While a significant number of people have known about the Bush family's involvement in secret societies, the public has known relatively little about John Kerry's background and political connections until recently. The fact is, Kerry is very well connected to old money/United Nations interests. For example, his current wife Teresa Heinz Kerry is an heir of the super wealthy Heinz (ketchup) family.

             Like some of the past members of his wife's family, John Kerry is a prominent member of the pro-UN Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR agenda which includes an increased role for the UN in the Middle East, insists on Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, Judea, Samaria and a large portion of Jerusalem. This move would make it all but impossible for Israel to defend herself.

             Interestingly, while Kerry is now a professing Roman Catholic, his roots on his father's side are Jewish.(4) More specifically, his father is 100% Jewish and was the son of prominent Jewish business people in Prague (Czech Republic). (5) For whatever reason, Kerry has chosen not to reveal this important part of his heritage during the campaign.

             Would it be fair to say that John Kerry is quite possibly the most complex presidential candidate in US history? Think about it: a pro-UN Catholic Jew with Eastern European roots, who happens to belong to the CFR and the Skull & Bones, and who takes a hard- line approach against Israel's Jews while being soft on Palestinian terrorists. It begs the question, "Who is John Kerry?"

             The Kerry enigma continues when it comes to domestic issues. First elected as a senator from Massachusetts in 1984 he has failed to sponsor a single successful piece of healthcare legislation during his 19 years in Congress. He hasn't accomplished much of anything else either because environmental issues have commanded most of his energy and passion. U. S. News & World Report states, "Environmental advocacy is one of the few consistent themes in Kerry's legislative career? Two of the three substantive bills that have passed with Kerry's sponsorship? dealt with the environment: One protected marine mammals from commercial fishing nets, and the other ensured funding for marine research." (6)

             Kerry may indeed be classified as a "hyper-environmentalist." He strongly opposed drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, which could have made the US less dependent on foreign oil. He has also been a regular guest at international conferences on global warming. In fact, his relationship with Teresa began at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. (7) That event was widely viewed as a gathering of new age earth worshipers; it was here that Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev were dubbed leaders of the global environmental movement.

             When it comes to family issues Kerry consistently votes to the left of most Senate democrats.

             He voted against the ban on "partial-birth" abortions, for instance, and was one of 15 senators to oppose the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman and allows states to disregard marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples by other states. (8)
             Kerry holds "a perfect liberal score" in National Journal's 2003 rating. (9) In my opinion, if he were to serve two terms in the White House, by the end of his presidency homosexuals could have civil union or full marriage status in all 50 states.

Is George Bush Any Better? [ Back to Top ]

             While Kerry is openly supporting civil unions for homosexual couples, President Bush has been a staunch defender of family values?right? In truth, he has wavered repeatedly in this area, trying to appear pro-family (which he probably is) while simultaneously attempting to secure the homosexual vote.

             According to an article in Agape Press entitled "Christian Leaders Disturbed by Bush's Mixed Messages on Same-Sex Marriage," our president has been less than consistent in his stance. The article states:

             A disturbing report reveals that shortly after endorsing Marriage Protection Week, President Bush wrote a letter of praise to a homosexual church that performs thousands of same-sex "weddings" every year.

             According to World Net Daily, the letter from President Bush was sent to the founding congregation of the Metropolitan Community Church in Los Angeles on the occasion of its 35th anniversary. The report quotes the president's letter as saying "By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing God's love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people's hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives." The letter goes on to say, "this milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God's faithfulness to your congregation."

             Meanwhile, the pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church of Los Angeles, Rev. Neil Thomas, wonders how Bush can denounce the right of homosexuals to marry in their churches and suggest they are incapable of forming healthy marriages on the one hand, while on the other hand he rejoices with MCC in "God's faithfulness" to a homosexual congregation that blesses such unions.

             American Family Association spokesman Ed Vitagliano wonders the same thing. He told World Net Daily he is disappointed by Bush's actions, calling it "politics as usual." He said it is an example of a politician speaking out of both sides of his mouth, trying to appease two groups at the same time when those groups are after entirely different objectives and uphold completely different worldviews.(10)

             Another lesser known influence in Bush's wavering position on homosexual issues might be the fact that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. In other words, it all hits close to home!

             President Bush has sent conflicting messages on other issues as well. For example, last year he sent a supportive letter of congratulations to The Robert Muller School in Texas, a new age/occultic school that openly bases its concepts on the teachings of Alice Bailey and Lucifer Publishing Company (now known as Lucis Trust). I thoroughly documented my findings on The Robert Muller School in Chapter 7 of my book The New World Religion.

             As we have already mentioned in previous issues, George W. has also accomplished a feat in education that Bill Clinton could not - by getting the United States to rejoin UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization). UNESCO is arguably the most powerful agency of the United Nations. Along with generating the organization's propaganda, it oversees the implementation of its education agenda worldwide. Getting the US to rejoin UNESCO had been the UN's number one goal ever since Ronald Reagan pulled us out of that agency in the 1980s. The agency was deemed a threat to American interests and a subversive influence to our education system.

             Congress had quickly squelched the Clinton Administration's efforts when it floated a "trial balloon" on this same issue. But hardly anyone lifted a finger when the Bush Administration announced its intentions. Conservatives had either become too trusting of Bush or had completely fallen asleep. Whatever the case, it is now a done deal. (We will be sharing more on UNESCO and what it means for American education in a future issue.)

             In the area of religion, the Bush's have shown very little discernment. A few months ago, my wife and I were appalled as we watched Laura Bush tell Katie Couric on The Today Show that the Harry Potter books are her newest favorite children's series. She went out of her way to give an unmistakably clear endorsement of Harry Potter. Former occultists have referred to these books as the single most effective way of introducing children to witchcraft and occult spirituality. Had Hillary Clinton endorsed the Potter series while in the White House, there would have been immediate public outrage among conservative Christians.

             In addition, if you will recall, President Bush entered an Islamic Mosque (somewhere along the East Coast) only a few days after 9/11 and kneeled to the ground, touching his face to the floor of this "holy" place. I would not have believed it were it not for the fact that I saw it with my own eyes during a news telecast.

             On another occasion, Bush declared Allah and the Christian God to be the "same god." When a reporter asked the President if he believes "Muslims worship the same Almighty" as Christians do, Bush responded, "I do say that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every person. And I believe we worship the same god."(11) George and Laura showed their lack of discernment again during a visit to Japan when they became the first White House occupants to pay homage to a Shinto shrine. Japanese Christians were deeply offended by these actions. As Christian author Chuck Crismier stated, "When the first of the Ten Commandments fall, the rest fall like dominoes."(12)

             Then there is the matter of meddling with Israel's internal affairs by trying to carve up the tiny nation into several smaller indefensible districts. Bush's "Roadmap to Peace," if he follows Colin Powell's advice, will have non-Israeli military forces (possibly UN troops) policing Israel's borders and eventually the nation as a whole.

             Under the Bush Administration we have also witnessed the fastest expansion of our federal deficit in US history, albeit some of this deficit spending was justified due to the fallout from 9/11. And what about the greatest restructuring of US government ever under Homeland Security? This powerful, potentially invasive agency, if in the wrong hands, could surrender US sovereignty to the United Nations. Whether it is extreme naivety or simply playing politics, it is disconcerting to see our president compromising on so many critical issues.

George W. Bush and His Faith [ Back to Top ]

             President Bush has been described by many as "the most vocally religious president in generations." On April 29th, 2004, PBS aired a special that examined his spiritual side. The following summary was derived from that program.

             President Bush's family was Episcopalian - church-going, but not particularly devout. However, the First Lady, Laura Bush came from a United Methodist background. George W. initially began going to church with her just to overcome his drinking problem which was causing family disarray. But he supposedly went on to accept Christ shortly after turning 40. His decision came following a personal conversation with Billy Graham. George recounts, "I realized that I had to be born again."

             In the fall of 1985 George joined the Midland (Texas) Men's Community Bible Study group - an evangelical fellowship of approximately 120 men who met regularly to study the Bible. He attended this fellowship faithfully for about 2 years before moving to Washington D.C. Many of the beliefs he now holds were allegedly born out of his Bible study experience as a new believer at the Midland men's group.

             During his race for the White House, at the 3rd Republican debate in Des Moines, the moderator asked George what political philosopher or thinker he most identified with, and why. He responded, "Christ, because he changed by heart." On another occasion Bush stated, "My relationship with God through Christ gives me meaning and direction." On the subject of God and government, he has said, "We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God." And during his 2nd inauguration as governor of Texas he confidently told colleagues, "I believe that God wants me to be president."

Source: PBS Frontline, "The Jesus Factor," (29 April 2004).

Positions on Iraq [ Back to Top ]

             No issue is currently of greater concern to the American public than Iraq. Therefore, the position of each candidate on this explosive subject will weigh heavily in this fall's election. Kerry, while voting against the first war with Iraq in 1991, did vote in favor of this latest war. So any attempt to distance himself from the current situation - now that things are more volatile - is illegitimate. Either candidate, it appears, would have taken us into Iraq, although perhaps on different timetables.

             Now that we are there, polls show that Americans are deeply divided on how to deal with the situation, with approximately one half strongly supporting President Bush's efforts to continue forward, and the other half wanting to bring our troops home immediately. To help us decide which view is best, let's take a look at the Administration's record on Iraq and its "War on Terror."

             To the credit of the President and his top advisors, there have been no acts of terrorism committed on American soil since 9/11. This in itself could almost be considered a miracle, given the large number of militant Muslims who would like to harm America. Such protection did not come by accident and has taken a lot of hard work on the part of many professionals in our nation's security and law enforcement agencies.

             By the grace of God and with heightened vigilance among our military people, there were also fewer acts of terror committed overseas during the last 12 months than at any time in recent years. Most acts of terror have been limited to Israel and other parts of the Middle East, especially Iraq. Islamic militants from numerous Arab countries have been pouring into Iraq to help rebels fight the American coalition. While this has made matters more difficult for our soldiers it has, on the other hand, kept the top terrorist networks preoccupied with Iraq, allowing the US to fight terrorists in that country rather than here at home, at least for the time being.

             US forces have also succeeded in capturing Saddam Hussein and most of his top commanding officers - no small task! And Libya's Muammar Qadhafi has decided to "come clean" and withdraw his support of terrorism for fear that he might be next. The Bush Administration has made significant progress in Afghanistan as well, where many of the Taliban's leaders have been either captured or killed. Most of the remaining Taliban/al Qaeda loyalists have fled into remote mountain areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Meanwhile, the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his closest aides continues to intensify.

             In Iraq itself, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in early April, 61% of Iraqis say that ousting Saddam was worth the war, and 53% say that their country would be less safe if the US left. In the same poll, however, when asked, "Should the US leave Iraq immediately?" 57% of Iraqis said "yes."(13) The interpretation: Most Iraqis are relieved they no longer have to fear Saddam's death squads and torture chambers, and they are glad to have electricity and running water, but their overall hatred for America still runs deep and could flare up in a moment given the right circumstances - as the recent violence in Fallujah has demonstrated.

             While President Bush has had some notable success in his campaign against terror, he has experienced some major setbacks as well. They have come on several fronts:

   a) The Administration vastly underestimated the percentage of Iraqis who would oppose the US-led effort.
   b) The cost of the war so far ($150 billion) is already more than twice the Administration's original estimate, and the war is nowhere close to being over.
   c) No weapons of mass destruction have been found. This has been a huge embarrassment to the President and has made it much more difficult to keep the American public and foreign allies behind his effort.

             The President's problems have been compounded by misinformation propagated in the "international community." Some foreign news sources have irresponsibly reported that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. The fact is France, Russia, and even the United Nations at one point admitted that Iraq possessed WMDs. It is a well-established fact that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds during the late 1980s.

             The real question therefore should be, "Did he destroy his remaining stockpile of WMDs since that time?" Given Saddam's record, this is highly unlikely. What is more plausible is that he began moving them out of Iraq as soon as he realized Bush was serious. In fact, our sources in Jerusalem reported that Israeli intelligence noticed large convoys of trucks moving between Iraq and Syria as early as August and September of 2002. There is little doubt that Syria now holds much of Saddam's stash of chemical and biological weapons. (Does this mean Syria is next?)

             President Bush's single biggest mistake was that he waited too long to go into Iraq after announcing his intentions. He succumbed to Colin Powell's pressure to try to "get the UN on board first." As one should have expected, the UN used every tactic imaginable to delay US action, thereby giving Saddam ample time to move his WMDs.

             As far as Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons is concerned, we may never know the full truth on this matter. Whatever the case may be, President Bush should have never given nuclear weapons as a major reason for going to war. It was not necessary. The fact that Saddam had tortured or killed several hundred thousand innocent Iraqis - including thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons - would have been reason enough, politically speaking.

             I personally believe this was not the right time to take on Iraq. If anything, the US should have gone into Sudan to come to the aid of persecuted Christians who had been begging for help. Few would have opposed such an effort considering the well-documented human rights violations that had occurred. The war would have been short, inexpensive, and would have sent a clear message to other terror-sponsoring nations. It would have been the right thing to do, given the fact that more people were being persecuted in Sudan than in Iraq, and that most of those being tortured and terrorized in Sudan were Christians. (Nearly 2 million Sudanese Christians have been executed so far by the ruthless Islamic regime.)

             However, since Bush did not choose to take this path, once he made the decision to invade Iraq, he should have moved swiftly without trying to get UN approval. Had he done so, WMDs would likely have been found and Europeans would have had no case against the US. But hindsight is 20/20 as the saying goes.

             The question now is, what should the US do under the present circumstances? There is no easy solution. If the Coalition pulls out, Iraq will collapse into anarchy or civil war. The situation would be far worse than before the US invasion. But if we stay, more and more of our troops will be brought home in body bags.

             Now that President Bush has committed us to this war I believe there is no choice but to stay the course. We must provide our soldiers with whatever they need to do the job, realizing that some of their lives will be sacrificed. As long as the war keeps enemies of America preoccupied so that they cannot unleash their terror on civilian targets here at home, the war will be viewed as being justified politically. (Spiritually, that's a whole other matter!)

             Whatever the results, it is critical that the Coalition limit UN involvement on key matters of governance. Any role the UN plays should be secondary, such as providing food and medical relief. It would be a tragedy if American, British, and other coalition countries pay for this war with their blood and taxes only to turn Iraq over to the United Nations in the end. Yet, this could very well happen.

             If John Kerry were elected, many of our troops would be coming home soon, but only because UN forces would be replacing them. Kerry is committed to the UN and the cause of global government. Handing over control of Iraq would give the UN a foothold in the Middle East, along with giving it the opportunity to appear as a savior, called in to "fix the problem and bring peace."

             If George Bush stays in the White House, the results unfortunately could be much the same. If he eventually yields to pressure from Colin Powell, Tony Blair, European interests and an impatient US public, he too might bring in the UN to bail himself out of a seemingly impossible situation. However, under Kerry this process would move more quickly than under Bush who might resist UN control for a time. Regardless of who our next president is, there is a high probability that when everything is said and done, the UN will be calling the shots in Iraq. (America would likely maintain a military presence and continue to foot most of the bill, much like it did after WWII in Germany.)

Who Will It Be? [ Back to Top ]

             So, if John Kerry and George Bush are both Bonesmen, and if both are likely to turn Iraq over to the United Nations, who would be the best choice for president, or does it even matter? I have been asked this question repeatedly over the last few months and have put much time into thinking and praying about the upcoming election. Here are my thoughts.

             We know that there is currently no viable third party alternative. Ralph Nader, although strong on consumer issues, is more radical on the environment than Kerry, and if elected, would involve Uncle Sam even more in every facet of our lives through ever increasing government regulations. Other lesser-known candidates who have represented the Libertarian and US Taxpayers parties, for example, do not have the funding to generate the visibility necessary for a serious run at the White House. While some of these candidates, like Howard Phillips, have given it their best shot in past elections, they have rarely gotten more than one percent of the general vote.

             If we vote for John Kerry we might as well put Ted Kennedy in the White House, since their voting records and stand on social issues is about the same. If elected, Kerry would undoubtedly pave the way for greater immorality in America. Whether on the issue of abortion or civil unions, he would nearly always side with the most liberal, anti-Christian position.

             George W., on the other hand, has wavered on many fronts and has a family history of loyalty to the new world order. Is he:

   a) well-intentioned, but naive?
   b) well-intentioned, but politically astute - trying to outmaneuver his opponents?
   c) or, a wolf in sheep's clothing, subtly taking us in the wrong direction?

             In the end only God can know his heart and judge his motives with certainty.
             I have tried to understand some of President Bush's inconsistent actions and believe that he may for the most part be well-intentioned, but is trying to be all things to all people rather than simply doing what is right. Yet the fact is, to have any chance of staying in power in America today, you have to cater to a wide range of ideologies and religious views. This, in itself, is an indictment against our nation!

A Call to Repentance [ Back to Top ]

             One of the core issues that must be addressed by both candidates as well as the American people is, "Does America have the right to police the world?" "Has God really given us a moral mandate to lead the world and to force our ways on others?" If so, we had better be sure we are living up to His standard. How can we justify our actions overseas and expect God's blessings on our endeavors, if we have turned our back on Him as a nation?

             Last month's revelations about the humiliating sexually-oriented abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib is unfortunately a reflection of America's character. A nation with a high level of immorality will have a high number of immoral soldiers who commit indecent acts. Every American who learned of what happened to those prisoners -including at least one act of forced sodomy - should have been deeply grieved. One Iraqi prisoner reportedly even died of cardiac arrest as a result of his traumatic experience. What a tragic way to win over the Islamic people!

             With thousands of homosexual couples lining up in our cities, with America's pornography sweeping the globe, and with mobs of depraved citizens protesting in our streets to keep "their right" to kill unborn babies, do we truly have a moral advantage over our adversaries? If we expect God's blessing, wouldn't it seem, from His standpoint, that we should get our own house in order before taking on enemies in distant lands?

             The fact is, God has been incredibly merciful to America. His undeserved patience may be due in part to a significant remnant of Christians who have been interceding on behalf of our country - praying that God would give us a little more time to repent and turn to Him. But how much longer will a righteous and just God wait before judging America?

             I believe we are in a temporary lull before a big storm. All of us should use this time to examine our lives and humbly bring ourselves into line with God's will. We must begin with wholehearted repentance and complete surrender to God, deciding to follow Jesus regardless of the cost!

             As we seek His face, let us pray for the safety of our Christian soldiers - as God is capable of supernaturally protecting His own. Let's also pray for the salvation of unsaved troops and civilians who are caught in the middle of this war. And, let us not forget to pray for our president.

             The way to support a president who professes Christ is to back him with prayer, but to hold him accountable nonetheless when his actions are contrary to God's Word. In spite of his weaknesses or possibly because of them, we must specifically ask God to grant President Bush and his closest advisors wisdom and courage to do what is right against great odds.

             Apart from the Lord there is no way out of the current situation. As a nation, we must put our complete faith and trust in Him and live in steadfast obedience to His Word! ?

             "But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice?.For thou, Lord, wilt bless the righteous; with favor wilt thou compass [surround them] as with a shield." - Psalm 5:11a & 12

             * * * * * * * * *

             Gary Kah and his family currently reside near Indianapolis. Gary is the former Europe & Middle East Trade Specialist for the Government of Indiana. He has authored two Christian books - En Route to Global Occupation and The New World Religion - and has produced videos on related subjects. His research newsletter, books and video presentations may be ordered by dialing 317.290.4673. Or, write to:


Hope for the World
P O Box 899
Noblesville, IN 46061
USA


1   W. J. McCormick, Christ, the Christian, and Freemasonry (Belfast: Great Joy Publications, 1984), 112.
2   Ibid.
3   Dr. Alva J. McClain, "Freemasonry and Christianity," The Sword of the Lord (5 December 1975): 9. Dr. McClain was the long-time president of Grace Brethren Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. This article was a reprint of an earlier lecture delivered by McClain.
4    W. B. Howard and Barry Chamish, "John Kerry Expos?," Despatch Magazine (March 2004): 39, printed in Burpengary. Q., Australia.
5    Ibid.
6    Dan Gilgoff, "Resisting Labels," U.S. News & World Report (16 February 2004): 22.
7    Ibid.
8    Ibid.
9    Ibid.
10    Fred Jackson, Jenni Parker, and Allie Martin, "Christian Leaders Disturbed by Bush's Mixed Messages On Same-Sex Marriage," Agape Press (12 November 2003)
11    Charles Crismier III, "Bush Defends Islam," Viewpoint (Spring 2004): 8.
12    Ibid.
13    CNN Headline News (28 April 2004), quoting results of a Gallup Poll conducted in early April.