ, but it actually impedes the spread of the gospel by producing a public witness of Christians as being fearful, dishonest, aggressive, and lacking in compassion, mercy, and respect. The best example of this is the revolting racist Ann Coulter, who uses the legitimate truth that Jesus Christ is superior as an excuse to vehemently trash (OVERWHELMINGLY NONWHITE!) Muslims while extending politically expedient pluralistic salvation to (OVERWHELMINGLY WHITE!) Jews and Mormons. So despite the incontrovertible error of the Roman Catholic Church, I was going to remain silent out of respect to members of that false religion, as many of them are good people, and I pray that they are brought out of their error into Biblical Christianity just as I was brought out of works – based prosperity/Word of Faith Pentecostal Holiness. 

And then this happens. To the absolute glee of the religious right and warmongers everywhere (and regrettably to those deceived by them, for example the grieving father of a serviceman killed in Iraq that called into the Hugh Hewitt radio show last night – and yes Hewitt both continued his campaign to define religious faith in political/cultural terms and insist that Mormonism was a branch of Christianity based on it), George W. Bush plays “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” for the pontiff (whom Catholics call “the Shepherd”, not “a shepherd, which all pastors are, BUT THE SINGULAR ONE SHEPHERD). Listen, “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” IS NOT our national anthem. Now our national anthem is militaristic as well, but at least there would have been a REASON for playing it … it is our national anthem and therefore an entirely appropriate accompaniment to state ceremonies. Therefore, playing it would not have sent any religious and political messages (quite the contrary, one would be more likely to send a message by NOT playing it). But as for “Battle Hymn Of The Republic“, there is no ceremonial, traditional, etc. REASON to play that song unless you are trying to send a message, and with Bush the message was none other than the Iraq War and our national policy of warfare in general.

You would reply “So? Who did not know that George W. Bush and for that matter the Bush family is anything other than a bunch of warmongering globalists?” Well, THE POPE is what makes it an issue here. Now due to the nature of his position, the pope is SUPPOSED to be OFFICIALLY anti – war. But realize that state visits involving highly influential dignitaries are extremely sensitive matters with every detail agreed to and choreographed in advance in order to remove even the appearance of an insult by both the parties involved and the populations that they represent. And yes, a gigantic percentage of the national and global Roman Catholic Church, from laity to high ranking church officials, deeply oppose the Iraq War and what it represents: a major and global escalation of warfare and related tactics either directly (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) or by proxy (i.e. encouraging Ethiopia to invade Somalia). So the playing of this song – which would have been extraordinary even absent this context – would have not occurred without prior personal approval from Pope Benedict XVI himself. And Pope Benedict XVI would NEVER have given said approval unless he supported our military policy on some level, even if that support was not full or official.

Keep in mind: the pope is not under any obligation to make a public ceremony of meeting the president when visiting this country, and he certainly is not beholden to being subjected to conduct that he and his members find offensive and disagreeable while there. So had this not been acceptable to the pope, Bush would have asked to play the song, the pope would have said no, and that would have been it. Had Bush insisted, the pope would have simply refused to meet Bush in a public ceremony (or at all). Under those circumstances, NO ONE would have asked why the pope refused to meet with Bush, for the pope meets with virtually everybody. Instead, it would have been asked why Bush failed to receive the pope. And under those circumstances, an appropriate low level Vatican functionary would have been assigned the duty of “leaking” Bush’s completely unreasonable, inappropriate, and quite frankly INSANE demands to play A WAR SONG IN SUPPORT OF A WAR THAT THE VATICAN’S LONG AND WELL KNOWN POSITION IS TO OPPOSE during the visit to the (already hostile) foreign press, with the result being an international public relations firestorm. In short, on a matter such as this, the pope has all the leverage. He would not have exercised said leverage to consent to this highly unusual request – and in the process crossed the substantial portion of his church (possibly even a clear majority!) that oppose this war – had he not supported the politics, policy, and propaganda behind it on some level. Evidence of this is the absolute glee of the pro – war crowd. 

And then after the Bush reception of the pope (which incidentally was not only unprecedented, but would have been IMPOSSIBLE before Billy Graham’s evangelical – Roman Catholic ecumenism, IMPOSSIBLE before Ronald Reagan created white Roman Catholic and evangelical political ecumenism, and IMPOSSIBLE before Reagan established official diplomatic relations with the Vatican including the Roman Catholic Church’s own ambassador who must be appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative one … someone PLEASE explain to me how this DOES NOT VIOLATE the First Amendment’s ban on the government’s favoring any one religious view over another) there was a reception that included Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts at minimum. Robert Kennedy may have been there too, but Kathryn Jean Lopez, the token minority at the National Review, does not include him as a “favorite” of hers. This woman, who has lately taken to blatantly cheerleading for our nation’s institutions and culture to increasingly reflect – and be governed by – Roman Catholicism, actually claimed that the event “was a terrific celebration at the White House of the pontiff, religious freedom, and  Catholicism“! And here is another entry from this loathsome enemy of Jesus Christ where she manages to A) claim that this nation is prosperous, virtuous, and free because it was founded on Roman Catholic principles (a notion which no doubt will soon be reflected in the religious right’s approved history books an curriculum), B) insult Protestants by comparing it to Mitt Romney’s “accept Mormons as Christians evangelicals just as Roman Catholics accepted you or be declared a bigot and the enemy” speech, and C) make a gratuitous “joking” slam against Protestants just for the fun of it. (This woman is still fuming over the evangelical refusal to bow to the notion that not being in the Roman Catholic Church places them on equal footing with Mormons, oneness pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, or any other crackpot cult group that wants to lay claim to Jesus Christ.)

Now Christians, I know a lot of you view Islam as a global threat to our faith, freedom, prosperity, culture, and way of life, believe that this threat should be met militarily, and for that reason support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror in general in some form. I respect those views in the hearts of sincere and well – informed Christians that hold them; I just happen to disagree with them. Still, such Christians have to start investigating the history of the Bush family, their national and international political/business/social associations and activities, and also those of the globalist societies that they are members of or consort with (which now, let us face it, incontrovertibly includes the Roman Catholic Church … this may be gratuitous, but let me remind you that the meeting of Bush and Benedict was literally one between a member of the family that made a lot of money off the Nazi regime and a former member of the regime itself … Benedict was literally a Hitler youth).

Also, study the political, military, and FINANCIAL decisions made in pursuit of this war. It bears no resemblance to actually capturing and punishing the people that have been attacking us and our interests since the early 1990s (in response, let me remind you, to our long term threats, provocations, and military actions against THEM), neutralizing any future threats, or containing whatever threat to the west and its allies that Islam allegedly poses. I will say this: the full scale invasion of foreign nations strategy of Islam has been effectively abandoned ever since their defeat by Charles Martel at Tours. The reason is THEOLOGICAL: the Muslims sincerely believed that their moon god was fighting for them at the time, was responsible for all of their victories, and that global military conquest followed by their version of the endtimes was at hand. So, when they were defeated in such a decisive manner, that forced a change in their theological outlook. Thus, despite the presence of 1 billion Muslims in the world, no one can name the last time that there has been a full scale invasion and subjugation of a non – Muslim country. (By contrast, Muslim areas have been invaded and/or controlled by the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, India, etc. in just the past 50 – 75 years!) Why is this the case?

Again, refer to the fact that THERE ARE NOW ONE BILLION MUSLIMS. Immigration, evangelism, and reproduction has proven to be a much more effective method of spreading their faith than the sword, and if anything going off and launching an invasion of any western nation (which would be technologically superior AND have the backing of other western allies) would not only be suicide, but it would lead to crackdowns of the very same liberal immigration policies that have allowed millions of Muslims to enter (and spread their faith to) western nations over the past few decades. As such, the Bosnia – Serbia – Kosovo mess is a perfect illustration of the current Islam strategy. And who did the United States back? Why the very Muslims that brazenly stole a large chunk of a Christian nation for themselves. 

Which proves that the entire war on terror AND the basis for it is a sham. Were it real, we would have done two things.

1) We would have gone after specific groups with a history of violence against us and our allies AND the nations that supply them with money, weapons, and hiding places. America has done the opposite by not only maintaining diplomatic relations with known terror sponsors like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority (which is actually the closeted homosexual Yasser Arafat’s PLO, people!) to speak nothing of our “special relationship” with Pakistan (which we had with Iraq not too ago!), but we are increasing the pressure on Israel to negotiate with Hamas (just as we forced them to negotiate with the PLO, and see where THAT got Israel … less land, more intifadas, rocket attacks, a collapsing economy, and a deteriorating internal political situation). Excuse me, but what are we supposed to gain by declaring the domestic army of a sovereign nation (Iran’s Revolutionary Guard) to be a “terrorist group”? Even better: what justifies this action? The ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE that they are helping folks that share their religion FIGHT THE SUPERPOWER THAT INVADED THE NATION NEXT DOOR? Sure, like if the Soviet Union had invaded Canada and Mexico during the Cold War we would have just sat around twiddling our thumbs waiting to be next. We were willing to go to start a nuclear war over the Soviet Union putting missiles in Cuba, but Iran is supposed to just do nothing after we A) put them on our axis of evil list, B) attack the regime of the neighboring country that we put in power to attack THEM in the 1980s, C) attack the nearby Afghanistan regime that we put in power to drive out the Soviets in the 1980s, and D) spend YEARS leading an international chorus demanding economic sanctions against them after the manner that caused the deaths of from 500,000 to 1,000,000 people OF THE NATION NEXT DOOR, sanctions that were used to weaken THE NATION NEXT DOOR to prepare for an invasion of THE NATION NEXT DOOR. Why? BECAUSE IRAN IS STARTING THE VERY SAME NUCLEAR PROGRAM THAT WE ALLOWED PAKISTAN TO COMPLETE WITHOUT BATTING AN EYE? What makes it OK for Pakistan to have the potential for weapons of mass destruction but not Iran or Iraq, ESPECIALLY SINCE USAMA BIN LADEN IS HIDING IN PAKISTAN RIGHT NOW!?!? Oh well, ignore all of that information. Just repeat the right wing line: Iran hates us because we are prosperous and free and they are a bunch of backwards savages with a strange religion. We are such a peace – loving, fair nation that has never bothered or been a threat to anyone but instead has always tried to act in everyone’s best interests, so hatred, fear, resentment, etc. against us just HAS to be irrational, right? Well put it to you this way: we starved 1 million innocent Iraqis to death knowing full well that the people who ran that country would always have plenty of food to eat. Hmmm …

2. Much simpler (and shorter) than 1: practically end immigration from Muslim countries. But notice how anyone who proposes this gets condemned in the international press and by all of the “relevant” political and religious leaders as a dangerous far right xenophobe. 

Since the Bush administration (and the administrations that preceded it and will follow it) are on record as vehemently opposing those steps – and anyone who advocates them! – what they are obviously engaging in is not a war on terror or on radical Islam. Instead, it is a policy of increased militarization for increased militarization’s sake. Even more concerning than the actual military action (again whether directly waged by us or by proxy) are the matters concerning intelligence, national security, and money. For the first time in world history, the various global powers have virtually carte blanche to monitor the personal and financial activities of any person or group. All it takes is an allegation of being a terrorist – a loosely defined term – and you can be detained indefinitely and without due process, including but not limited to being secretly whisked overseas to a nation where torture is legal. And where there are still (for now) limits to what they can do against people without sparking a public outcry, not so regarding assets: money and property. Keep in mind, they do not have to seize it, which would raise due process issues. All they have to do is freeze it to keep you from using it, and it has the same effect, and doing so to any individual’s or group’s (think church!) assets on a “temporary basis” requires virtually no evidence at all that needs to be made public. In the course of prosecuting this, the government has been quite prudent. They have gone after large numbers of people and groups that they know are probably guilty while at the same time going after people that they know are innocent. They are not after the guilty folks, because claiming that they are fighting terror by shutting down some charity that raises a few thousand dollars a year for Hamas when Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. are funneling them hundreds of millions in cash and weapons (again, something that we are doing nothing about) is ridiculous. Instead, they are seeing how far they can get away with detaining and freezing the assets of the innocent. The answer: pretty far indeed. It is only going to be a matter of time before what has been made acceptable to people and organizations with Arabic and Muslim names is going to be commonly accepted by these cultures to everyone, just as everyone now accepts being searched at airports (which the citizenry would have opposed tooth and nail less than a generation ago). 

So make no mistake: Benedict’s allowing the Battle Hymn of the Republic to be played during a state visit (which, incidentally, was not given for the Dalai Lama, a fact which not a few Buddhists expressed chagrin over, leading the loathsome Michael Medved to dedicate a show to denigrating Buddhism and the Dalai Lama … hard to appreciate coming from a religious right type that will go to the mat defending Mormonism) was nothing less than an expression of support for the Bush regime – and the new world order globalists that he serves – policy of global military and economic aggression. It also signals that Pope Benedict XVI himself is part and parcel of and servant to this same group of global imperialists just like Bush. And most importantly of all, it signals that Bush and Benedict have become brazen and bold enough to publicly celebrate this fact, with no thought given to the notion that they have to hide their ties, beliefs, and intentions. They could care less about who knows, just as Bush could care less about his approval ratings.

I am honestly of the opinion that this event was one of triumphalism. They were announcing to America – and to the world – that the globalist takeover of this nation was complete, and that America is irrevocably signed, sealed, and delivered. I do not know how long it is going to take, but everything else is going to be just a matter of winding things down and allowing things to fall into place. It could take 5 years, it could take 100, but the global consolidation is going to happen. After all, it is no accident that Bush’s releasing proposals on global warming that endorse our moving ever closer to global economic and political integration was timed to so closely coincide with the pope’s visit. After all, the pope has been on board with the global warming agenda for some time now.

It is also a good time to point out how both sides of the political aisle have contributed to these developments. For instance, conservatism pulled off the merging of evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jews to create the ecumenical pluralist religious right, and in doing so effectively muted the political voice of Protestant fundamentalists. Liberalism, meanwhile, contributed their part by allowing any criticism of this state of affairs to be called “anti – Catholic bigotry” (piggybacking on the black civil rights movement!). Indeed, such rhetoric was key to creating the climate where the Supreme Court could rule to legalize school vouchers: the religious right was successful to use the language of the left to convince the body politic that the only reason why no one had ever seen the obvious wisdom of sending low income inner city PROTESTANT black children to Roman Catholic schools en masse (after all, they provide SUCH GREAT DISCIPLINE for the boys and OUTSTANDING MORAL INSTRUCTION for the girls!) was because of the HORRIBLE discrimination and persecution against Catholics in our past. Hilarious that the very same conservatives that will go to their grave denying that this country was ever racist against blacks – or if it were that any legal remedy is required to address it – are perfectly willing to sit around and call virtually everyone living in this country 50 years ago of allowing their interpretation of the First Amendment to be motivated (or distorted) by their animus of Roman Catholics. If nothing else shows who is actually running this country now, that does. 

Since the American piece has fallen into place (even if all of the details have yet to play out, but trust me they will in very short order to the point where this nation will be unrecognizable within 10 years, and no I am not talking about demographics), what – apart from getting even more involved in the third world, which by the way George W. Bush was a huge trailblazer on – is next? My conjecture: Israel is next. 

Now please view Independent Conservative’s antichrist One Has Landed. Pope Benedict XVI in America. Why This Event is Nothing to Cheer About! for a more theological treatment of the implications of the Pope visiting America and being so vigorously received. It includes the following:

 

Advertisements

Posted in anti - Christ, antichrist, beast, big business, Christianity, Council on Foreign Relations, fascism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: