The Illuminati and the New World Order

I'm not a big conspiracy theorist fan.  I have no doubt the world domination conspiracies have many adherents and true believers.  I was a young man when I first heard about the Illuminati, and it becomes the underlying theme in the Dan Brown book and movie, Angels and Demons, and other pop culture references.  Many assert its members have included Winston Churchill, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the Rothschild family, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski.  Almost every assassination plot can find an easy connection to the Illuminati, it seems, as they seek to usher in the New World Order.

When I was a younger man, I was mildly intrigued by all the Kennedy assassination theories.  I finally concluded I would have to wait for some future day to discern the truth, after visiting Dealey Plaza for the first time.  Then it occurred to me that all I needed to do was wait for the sequel to National Treasure 2, since the answer was revealed in the Book of Secrets ;-)

As I have stated on numerous occasions throughout this blog, I try to find my truth in the middle of the road, and in my more rational moments I normally eschew extreme points of view.

When the state of Israel was created in 1947-48, it was miraculous in its inception.  Only one vote separated the opposition to its creation from successful passage of its charter.  The final vote granting statehood to Israel came from the United States of America in the United Nations Security Council.  Of its few allies in the world, the United States has always been the most reliable and steadfast until now. 

This morning I was looking for something else, and quite unexpectedly stumbled over this interview on YouTube. 

I did some checking.  It appears to be authentic, and the subject of the interview is Dr. Richard L. Rubenstein, Yale fellow, "Distinguished Professor of the Year", and Harvard Phd.  He states President Obama's intention is to "correct the historical mistake of the creation of the state of Israel." Dr. Rubenstein has been fighting against the Holocaust denials his whole career.  He believes President Obama due to his family heritage is extremely pro-Muslim -- to the point of "wanting to see the destruction of Israel."

I don't know how Dr. Rubenstein has arrived at his conclusions, but his assertions -- if true and credible -- (I hasten to add the qualifier) could pose a serious threat to the ongoing existence of the state of Israel.

Further, there are voices out there (are they really so far out these days?) asserting Obama's agenda (which any casual observer can only conclude is radial and extreme) was promoted openly in the sixties by two liberal professors, Cloward & Piven, when he was a student at Columbia University.  Their strategy was designed to end poverty in the United States by creating a socialist state guaranteeing a government income for all.  Incidentally, such an idea is absurd on its face because everywhere it's been tried it has failed miserably. 

I thought we were way beyond the grasp of such idiocy.  Apparently, not!  

The only reason any of this has even the slightest hint of credibility is that every single step this president and this Congress have taken since Obama's inauguration is trending rapidly in this direction.  I've simply never seen anything like this in my lifetime.  The lightning speed with which it is occurring is troubling.  I never thought in my wildest dreams it was even possible, and especially that it would happen inside America right under our noses.

Then it began to hit me recently.  What if universal health care wasn't about health care at all?  What if it was an intentional act to bankrupt America?  I have been mystified by it all along.  There is no rational fiscal policy on which it can rest and find any semblance of justification.  Who but a radical Marxist would come up with such a plan in the middle of a crippling recession? 

Republicans and Democrats had to link arms to make all this happen.  Blame the participants from both sides, not just Democrats.  Don't forget that TARP was hatched by Republicans.

What if "cap and trade" had nothing to do with global warming after all?  What if it has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors?

Why all the bailouts and stimulus bills?  Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally as Democrats to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.  It makes absolutely no sense to me!!!  But what if that's what they are attempting?

Why all the talk about legalizing illegal immigrants and resisting attempts by the state of Arizona to keep them out?  Have you actually read the Arizona law?  Click the link.  It's only ten pages long, and mirrors exactly the federal statutes already on the books.  Obama's lack of response to closing the borders has been stunning!  What if it's an intentional act to just give these 12 million potential new citizens free health care?  If we're entertaining socialism, why not go all the way?  It adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.  Bankrupt capitalism so socialism can finally be fully implemented.  Why not? 

I can't believe I'm even entertaining these thoughts, but what other explanation is there?  I await your scathing rebukes.  Comment below and set me straight again.  Put me out of my twisted pain.

Here's the most bitter pill of all.  This government has systematically set about to raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. They have put the entire tax burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, they aim to redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).

Ronald Reagan was the radical back in his day -- he wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

I know, stop me before I get crazy.  What I could never figure out was why this all seemed so irrational to me.  What if I'm actually sane and rational?  That's even more frightening, because then I have to conclude that this agenda is a purposeful and intentional act of treason.  That really stretches my finite little brain. 

But suddenly it's beginning to make more sense than ever before.  I made the mistake of thinking President Obama was acting in what he perceived to be our best interests as a nation.  That's what people want in their president.  The thought never really resonated with me that he might be doing something quite different. 

I usually reject conspiracy theories out of hand.  I don't like discussing secret combinations.  Such thoughts are radical.  Now I'm beginning to wonder if the radicals really are the radicals and the conspiracy theorists are the only rational thinkers left standing.  That's really a weird thought for me.

What is white is black and what is black is white.  What is good is evil and what is evil is good.  What is up is down and what is down is up.  "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"  (Isaiah 5:20).

What if the grand scheme is being implemented in ways we could never have imagined two years ago (and still resist) because we can't imagine it could be true?  What if Obama and his "regime" have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming and bankrupting the system?  Is that even possible? 

If no one is left standing and all the worker bees are now on the dole, then who's left for the over-taxed rich to exploit to earn enough to pay the taxes to support the welfare recipients?  This makes absolutely NO SENSE to me, yet it appears that's what the agenda adds up to.  The circular logic defies reason.  Reagan had it right -- you have to starve government to help the poor so they can be employed by the rich.

The other foreign policy reality is more sobering to me.  I never believed it would be possible in this way for America to distance herself from the state of Israel.  Our longstanding support and advocacy for the existence of the state of Israel has never been in dispute until now. 

And it's redefining my whole thought process on the question of Middle East diplomacy.

The Death of Innocence

Dealey Plaza

Dallas, Texas

Only those over the age of fifty will qualify for this post.  The question of the day is, "Where were you when Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas?"  Today is the 46th anniversary of that event, but its effects live on.

I was attending East High School.  It was my friend Doug's birthday.  The school was still reeling from its mourning of the deaths of two classmates, having just buried two seniors who were killed by a drunk driver earlier that month.  Lin Hewlett and Flemming Christensen's lives were senselessly ended only a month before on October 21st.  They were hardly in their graves before the tragic news of President Kennedy stunned the world, another promising life snuffed out inexplicably. 

For students at East High in 1963, it was another staggering body blow.

On November 22, 1963, a small group of us were huddled in the cafeteria of the school, passing around homemade cupcakes with candles, and the news reached our table.  Despite our celebratory mood, there was instantaneous soberness, shock and disbelief.  Someone had shot and killed the President of the United States?  Unthinkable!  Not in 1963!  Those kinds of acts were reserved for some dark chapter in history, like back in the day when Lincoln was shot and killed at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C.  But not now!

If no one knew Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather before that day, they certainly knew them thereafter.  I will never forget watching and re-watching Cronkite's report on black-and-white CBS TV News, choked with emotion as he removed his black horn-rimmed glasses and wiped away his tears as he made the somber pronouncement, "The President is dead."  It was unthinkable.  It was the era of the Beatles and Beach Boys when the decade began, but the Sixties would descend into a living hell of war protesting, racial upheaval and widespread psychadelic drug abuse.

The world mourned his passing for days, even years afterward.  Some spoke of it as the "end of Camelot."  There is never a year that passes but what articles are written (here's one that appeared today), specials are put together for TV, and we collectively recall that fateful day.  We never got to hear Lee Harvey Oswald testify in open court because he was himself assassinated by Jack Ruby, a nickel-and-dime hoodlum with Mafia ties who owned a nightclub in Dallas.  Ruby stood trial, was convicted, and died of lung cancer in prision while awaiting appeal.

No one who was alive in 1963 can seem to forget where they were and what they were doing on that infamous day.  We all recall it in complete detail.  It's as if time stood still.  Why?  I believe it is because for many of us it represented what I titled "the death of innocence." 

Evil was suddenly possible.  There were no barriers left.  Civility was dealt a severe blow.  Progress being made toward hope for a better tomorrow was suddenly and instantly suspended for a season.  We collectively pondered the question, "If a man can shoot and kill a President, is anything out of bounds?"

Of course, since then conspiracy theories have abounded.  Did Oswald act alone?  Was there a second or third shooter from the grassy knoll or a manhole cover?  Did the Warren Commission's finding that the single bullet theory that simultaneously maimed Kennedy and severely wounded Texas Governor John Connally in the front seat really have merit?  The debates wore on and on for years, and still persist.

Was it Cuba-backed sympathizers who killed him?  Was it a Mafia-inspired plot because of the Kennedy's pursuit of Costa Nostra crime families?  Was it Communist-inspired retaliation for the Kennedy blockade of Cuba when the U.S.S.R.'s long-range missles were discovered on Cuban soil?  There was no end to the speculation in those days.

While on business in Dallas a few years ago, I walked from my hotel down to Dealey Plaza and took my self-guided tour of the Sixth Floor Book Depository Museum.  It was a sobering reality to stand on the very spot where the unforgettable events of my youth had transpired.  I've never forgotten the feelings. 

I sifted through all the various theories about his assassination as I walked from room to room.  Then I stood at the window where Oswald fired three bullets (the casings were found in the nest after he fled), apparently one of which was the fatal shot if the Warren Commission is to be believed. 

They called it "the shooter's nest."  It was chilling to consider what thoughts must have been running through Oswald's mind that morning as I stood where he had crouched at an open window overlooking Dealey Plaza when the motorcade passed below.  Kennedy, standing and waving to an adoring crowd in an open Lincoln convertible was certainly an inviting target. 

But as I stood there that morning, as a former expert marksman myself (with a semi-automatic M-16, mind you), I considered that it would have had to be one heck of a shot, especially with having to cock, load and re-acquire my target three times within a matter of seconds at a target that was speeding in the opposite direction after the first shot rang out.  It was a bolt-action rifle with a scope that Oswald used, and a kill shot certainly could have been possible in the hands of someone skilled in its use, but I just thought over and over again as I stood there, "That was one heck of a shot (or two or three) from here." 

Like many Americans I read many, many books about the assassination in the years that followed, trying to understand and make sense of an irrational act of violence.  I even read the whole Warren Commission report.  Senator Arlen Specter (now D-PA, formerly R-PA) was the author of the single-bullet theory while he served on the Warren Commission. 

And I always thought to myself back then, "You'd have to believe pigs can fly to believe that theory."  But what do I know?  After all these years no one has ever offered a credible counter-theory that has seemingly stood up as well as Specter's, though it has certainly been attacked as uncredible by experts.  And that single bullet, the one they found on Kennedy's stretcher in the aftermath at Parkland Memorial Hospital, is not the one that accounted for the fatal head shot.  

I've forgotten most of what I read now.  I would have to say for myself that's it's still an open question as to the who, the why, the how about Kennedy's death. 

As a family, we still wonder about the premature passing of Lin and Flemming too.  In subsequent years there have been many other family members whose mortal lives have likewise ended too soon by our reckoning, and we search in vain for answers here and now.

But I do know this for sure -- for me and many others in my baby-boomer generation this day in history represents the loss of innocence.  After that, anything was possible.

When Lin and Fleming were laid to rest, President S. Dilworth Young of the First Council of the Seventy penned these lines while sitting on the stand at Flemming's funeral in the Douglas Ward:

I sit and ask myself:
These boys, these
Fair-haired
Boys,
Their hopes and
Dreams,
Once bright,
Now moving in
Eternal
Light.

We do not
See
That Light;
We know 'tis
There, but
How, or
Where, we
Cannot know
Until that
Blessed day
When
We, the veil
Worn thin
Will see
Them
Waiting patiently
Within.

Then what
Will be our
Joy?
No pain!  No
Fear!
But more!
We shall then
Know
The reason
Why.

What matter how
They
Go.  If in Thy sight
They stand before
Thee RIGHT,
Lord,
Stand there
Right.

If you're over fifty years old, your comments and memories are welcome here. . .