What Did Mr. Bush's Inaugural Really Mean?

On January 20, 2005, George W. Bush delivered his second inaugural address to the nation. It was a relatively short speech. To most observers the speech appeared to have little or no substance. Others viewed it as a shift in policy to rights. Some people praised it to the sky: Frank Warner said, the “Second inaugural address was a masterful expression of liberty, for liberty.” Others, including Mr. Bush, who copied one line from the book, compared his ideas to Natan Sharansky’s, The Case for Democracy. David Limbaugh called it a “classic paradox” and said the speech was distilled from twenty-two drafts. Ordinary people made comments such as, “It seems to me that he’s laying ground for Iran and North Korea.” The world press found it to be a "jolt."

But it was David Domke, an associate professor at the University of Washington, in his brilliant article, “Just Another Word for Everything Left to Lose,” who comes the closest to capturing the essence of Mr. Bush’s speech. Domke credits scholar R. Scott Appleby with the perception that Mr. Bush has devised “a theological version of Manifest Destiny.”[1]

Col. Daniel Smith (Ret.) a military affairs analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus, also captures important insights on Mr. Bush’s speech, “What comes through in the 2005 inaugural is a sense that a second four-year Bush term will try to wield the same flawed ‘missionary’ ideology of the first term.[2] Its zeal may be concealed under new phraseology and its objectives have different names (e.g., Iran for Iraq).”

Col. Smith concludes: “Formulating future commitments on ill-considered … policy declarations, no matter how nuanced, all too easily creates unnecessary conflagrations that, in the end, might well burn down our own house of liberty and with it our freedoms.”

Mr. Bush’s second inaugural address has puzzled many others. Journalists have pointed out he used the words, “free, freedom or liberty” forty-nine times. Not many observers, however, have questioned why, nor have they asked, “What did Mr. Bush mean by these words?” The answer to this question is important for Americans and the world to understand. I intend to expose Mr. Bush’s true meaning in this essay.

The speech was couched in vagueness, repetition, and religious and biblical terminology. But Mr. Bush and his speech writers were careful to bury explicit references to scriptures in a sea of what appears to be verbal idealism. However, the speech is not idealistic. It is a blueprint of a strange religious American foreign policy and a reformation of our government at home along the lines advocated by a religious/political cult.

The speech reveals Mr. Bush’s plans to export his political agenda to other nations and in the process build an American “Christian” empire. Additionally, Mr. Bush may intend to create what Philip Bobbitt calls marketing states,[3] as nations become marketing clients of the U.S.

Though Mr. Bush touched only briefly on his domestic agenda—he held nothing back. His plans include the disestablishment of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.

What becomes clear is the President was speaking code to the politically active religious right across America and around the world. In fact, Mr. Bush was making perfect sense to the religious adherents of dominionism (the belief that “Christians” must take control and dominate and rule in all civil and governmental affairs here in America and in every nation of the world). If my conclusions are correct, the speech is alarming and threatening.

Let’s examine some of Mr. Bush’s statements from his second Inaugural Address that demonstrate he was speaking in religious code. In fact, he repeatedly wrapped himself in the cloak of biblical expressions that are very well known to evangelical Christians in general and to dominionists specifically. In so doing, he was speaking over the heads of most Americans to reach his religious base.

In all of the following quotes, I have added emphasis in order to facilitate comparisons between what Mr. Bush said and the quotes from the Bible. All the biblical quotes in this section are from the King James Version.

Here I would like to interject this observation: The verse referenced is universally known by evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal Christians. Therefore the context of the President’s statement clearly shows he was addressing only “Christians” in their “ideals of justice” and only “Christians” when he used the word “conduct” for he was specifically referencing what he considered to be eternal principles of behavior—not shared by secular Americans.

This particular verse is very significant to dominionists and is often quoted and referenced in their literature and by their popularizers like Pat Robertson. Note that Mr. Bush changes the concept from the original Bible verse which was limited to the land the Israelites occupied following the exodus, to the concept of “all the world.” This is a significant step on Mr. Bush’s part. He is announcing global biblical “Christian” spiritual emancipation. We are about to see why this is so.

Not only has Mr. Bush borrowed phrases from biblical passages—which after all is not that unusual for American presidents to do, but there is also a remarkable similarity of words and ideas between Mr. Bush’s inaugural address and a religious-right dominionist textbook for home schooled children. The ideas borrowed are explosive and revolutionary. I would call them bizarre—if they did not represent such a real threat to all Americans and the world. The book, America’s Providential History was published in 1989 by co-authors Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, and went on to become a home school classic.[4]

Joan Bokaer, the founder of TheocracyWatch.org at Cornell University, alerted me to the existence of this book and observed that America’s Providential History “suggests a relationship between the ‘dominion mandate’ as described in the textbook, and Mr. Bush’s economic, social, and environmental programs.”[5] I have found the work is also connected to Mr. Bush’s foreign policy.

The book can be called seditious. It not only advocates the reformation of our government—it requires changing America into a one party theocracy—with only dominionist Christians in positions of political power, notwithstanding the Constitution, which states, “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The authors write:

“It must be added here that Christians need to be involved in both of the major political parties…The ultimate goal should be for enough Christians to become involved in both major parties so that eventually the candidates on the ballot in November are both of the type that fit into Biblical qualifications.”[6]

“If Christians in every locality became a controlling influence in a political party after two years of serving there consistently, then every godly representative in the state legislatures and the Congress could be replaced within six years to work with a godly president.”[7]

“If we work for more godly representatives in 2/3 of the state legislatures then we can bypass Congress and call a new Constitutional Convention to clean up all of the mess we have made of it in the past 200 years! Then with godly state legislatures, the odds are good that delegates appointed by them to a new Convention will be godly and wise as well.” [8]

The “mess” the dominionists want to “clean up” begins with the 14th amendment: “no state shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;’”[9] and includes the 16th amendment, which gave Congress the power to collect progressive taxes on incomes;[10] and the 17th amendment in which Senators were no longer appointed by the state legislatures to represent their interests;[11] and the Supreme Court, which, the authors state, “has itself acted unconstitutionally.”[12]

The authors then disparage a certain kind of representative, a Congressman who is impressed with the number of constituents that are in favor or against a bill he is about to vote on. The authors say:

“Even if Christians manage to outnumber others on an issue and we sway our Congressman by sheer numbers, we end up in the dangerous promotion of democracy. We really do not want representatives who are swayed by majorities, but rather by correct principles.”[13] (Emphasis mine.)

I found this statement astounding and shocking because of an association I couldn’t help make: could the authors’ and dominionist’s disdain of democracy be encouraging their people and their youths to reject election results? It raises the possibility that a religious cult with an estimated following of thirty million Americans, which teaches children to despise the democratic process as part of their political and religious training, could actually be encouraging and inspiring the next step: the rigging of voting machines in every state of the union. After all, they are dedicated to placing only “godly men” in positions of power.

Would it surprise you to learn given the power of the religious right, that the book and its dissemination is being supplemented by the taxpayers of the United States? The book is published by the Providence Foundation, an organization created by the two authors, and the foundation is organized as a 501 (c) (3) tax exempt organization under the IRS code.

The Implementation of Liberty in America and the Exportation of Liberty to Foreign Lands

America’s Providential History doesn’t open with America’s domestic policy as one might expect, instead, in the first chapter the authors launch into “God’s Plan for the Nations.” The book introduces a concept called “The Theology of Liberty,” and takes its authority from Matthew 28: 19, using Jesus’ commission which reads in pertinent part in the King James version: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations…”[14] the authors leap to the conclusion that Christians must become involved in a religious/political reformation of the world. They quote Matthew Henry, explaining that he was “studied by our Founding Fathers,”:

“‘[T]he principal intention of this commission’ is clear. It is to ‘…do your utmost to make the nations Christian nations.’ This is God’s plan for the nations.”[15]

The churches taught throughout the centuries until the latter twenty or thirty years of the twentieth century that American Christians were to reach out to individuals—both here in America and throughout the world. But the dominionists have introduced a new concept—they believe they are to make nations—not just people—disciples and secure nations “their future fortunes.”[16]

“He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.”

“The goal of America’s Providential History is to equip Christians to be able to introduce Biblical principles into the public affairs of America, and every nation in the world, and in so doing bring Godly change throughout the world. We will be learning how to establish a Biblical form (and power) of government in America and we will see how our present governmental structures must be changed. Since the principles we will be learning are valid in every society and in any time in history, they will be able to be applied throughout the world and not just in America. As we learn to operate nations on Biblical principles, we will be bringing liberty to the nations of the world and hence fulfilling part of God’s plan for the nations.” (Emphasis mine.)

The authors go on to a section titled: “The Need for World Reformation” and state, “The Bible reveals to us that the world longs for liberation.”

Because Mr. Bush used the words “liberty, freedom and free” so frequently in his address we need to see how dominionists are using these words. Extending the intent of the scriptures they quote, the authors show what they mean by liberty as follows:

“The Bible reveals that ‘where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty’ (2 Corinthians 3:17). When the Spirit of the Lord comes into the heart of a man, that man is liberated. Likewise, when the Spirit of the Lord comes into a nation, that nation is liberated. The degree to which the Spirit of the Lord is infused into a society (through its people, laws, and institutions), is the degree to which that society will experience liberty in every realm (civil, religious, economic, etc.)”[17] (Emphasis added.)

Note that the authors have interjected the concept of partially attained “freedom or liberty.” The work of “liberty” then is seen as an ongoing evolutionary (or political) force until the entire society and culture is converted to the Christianity of dominionism. Thus dominionism inserts into Christianity the domination of nations—the eradication of diverse cultures and moral codes. It introduces also a single “Christian” and “free” economic system.

“The more a nation applies His law, the more that nation will prosper and walk in liberty.”[18]

Perhaps we can best see Mr. Bush’s connection to this book and to dominionism itself by quoting from and showing where the ideas were written in the book and then quoting from his inaugural speech.

America’s Providential History will be abbreviated as Book. As above, I have added the emphasis in the quotes to show corresponding ideas in Mr. Bush’s speech:

Book: “God’s plan for the nations has been unfolding in a specific geographic direction. This geographical march of history is called the Chain of Christianity or the Chain of Liberty.” (p. 9)

Book: “Scripture defines God as the source of life...He is the author of liberty as well.” (p. 187)

Mr. Bush: “…history …has a visible direction, set by liberty and the author of liberty.”

I should point out here that there is no biblical verse that describes God as the “author” of liberty. The expression is unique to these authors and to the dominionist movement. Also liberty is not listed in the scriptures as one of the six spirits of God—or as one of his attributes.[19]

Book: “The truth of the Bible (John 8:32)[20] provides mankind with a Theology of Liberty that brings real freedom to those individuals and nations who are oppressed.” (p. 3)

Book: “When the Spirit of the Lord comes into a nation, that nation is liberated…Spiritual freedom or liberty ultimately produces political freedom.” (p. 26)

Mr. Bush: “There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred [and tyranny]…and that is the force of human freedom.”

Book: Quoting Marshall Foster: “As we repair our nation and put it in order, we shall then be in a position to do what we were meant to do originally—to ‘colonize ideas,’ specifically, the Christian idea of man and government so that it does not stop on these shores, but goes on to cover the globe. Our historians used to believe that it was part of our mission to colonize America’s unique political ideas, but as we have forgotten what our Founding Fathers achieved—forgotten the source of our freedom and affluence—we have failed to do this.” (p. 222)

Mr. Bush: “The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights and dignity and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth….So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

Book: Quoting Marshall Foster: “This does not mean that we can export our structure and system of government to other countries and expect it to make sense to them without an understanding of the Christian principles of self-government that underlie the structure. We have learned that self-government begins first with the individual aligning himself with the will of God, then caring for himself and others and applying biblical principles to all areas of his life until he produces a civil government that reflects his godly self-government.”

Mr. Bush: “America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal, instead, is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way.”

Mr. Bush does not see America or the nations of the world in terms defined by the dictionary. His vision is based upon definitions of terms taken from the Bible and revised for him by teachers of dominionism, the new American political religion. The authors of America’s Providential History wrote,

“Programs such as Social Security, and other welfare agencies, set up the State as provider rather than God.”[21]

The book advises that Christians should tithe and give special offerings for the poor, “to distribute individually or pool together with other Christians in their church.” The authors state:

“This must be done if we are ever going to disestablish the unbiblical welfare system today.”

“In dealing with unbiblical situations in the nations today, we must remember that reform begins within, and as we remove the bad we must simultaneously substitute something. A government-controlled and funded welfare system is unbiblical, yet the solution is not to pass a law that immediately eliminates civil government support of the needy. Individuals and churches must begin to fulfill their God-given responsibility in this area (substitute the good) as we remove the role of our civil government.”[22]

Dominionism then intends to move in stages and gradually gain complete control of the America we know. It is a religion only in name—for its purpose is to convert Christians to a laissez-faire world economic system that favors multi-national corporations and low taxes. (A laissez-faire economic system opposes any governmental interference in business affairs through regulations that prevent cheating, fraud, pollution, poison, etc.)

As I have shown at length in my essay (now a book) Bloodguilty Churches, it is the dominionists who are attempting to disestablish what God in the Bible established: assistance to the poor, the needy, the widows and orphans and sojourners through taxes of the people in a nation.

To Mr. Bush, the word “freedom” also has an economic meaning. Freedom means the capacity to conduct business without hindering regulations.

To verify my statements, let’s look at his speech, keeping my observations in mind.

Perhaps the most astonishing statements made by Mr. Bush in his inaugural are the repeated mantra: America is not a free society. Never has an American president claimed that we are not a free society. However, taken in the context of future economic changes to America, Mr. Bush’s remarks can be understood to suggest that today’s economic system imparts controls and regulations and therefore lacks “freedom.” Here are several statements that deliver that message:

Mr. Bush: “America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home: the unfinished work of American freedom.” (Emphasis mine.)

Mr. Bush: “In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.”

These sentences are most likely those that Mr. Bush has “paid extra” in the sense of the epigraph at the beginning of this essay, (Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass quotation.) First, they evoke Hebrews 12:2: “Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith…” (Emphasis mine.) Secondly, they correspond with Beliles’ and McDowells’ book which emphasizes the attainment of complete freedom in stages as a nation converts to the principles of economic, spiritual and political dominionism. Notice in the following sentence, how Mr. Bush acknowledges the stages in the economic development of “freedom.”

Mr. Bush: “We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance, preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society.” (Emphasis mine.)

Note that while people are living and breathing and existing in America today—they have to be “prepared” according to Mr. Bush for “the challenges of life in a free society.” Implicit in the sentence is that private ownership of homes, businesses, and private (non-Social Security) retirement accounts are a preparation for “life in a free society.” His two statements imply that by acquiring property, citizens will be preparing themselves to live in “a free society.” Here are three additional sentences in which he presumes to define for all Americans what “America’s ideal of freedom” is:

Mr. Bush: “In America’s ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights.

Mr. Bush: “And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time.

Mr. Bush: “To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools and build an ownership society.” (Emphasis mine.)

It appears the President believes the institutions of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid can be “reformed” so that America’s elderly poor, sick poor, and just plain poor—all 36 million of them—may obtain “a stake in the promise and future of our country” in the form of stock dividends, cash, and home ownership. He goes on:

Mr. Bush: “By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.”

Let me see if I’ve got this straight: By taking away—in stages—their food, water, clothes, housing, medicine, medical care, (Medicare and Medicaid) and Social Security retirement funds, the President of the United States apparently believes that not only will America become free, but each of these poor folks will become an “agent of his or her own destiny,” and this act will not only give them “greater freedom from want and fear” but will make American “society more prosperous and just and equal.”

The President’s statements are neither logical nor sensible. He appears to be lost like Alice in Wonderland in a world where he can make a word mean anything he chooses it to mean, and where Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky” is pretended to be perfectly clear English for the populace and the media.

Lest anyone believe that the scriptures cited in this essay mean what the dominionists say they mean, I offer the following:

First of all we need to discuss the more commonly understood concepts of the Bible in reference to the words “liberty and free.” St. Paul, in his epistle at Galatians 5:2 defines the religious use of “liberty” as follows:

“Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty with which Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” (Emphasis mine.) (KJV)

What was the “yoke of bondage,” one might ask especially since a number of the early Christians were slaves. Clearly St. Paul meant something other than the literal meaning of the term. To understand this biblical reference, one has to understand that Christianity was not based upon blind faith. St. Paul used “liberty” as a metaphor. From his perspective, when someone accepted the tenets of Christianity, he or she was stepping out of the bondage of falsity, ignorance, idolatry, and superstition—into the glorious light of Truth. This “truth” was not simply belief in a new god—to the contrary, it was a revolutionary process—a way of not only discovering reality but an insistence that one believe only what is true.

St. Paul elevated reasoning and enlightenment. So profoundly discriminating were the tenets of Christianity, that it required its followers to “prove all things.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV) The new birth experience then was the epistemological reclamation of man, the very opposite of what happened in the Garden of Eden. Combined with Moses’ rules on how to distinguish between science and pseudoscience,[23] early Christians could in a very real sense step from darkness to light: from superstition to enlightenment. Or to put it another way, they began the intellectual journey that demanded honest self examination, acknowledgement of their wrong beliefs and a change towards knowledge and truth and the relinquishing of falsity and superstition.

Becoming a “Christian” then meant a life-changing acceptance; it meant embracing truth, knowledge, wisdom and understanding—the very attributes of God Himself. The believer put on these attributes over and under his skin and with fresh eyes saw who Jesus really was and still is. I submit that the deliverance of the early Christians from darkness to light was the most powerful vision the world had ever seen. No wonder it was called “the born again” experience by Jesus.

But today in America, becoming a “Christian” is too often marked by no painful self examination with the demand that one turn from one’s wickedness. Instead the invitation to “Christianity” is too often the easy gospel of affirmation of one’s own personal superstitions, falsities, and ignorance. In other words, the evangelical church as a whole is still in the ‘yoke of bondage.’

Evangelical preachers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries found that telling the masses, “God loves you just the way you are!” filled their churches and brought in hundreds of millions of dollars. Instead of demanding that congregants “prove all things,” the emphasis became, “believe all things.” This soon became, “Believe what we tell you from this pulpit because we are God’s anointed!”

America is paying the price today for a church that spreads ignorance and superstition, lies and acceptance of lies. Discernment is listed as one of the great gifts of the Holy Spirit, but it is entirely absent from even the lexicon of the modern weak, diseased and fearfully militant church of America. The pastors have created a monster—an anti-intellectual anti-Christ body that hates spiritual growth and those who are growing spiritually, morally and intellectually. As a consequence we are facing America’s darkest hour. May God give us strength and the wisdom to prevail.

[1] See the article at the Revealer. Published January 21, 2005 at: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001520.php

[2] Col. Daniel Smith (Ret.) "Play it Again, George," Editorial, Liberty Post at: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=83016

[3] The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History by Philip Bobbitt, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2002.

[4] America’s Providential History by Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, The Providence Foundation, Second edition, 1991.

[5] Joan Bokaer, “Economics from the Religious Right,” at http://www.theocracywatch.org/rr_economics.htm

[6] America’s Providential History by Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, The Providence Foundation, Second edition, 1991. At page 266.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid. at page 267.

[9] Ibid. at page 257-258.

[10] Ibid. at page 258.

[11] Ibid. at page 260.

[12] Ibid. at page 260-261. The book cites a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson: “The germ of dissolution of our Federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states, and the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy….The Constitution has erected no such tribunal.” The authors say “The Court has evolved to this very state today.” The authors’ solution apparently is to place only “Christian” judges on the bench.

[13] Ibid. at page 265.

[14] Ibid. at page 3. The authors use a version that says: “Go therefore and make disciples of the nations…”

[15] Ibid. at page 3. The authors quote from Marshall Foster and Mary-Elaine Swanson, The American Covenant the Untold Story, (California 1983) p. 48.

Note and warning: I have found by carefully checking the authors’ quotes that they misquote the intent of the original frequently. See my comparison study at: https://www.yuricareport.com/

[16] Ibid. at viii.

[17] Ibid. at page 26.

[18] Ibid. at page 27.

[19] Isaiah 11:2 lists the six attributes of the Spirit of God as the spirit of wisdom, spirit of understanding, spirit of counsel, spirit of might, spirit of knowledge and the spirit of the fear of the Lord (reverential trust). It is true that a famous verse states, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Corinthians 3:17 but there is no verse that states that God is the “author of liberty.”

[20] “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32 KJV.

[21] America’s Providential History by Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, The Providence Foundation, Second edition, 1991 at page 251. And see Mr. Bush’s use of almost the identical words in my essay, Bloodguilty Churches at: https://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/TheBloodGuiltyChurches.http

[22] Ibid. at page 27.

[23] Karl Popper, the distinguished professor of logic and scientific method wrote in his book, Objective Knowledge at page 25 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), “Einstein consciously seeks for error elimination. He tries to kill his theories; he is consciously critical.” In my unpublished book, The Great Superbook Trial, I show that Moses followed Popper’s advice. “In two separate passages, which must be read together (Deuteronomy 18:21-22 and Deuteronomy 13) Moses carefully framed the criteria in precisely the negative terminology which characterizes Popper’s statements. Thus the prophet’s (or scientist’s) predictions are subject to tests of refutation not confirmation; they are falsified by observation. The Old Testament criteria, like Popper’s, is a trial and error process of elimination that leads us, in Popper’s words, ‘to single out the true theory by eliminating all its competitors.’”

Katherine Yurica is a news intelligence analyst. She was educated at East Los Angeles College, the University of Southern California and the USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.

Send a letter
to the editor
about this article

Be sure and read

Gore Vidal on Bush's Inaugural
Address: "The Most Un-American
Speech I've Ever Heard"
There's not a word of truth in anything that
he said. Our founding fathers did not set us
on a course to liberate all the world from tyranny.

George W. Bush's Second Inaugural
Address:
Radical Son
Bush may not have read Dostoyevsky—
but his speechwriters have.
February 28, 2005 Issue
by Justin Raimondo
In a world aflame with war and terrorism, George
W. Bush’s second inaugural address was a
match flung onto an oil slick. By the time his
17-minute peroration reached midpoint, it was
clear that was his intention:

The Despoiling of America

Bloodguilty Churches

Bloodguilty Churches by Katherine Yurica
is now available in paperback with new
material.

It can be purchased at Amazon.com,
just click on the title in the box below.

Learn how you can become eligible for
discounts on this book by clicking here.

Back to The Yurica Report Home Page