I received a link in an email from We Hold These Truths — A Strait Gate Ministry. One thing led to another, and I found myself reading this: Ron Paul and the Protocols of the Neo-Con Elders | NewsReal Blog.
Now, I'm not a Ron Paul "supporter." In fact, I've written what his supporters would called a scathing attack. Well, when Jesus called them serpents, of course they felt attacked. I'm not saying Ron Paul is a Pharisee, per se, but I have said he's not a Christian though he calls himself one. To be clear, I'm still working on being a Christian myself. I want to be one. I just know I'm still receiving the effect (punishment) of the cause that was my iniquitous (serpentine) behavior, sometimes that I actually thought was a blessing (confused).
I don't want to make this a huge post. Let me get to the point.
The David Horowitz site poster/author, Jeanette Pryor, takes Ron Paul's statements and juxtaposes them against passages from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which most people believe post-dates a pamphlet as follows:
Elements of the text in the Protocols were plagiarized from the 1864 book, Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu), written by the French satirist Maurice Joly. Joly's work attacks the political ambitions of Napoleon III using Machiavelli as a diabolical plotter in Hell as a stand-in for Napoleon's views. In the book, Machiavelli describes a series of steps that he intends to take to become ruler of the world.
Since it was illegal to criticize the monarchy, Joly had the pamphlet printed in Belgium, then tried to smuggle it back into France. The police confiscated as many copies as they could, and it was banned. After it was traced to Joly, he was tried on April 25, 1865, and sentenced to 15 months in prison at Sainte-Pelagie. Joly committed suicide in 1878.
The Joly book was in turn based on material borrowed from a popular novel of the time by EugÃ¨ne Sue titled The Mysteries of the People, in which those plotting to rule the world were the Jesuits instead of Napoleon III. Neither the Joly book nor the Sue book mentioned either Jews or Masons.
So, what's my point? The David Horowitz site poster/author, Jeanette Pryor, is suggesting that Ron Paul is overreaching (to put it politely). Jeanette writes, "There is no intent here to assert that Paul agrees with this anti-Semitic fabrication."
The point Jeanette wants us to accept, regardless, is that the Protocols are fake and Ron Paul's complaints against the neocons bear striking resemblance to the Protocols, so ... it is at least possible that the neocons are nothing as Ron Paul is painting them to be.
Here's the point though. Even if the Protocols were fabricated by the Russians, the Protocols were based upon a critique of Napoleon III, who was in fact rather despotic in many ways even though he did things many also consider to have been improvements, and they were also based upon the Jesuits, who were a military order (an oversimplification) out for Roman Catholic world dominance, including by military means if needs be.
So, just because Ron Paul's points can parallel the Protocols, that does not necessarily do what Jeanette Pryor was hoping to accomplish. What it does do is draw parallels between the neocons and what Joly claimed to see in the Napoleon III's regime and EugÃ¨ne Sue claimed to see in the Jesuits (if I understand Joly's and Sue's works).
The truth is that the neocons base their ideology largely on Leo Strauss. Much of what has followed Straussianism fits Ron Paul's description of the neocons. It's all documented. He's not making it up.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)