Sunday, July 31, 2011
Post #666-This Is Why Americans Are The Most Productive Workers In The World! We Want To Go Back To Work!
wtf is it that the politicians don't get-we want jobs! we want jobs now! we want paychecks now! end the wars 4 oil and the opium lords! bring the troops home now! enough is enough!
Clip Here ENJOY!!! MUST BE 18+ TO CLICK ON LINK-IF NOT SCRAM!
tea partiers want to get re-elected so they get that paycheck!
us gov burning through money like a crackhead burning through their inheritance!
king of the crybabies
real unemployment 22%, 1 in 5 men out of work, 50% of black men out of work, no job traing just tax cuts for the rich and an open checkbook for the war pigs at the pentagon-the bastards!
what a joke our politicians are! tax cuts for the rich, money for the war pigs and the police state while your kids are in hock to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in student loans-idiot america you voted for these pricks! you own 'em
beck believes he's Jesus's prophet!
fat ass america wants a free ride and so do the super-rich! f'em!
In my post of July 22, I suggested that by defaulting on the debt, that, the so called "anti-tax" Republicans will impose a new tax on all of America! Now the main stream media gets this and are all over this in the last 48 hours. Essentially the tea partiers want the US to default because they are not getting their "Maypo"ie; draconian cuts to essential services and social programs, higher military spending , and more tax cuts for the big money donors and corporations even in the light of staggering debt and deficits. Your kids are saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, granny grunt gets her social security check cut and medicare and medicaid get slashed all while the military-prison-corporate-intelligence police state is fed and the rest of us starve-the bastards!
When Marky Maypo first appeared on television in 1956, nobody thought he would be a hit. The cereal he pitched was a type of maple flavored hot mush that had been on the market for decades. The man who created him was a former Disney animator who had been blacklisted in the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s. Even Heublein, the company that owned Maypo, was hoping that Marky would be a failure, so that they would have some substantial losses to write off. But Marky defied the odds and made his mark on a generation of cereal lovers with his timeless warcry, "I want my Maypo!"
The Tale of Marky MaypoJohn Hubley decided early in his life to be a painter. The Wisconsin native traveled to the west coast to study at the Art Center of Los Angeles, but was detoured by an offer from the Disney organization in 1935. He worked on films including Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, Dumbo and Fantasia, but was forced to leave the company after the bitter strike of 1941.
Hubley served a hitch making films for the Air Force than joined a host of other former Disney artists to form the L. A. based animation house United Productions of America.
Hubley was instrumental in shaping the flat, minimalistic "UPA style" that revolutionized the animation industry. "Mister Magoo," patterned after Hubley's bullheaded uncle, brought the studio its first commercial success. The 1951 short Gerald McBoing Boing won an Academy Award.
By the early 1950s, Hubley and other UPA founders were fingered as communists by Walt Disney. He was blacklisted and fired from his job by UPA. He moved to New York and joined the production shop of another alleged fellow traveler, Bill Tytla, until Tytla's studio was destroyed by cold war politics.
Hubley went into business for himself. He gained a favorable reputation for his work and was doing fairly well when he was approached by Heublein Inc. Heublein, which imported distilled liquors, A-1 Steak Sauce, Grey-Poupon Mustard and Sizzl-Spray, an aerosol barbecue sauce, had recently purchased the Maltex Company, creators of Maypo, a maple-syrup flavored hot cereal. In an effort to create tax deductible expenses, Heublein decided to launch an expensive, tv campaign for the poorly selling Maltex product.
"They came to us because we were notoriously independent and they said, 'Make a commercial that's not a commercial, just do a slice of life, a dramatic piece,'" recalled Faith Hubley. "They didn't want the cereal company to make a profit so they gave us total creative freedom to do what ever we wanted to do. It was a really absurd contract; we had all the things that you never got from an agency."
Since making Gerald McBoing Boing, Hubley had been fascinated by the natural sounds of children. "So we just loved the idea of doing something natural and truthful with a nonprofessional actor," recalled Faith, "Our boy, Mark."
For days, John Hubley followed his four-year-old son around with a microphone. "In a way, Marky Maypo was co- created by young Marky," recalled Faith Hubley. "We did not use a script. We culled the improvisation for the best lines and adapted the storyboard from the improvisation." When Marky mispronounced energy as enjerny, during the recording, they kept it. As far as the central scene was concerned, Marky didn't have to act very much. He really and truly hated Maypo. "Marky didn't like it because it tasted like oatmeal," recalled his mother.
Marky Maypo made his debut on New York and New England television stations in September 1956. The spot started with stubborn Marky, a rough 'n' ready little cartoon cowboy, sitting on a stool at the breakfast table while his dad cajoled him into eating his hot mush. In exasperation, his Dad grabbed the hat off Marky's head and offered another spoonful. Marky screamed, "I want my hat," but refused another spoonful with clamped jaws.
Wearing the hat, Dad tried the cereal himself. "It tastes like maple sugar candy," he said, beaming with conspicuous delight as he gobbled the cereal down. Seeing a happy father, a jealous little Marky screamed "I want my Maypo!"
Much to the shock of the Heublein management, the sixty-second spot was a smash hit. Instead of hurting revenues as planned, the ad increased sales of Maypo "an average of 78 percent . . . and as high as 186 percent in some markets," reported Sponsor, magazine. Millions of kids across America began yelling, "I want my Maypo!"
In 1960, the Hubleys produced a second Maypo spot, but the relationship between the artistic animators and the importing company began to sour. The inevitable break came over the question of merchandising their animated son. In addition to plastering Marky on the package, a step the Hubleys resisted as vulgar, Heublein tried to merchandise Marky in other ways only to be blocked by the Hubleys' unusual contract. "They came to the studio and said they wanted to put a little bust of Marky in the boxes," recalled Faith. "Johnny and I took a look at them and teasingly said, 'Why don't you put a bust of Beethoven in?' We vetoed a lot of things and eventually, they stopped coming to us. I can't stand those advertising people!"
In the 1960s, Heublein bought the troublesome Hubleys out of their contract - "we were very, very well paid" - and promptly produced a nine-inch vinyl Marky bank available for boxtops. Without the Hubleys' behind the creative controls, however, Maypo's market share slipped away. In the mid 1960s, Heublein sold the Maltex Company to American Home Products, a huge conglomerate which added Maypo and Maltex to Wheatena and its other hot breakfast foods.
The Hubleys went on to produce independent films like Moonbird, which won an academy award, and numerous shorts for the "Sesame Street" series. Perhaps the biggest compliment to the Hubleys' work came with the birth of music television. There is no doubt that the writers who coined the slogan "I want my MTV!" were echoing the words of a finicky four-year-old in a cowboy hat.
Today, Mark Hubley is happily married with two boys of his own and lives in up state New York working as a horse breeder and trainer. He still hates the taste of Maypo.
| Marky Maypo - In 1956, the Fletcher, Richards, Calkins & Holden Advertising Agency created a successful Maypo ad campaign entitled "Marky Maypo" about the frustrations of a father trying to get his young son Marky (who was dressed in a cowboy costume) to eat a new maple-flavored oatmeal breakfast food called Maypo. After a few tries to get his son to eat Maypo the father said "Tell you what, I'll be an airplane, you be the hangar. Open the doors, here it comes (Whrrrrrrrr!) loaded with delicious (Whrrrrrrr!) maple-flavored (Whrrrrrrr!) Maypo!" Just as the spoon reaches the boy's mouth, he snaps it shut. Frustrated, the father accidentally puts the spoonful of Maypo in his mouth, and immediately his young son cried "I want my MAYPO!" Marky Maypo made his debut on New York and New England television stations in September 1956. |
In 1958, the Brian & Houston ad agency made a follow-up commercial where Marky was robbed of his cowboy hat and his favorite cereal by his Uncle Ralphie. In frustration, he wailed "I want my Maypo!"
A sequel commercial entitled "Marky's Horse," had the little cowboy jump onto the snoring pot belly of Uncle Ralphie. Marky then rode his uncle's tummy like a bronco until he got some Maypo.
The voice of Marky was provided by Mark Hubley, the four-year-old son of John and Faith Hubley, the animators of these now classic B/W commercial spots. John Hubley contributed to the "flat" UPA animation style used on such cartoons as "Mister Magoo." In 1951, Hubley worked on the Academy Award animated short Gerald McBoing Boing.
The Maypo Company recruited popular sports figures for their INSTANT MAYPO CEREAL. The ad spots featured Gil Hodges who orders Tom Seaver to go in and pitch and he cries "I want my Maypo"; as well as Mickey Mantle , too,. who cries "I want my Maypo!"
TRIVIA NOTE: The Maypo Cereal brand was developed in 1953 by the Maltex Corporation in Burlington, Vermont. Over the years, the brand has been purchased or associated with a variety of companies: Hueblein, Inc in 1956, the Uhlmann Company in the1960s, American Home Foods in 1988, International Home Foods in 1996, ConAgra in 2000, and Homestat Farms, Ltd in 2001 (the current owners)
Nuking the Mullahs
IT'S OKAY TO CUT GRANNY GRUNT'S SOCIAL SECURITY AND CUT MEDICAID BECAUSE WE NEED THE F-35 FIGHTER JET AT A COST OF 100+ MILLION PER PLANE! THE PENTAGON SPENDS NEARLY 400 BILLION A YEAR, TWICE WHAT WAS SPENT 10 YEARS AGO! TROOPS WONDERING IF THEY WILL BE PAID! SLASH ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS, SPEND MIGHTILY ON DEFENSE AND GIVE TAX CUTS TO THE SUPER RICH WHO REFUSE TO PAY FOR THE MIGHTY MILITARY THAT PROTECTS THEIR MIGHTY WEALTH!
Back in August 2005, I broke the story that Dick Cheney and the Pentagon were working on a contingency plan to use tactical nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The nukes would be used because they were the only effective way to destroy the hardened sites, many of which are located deep underground. I also reported that the contingency plan would kick in if there were another major terrorist attack against the United States, whether or not Iran was actually involved. It would use the terrorist action as a justification for taking preemptive action and employing nukes would serve as a warning to Iran that any retaliation would result in possible additional nuclear strikes. If implemented, it would have constituted the first use of nuclear weapons since the end of the Second World War.
It would be convenient to assume that the Dick Cheney school of international relations no longer exists. In truth, the summer of 2005 seems almost like ancient history, part and parcel of a very different world, where Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Rumsfeld were still running amok scarcely reined in by the more moderate but equally ghastly Condi Rice. Iraq was just starting to implode and Afghanistan was on a back burner but the hubris that drove the Bush Administration to look for enemies to destroy seems dated at the present due to economic and political deterioration in the United States. Even many of those who saw America as the essential nation five years ago now recognize decline when they see it and are arguing for retrenchment.
But some things don’t change and the theory that just a few really big bombs can change the Middle East for the better has again surfaced. Two weeks ago the non-partisan Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) issued a study suggesting that low yield tactical nuclear weapons are just the ticket for destroying Iran’s nuclear plants. The report states that "some believe that nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels." "Options in Dealing with Iran’s Nuclear Program" was written by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman, both highly respected analysts and commentators. The authors and CSIS do not exactly endorse the use of nuclear weapons and they note that there would be major political consequences, but they accept that there is a high likelihood that Israel is planning an attack of some kind and also observe that Tel Aviv’s only other options would not be very effective. Israel has no heavy bombers and only a limited supply of bunker buster bombs. F-16 fighter bombers launched from Israel would have little time on target and only limited conventional payloads that could not do much damage to the dispersed and deeply dug-in Iranian facilities. Iranian air defenses, which have been enhanced over the past few years, might also prove to be a formidable obstacle. At best, the Israelis would only be able to delay an Iranian nuclear program for six months to a year and the attack itself would guarantee Tehran’s commitment to develop its own nuclear deterrent as quickly as possible.
An Israeli nuclear strike could, on the other hand, be launched using ballistic missiles that Tel Aviv already has or from cruise missiles on submarines, which are also already in the country’s arsenal, meaning that Israeli warplanes would not have to cross hostile territory and face antiaircraft fire. The targeting would also be more accurate using missiles that could be carefully aimed rather than unstable and possibly under attack aircraft and the results, compared to a conventional attack, would be devastating.
Two issues likely will determine whether Israel will use nuclear weapons against Iran. The first relates to the ultimate objective of the Israeli attack. An attack with conventional weapons will hardly cripple the presumed Iranian nuclear program and would be designed rather to send a message and to bring the United States into the conflict to finish the job. But if the Israelis were to make the judgment that the United States will somehow refuse to cooperate or be drawn in, they might just be tempted to use the tactical nuclear weapons reported to be in their arsenal to destroy the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
The second issue is Israeli isolation and irrationality, something that is harder to assess but which is becoming more evident. Israel continues to be protected by the United States in the UN through its veto power and also in other international fora, but there should be no doubt that President Obama has a visceral dislike for Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and everything he represents. And the feeling is mutual, but given the vulnerability of Israel if the US were to withdraw its support, the actions of Netanyahu to goad and defy Obama have to be seen as those of a man whose ability to behave rationally might well be questioned.
The truth is that Israel is fast becoming a pariah nation, like South Africa before the final collapse of apartheid, because no one any longer accepts the legitimacy of its settlement growth and occupation policies. Like South Africa, the Israeli response to criticism has been to become more reactionary and inward looking, constructing a police state internally and waging unending war against its neighbors to maintain cohesion against foreign enemies. The program to divest from Israel is gathering steam both in Europe and the US and even traditional allies of Tel Aviv like Britain have begun to react to Israeli rogue behavior. The recent expulsion of Israel’s Mossad chief from London over the issue of copying fifteen British passports for use in assassination operations was significant. Visitors to Israel have now been warned that surrendering passports at immigration could lead to their being cloned to support illegal activities, a warning that is literally without precedent. Several European countries that claim universal jurisdiction in war crime cases, including Spain, appear to be prepared to arrest traveling Israeli officials for civilian deaths in Gaza.
Israel demonstrated both its increasing isolation and its irrational side in response to the British expulsion of its intelligence chief. Two Israeli parliamentarians compared the British to dogs, one adding that the "British may be dogs, but they are not loyal to us, but rather to an anti-Semitic system." What system he had in mind was not exactly clear and it is also interesting to note that an Israeli legislator would expect loyalty from the British government. There was some speculation in the media that at least some of the anger might be directed against British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who is Jewish and has family in Israel. Miliband has generally been regarded as a good friend of Israel, having blocked legal moves to arrest visiting Israeli politicians and generals as war criminals, but even he had to take steps when the integrity of British passports was being undermined.
To be sure, there is a certain danger in isolating the Israelis too much as it could easily feed the always present Masada complex that might influence a dangerously unstable government to take action that might include exploiting its nuclear arsenal in search of Armageddon. And make no mistake that Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are not to be trusted by anyone. Netanyahu’s deceptions and evasions were too much even for markedly pro-Israeli US President Bill Clinton, who became angry with him after being repeatedly lectured on policy, asking whether Netanyahu thought that he represented the superpower. King Hussein of Jordan similarly finally gave up on achieving anything with a stonewalling and lying Netanyahu in the 1990s. The fact is, Bibi Netanyahu has never been interested in peace and his policies of creeping annexation of the West Bank and ethnic cleansing are instead designed to create a unitary Israeli state without Palestinians.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is even worse than Netanyahu and is a symbol of the kleptocratic impulses that characterize the extreme right in Israel. He is a racist who has openly advocated executing Arab members of the Knesset and drowning Palestinian prisoners in the Dead Sea. At one time he called for bombing the Aswan dam to punish Egypt for supporting the Palestinians and he was behind a bill in the Knesset that would have required all Israeli citizens of Arab descent to swear loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state or face expulsion. That he is the Foreign Minister of a country that pretends to have western-style democratic political values is itself telling.
It all adds up to a toxic brew. If the US refuses to cooperate in bombing Iran conventionally, Israel might well accept the view that the Iranian nuclear program can only be destroyed by using other nuclear weapons. Tel Aviv, controlling its own nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver the bombs on target, would be able to stage such an attack unilaterally. An increasingly isolated Israel headed by reactionary and irrational politicians who are influenced by their own sense of racial superiority just might decide that the gamble is worth it. It would be a very bad decision for Israel, Iran, and for the United States.NUKES-ONE FLASH AND YOUR ASH!
Saturday, July 30, 2011
IN NOVEMBER OF 2009, I DID A POST ON TEXAS GOV. RICK PERRY GOING TO IZRAHEIL TO PAY HOMAGE TO THE JEWISH MASTERS THAT DIRECT US FOREIGN POLICY- HE WAS RECEIVING THE, "FRIEND OF IZRAHEIL AWARD". PERRY IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE REPUBLICAN RIGHT WINGERS WHO WAS ACTUALLY TOLD BY GOD TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY! WHAT A JOKE THESE PEOPLE ARE! IF ELECTED, THEY PLAN TO IMPLEMENT AND IMPOSE THEIR OWN EVANGELICAL VERSION OF "SHARIA LAW" HERE ON THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. HERE ARE A COUPLE OF ARTICLES, WITH PROPER ATTRIBUTION THAT SHOW HOW PERRY AND SOCIOPATH MICHELLE BACHMAN ARE JUST PLAIN BAT SHIT CRAZY! GOD TOLD THEM TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT!
A little-known movement of radical Christians and self-proclaimed prophets wants to infiltrate government, and Rick Perry might be their man.
On September 28, 2009, at 1:40 p.m., God’s messengers visited Rick Perry.
On this day, the Lord’s messengers arrived in the form of two Texas pastors, Tom Schlueter of Arlington and Bob Long of San Marcos, who called on Perry in the governor’s office inside the state Capitol. Schlueter and Long both oversee small congregations, but they are more than just pastors. They consider themselves modern-day apostles and prophets, blessed with the same gifts as Old Testament prophets or New Testament apostles.
The pastors told Perry of God’s grand plan for Texas. A chain of powerful prophecies had proclaimed that Texas was “The Prophet State,” anointed by God to lead the United States into revival and Godly government. And the governor would have a special role.
The day before the meeting, Schlueter had received a prophetic message from Chuck Pierce, an influential prophet from Denton, Texas. God had apparently commanded Schlueter—through Pierce—to “pray by lifting the hand of the one I show you that is in the place of civil rule.”
Gov. Perry, it seemed.
Schlueter had prayed before his congregation: “Lord Jesus I bring to you today Gov. Perry. ... I am just bringing you his hand and I pray Lord that he will grasp ahold of it. For if he does you will use him mightily.”
And grasp ahold the governor did. At the end of their meeting, Perry asked the two pastors to pray over him. As the pastors would later recount, the Lord spoke prophetically as Schlueter laid his hands on Perry, their heads bowed before a painting of the Battle of the Alamo. Schlueter “declared over [Perry] that there was a leadership role beyond Texas and that Texas had a role beyond what people understand,” Long later told his congregation.
So you have to wonder: Is Rick Perry God’s man for president?
Schlueter, Long and other prayer warriors in a little-known but increasingly influential movement at the periphery of American Christianity seem to think so. The movement is called the New Apostolic Reformation. Believers fashion themselves modern-day prophets and apostles. They have taken Pentecostalism, with its emphasis on ecstatic worship and the supernatural, and given it an adrenaline shot.
The movement’s top prophets and apostles believe they have a direct line to God. Through them, they say, He communicates specific instructions and warnings. When mankind fails to heed the prophecies, the results can be catastrophic: earthquakes in Japan, terrorist attacks in New York, and economic collapse. On the other hand, they believe their God-given decrees have ended mad cow disease in Germany and produced rain in drought-stricken Texas.
Their beliefs can tend toward the bizarre. Some consider Freemasonry a “demonic stronghold” tantamount to witchcraft. The Democratic Party, one prominent member believes, is controlled by Jezebel and three lesser demons. Some prophets even claim to have seen demons at public meetings. They’ve taken biblical literalism to an extreme. In Texas, they engage in elaborate ceremonies involving branding irons, plumb lines and stakes inscribed with biblical passages driven into the earth of every Texas county.
If they simply professed unusual beliefs, movement leaders wouldn’t be remarkable. But what makes the New Apostolic Reformation movement so potent is its growing fascination with infiltrating politics and government. The new prophets and apostles believe Christians—certain Christians—are destined to not just take “dominion” over government, but stealthily climb to the commanding heights of what they term the “Seven Mountains” of society, including the media and the arts and entertainment world. They believe they’re intended to lord over it all. As a first step, they’re leading an “army of God” to commandeer civilian government.
In Rick Perry, they may have found their vessel. And the interest appears to be mutual.
In all the media attention surrounding Perry’s flirtation with a run for the presidency, the governor’s budding relationship with the leaders of the New Apostolic Reformation movement has largely escaped notice. But perhaps not for long. Perry has given self-proclaimed prophets and apostles leading roles in The Response, a much-publicized Christians-only prayer rally that Perry is organizing at Houston’s Reliant Stadium on Aug. 6.
The Response has engendered widespread criticism of its deliberate blurring of church and state and for the involvement of the American Family Association, labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its leadership’s homophobic and anti-Muslim statements. But it’s the involvement of New Apostolic leaders that’s more telling about Perry’s convictions and campaign strategy.
Eight members of The Response “leadership team” are affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation movement. They’re employed or associated with groups like TheCall or the International House of Prayer (IHOP), Kansas City-based organizations at the forefront of the movement. The long list of The Response’s official endorsers—posted on the event’s website—reads like a Who’s Who of the apostolic-prophetic crowd, including movement founder C. Peter Wagner.
In a recent interview with the Observer, Schlueter explained that The Response is divinely inspired. “The government of our nation was basically founded on biblical principles,” he says. “When you have a governmental leader call a time of fasting and prayer, I believe that there has been a significant shift in our understanding as far as who is ultimately in charge of our nation—which we believe God is.”
Perry certainly knows how to speak the language of the new apostles. The genesis of The Response, Perry says, comes from the Book of Joel, an obscure slice of the Old Testament that’s popular with the apostolic crowd.
“With the economy in trouble, communities in crisis and people adrift in a sea of moral relativism, we need God's help,” Perry says in a video message on The Response website. “That's why I'm calling on Americans to pray and fast like Jesus did and as God called the Israelites to do in the Book of Joel.”
The reference to Joel likely wasn’t lost on Perry’s target audience. Prominent movement leaders strike the same note. Lou Engle, who runs TheCall, told a Dallas-area Assemblies of God congregation in April that “His answer in times of crisis is Joel 2.”
Mike Bickle, a jock-turned-pastor who runs the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, a sort of command headquarters and university for young End Times enthusiasts, taught a 12-part series on Joel last year.
The Book of Joel describes a crippling drought and economic crisis—sound familiar?—in the land of Judah. The calamities, in Joel’s time and ours, are “sent by God to cause a wicked, oppressive, and rebellious nation to repent,” Bickle told his students.
To secure God's blessing, Joel commands the people to gather in “sacred assembly” to pray, fast, and repent.
More ominously, Bickle teaches that Joel is an “instruction manual” for the imminent End Times. It is “essential to help equip people to be prepared for the unique dynamics occurring in the years leading up to Jesus’ return,” he has said.
The views espoused by Bickle, Engle and other movement leaders occupy the radical fringe of Christian fundamentalism. Their beliefs may seem bizarre even to many conservative evangelicals. Yet Perry has a knack for finding the forefront of conservative grassroots. Prayer warriors, apostles and prophets are filled with righteous energy and an increasing appetite for power in the secular political world. Their zeal and affiliation with charismatic independent churches, the fastest-growing subset of American Christianity, offers obvious benefits for Perry if he runs for president.
There are enormous political risks, too. Mainstream voters may be put off by the movement’s extreme views or discomfited by talk of self-proclaimed prophets “infiltrating” government.
Catherine Frazier, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, wouldn’t respond to specific questions but wrote in an email, “The Response event is about coming together in prayer to seek wisdom and guidance from God to the challenges that confront our nation. That is where the governor's focus is, and he welcomes those that wish to join him in this common cause.”
For the moment, Perry’s relationship with the New Apostles is little known. Few in Texas GOP circles say they’ve ever heard of them. “I wish I could help you,” said Steve Munisteri, the state Republican Party chair. “I’ve never even heard of that movement.”
“For the most part I don't know them,” said Cathie Adams, former head of the Texas Eagle Forum and a veteran conservative activist.
Nonetheless, Perry may be counting on apostles and prophets to help propel him to the White House. And they hope Perry will lead them out of the wilderness into the promised land.
Listen closely to Perry’s recent public statements and you’ll occasionally hear him uttering New Apostle code words. In June, Perry defended himself against Texas critics on Fox News, telling host Neil Cavuto that “a prophet is generally not loved in their hometown.”
It seemed an odd comment. It’s the rare politician who compares himself to a prophet, and many viewers likely passed it off as a flub. But to the members of a radical new Christian movement, the remark made perfect sense.
The phrase “New Apostolic Reformation” comes from the movement’s intellectual godfather, C. Peter Wagner, who has called it, a bit vaingloriously, “the most radical change in the way of doing Christianity since the Protestant Reformation.”
Boasting aside, Wagner is an important figure in evangelical circles. He helped formulate the “church growth” model, a blueprint for worship that helped spawn modern mega-churches and international missions. In the 1990s, he turned away from the humdrum business of “harvesting souls” in mega-churches and embarked on a more revolutionary project.
He began promoting the notion that God is raising up modern-day prophets and apostles vested with extraordinary authority to bring about social transformation and usher in the Kingdom of God.
In 2006, Wagner published Apostles Today: Biblical Government for Biblical Power, in which he declared a “Second Apostolic Age.” The first age had occurred after Jesus’ biblical resurrection, when his apostles traveled Christendom spreading the gospel. Commissioned by Jesus himself, the 12 apostles acted as His agents. The second apostolic age, Wagner announced, began “around the year 2001.”
“Apostles,” he wrote, “are the generals in the army of God.”
One of the primary tasks of the new prophets and apostles is to hear God’s will and then act on it. Sometimes this means changing the world supernaturally. Wagner tells of the time in October 2001 when, at a huge prayer conference in Germany, he “decreed that mad cow disease would come to an end in Europe and the UK.” As it turned out, the last reported case of human mad cow disease had occurred the day before. “I am not implying that I have any inherent supernatural power,” Wagner wrote. “I am implying that when apostles hear the word of God clearly and when they decree His will, history can change.”
Claims of such powers are rife among Wagner’s followers. Cindy Jacobs—a self-described “respected prophet” and Wagner protégée who runs a Dallas-area group called Generals International—claims to have predicted the recent earthquakes in Japan. “God had warned us that shaking was coming,” she wrote in Charisma magazine, an organ for the movement. “This doesn’t mean that it was His desire for it to happen, but more of the biblical fulfillment that He doesn’t do anything without first warning through His servants.”
There is, of course, a corollary to these predictive abilities: Horrible things happen when advice goes unheeded.
Last year Jacobs warned that if America didn’t return to biblical values and support Israel, God would cause a “tumbling of the economy and dark days will come,” according to Charisma. To drive the point home, Jacobs and other right-wing allies—including The Response organizers Lou Engle and California pastor Jim Garlow—organized a 40-day “Pray and Act” effort in the lead-up to the 2010 elections.
Unlike other radical religious groups, the New Apostles believe political activism is part of their divine mission. “Whereas their spiritual forefathers in the Pentecostal movement would have eschewed involvement in politics, the New Apostles believe they have a divine mandate to rescue a decaying American society,” said Margaret Poloma, a practicing Pentecostal and professor of sociology at the University of Akron. “Their apostolic vision is to usher in the Kingdom of God.”
“Where does God stop and they begin?” she asks. “I don't think they know the difference.”
Poloma is one of the few academics who has closely studied the apostolic movement. It’s largely escaped notice, in part, because it lacks the traditional structures of either politics or religion, says Rachel Tabachnick, a researcher who has covered the movement extensively for Talk2Action.org, a left-leaning site that covers the religious right.
“It’s fairly recent and it just doesn’t fit into people’s pre-conceived notions,” she says. “They can’t get their head around something that isn’t denominational.”
The movement operates through a loose but interlocking array of churches, ministries, councils and seminaries—many of them in Texas. But mostly it holds together through the friendships and alliances of its prophets and apostles.
The Response itself seems patterned on TheCall, day-long worship and prayer rallies usually laced with anti-gay and anti-abortion messages. TheCall—also the name of a Kansas City-based organization—is led by Lou Engle, an apostle who looks a bit like Mr. Magoo and has the unnerving habit of rocking back and forth while shouting at his audience in a raspy voice. (Engle is also closely associated with the International House of Prayer—, Mike Bickle’s 24/7 prayer center in Kansas City.) Engle frequently mobilizes his followers in the service of earthly causes, holding raucous prayer events in California to help pass Prop 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative, and making an appearance in Uganda last year to lend aid to those trying to pass a law that would have imposed the death penalty on homosexuals. But Engle's larger aim is Christian control of government.
“The church’s vocation is to rule history with God,” he has said. “We are called into the very image of the Trinity himself, that we are to be His friends and partners for world dominion.”
“It sounds so fringe but yet it’s not fringe,” Tabachnick says. “They’ve been working with Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Sam Brownback, and now Rick Perry. ... They are becoming much more politically noticeable.”
Some of the fiercest critics of the New Apostolic Reformation come from within the Pentecostal and charismatic world. The Assemblies of God Church, the largest organized Pentecostal denomination, specifically repudiated self-proclaimed prophets and apostles in 2000, calling their creed a “deviant teaching” that could rapidly “become dictatorial, presumptuous, and carnal.”
Assemblies authorities also rejected the notion that the church is supposed to assume dominion over earthly institutions, labeling it “unscriptural triumphalism.”
The New Apostles talk about taking dominion over American society in pastoral terms. They refer to the “Seven Mountains” of society: family, religion, arts and entertainment, media, government, education, and business. These are the nerve centers of society that God (or his people) must control.
Asked about the meaning of the Seven Mountains, Schlueter says, “God's kingdom just can’t be expressed on Sunday morning for two hours. God’s kingdom has to be expressed in media and government and education. It’s not like our goal is to have a Bible on every child’s desk. That’s not the goal. The goal is to hopefully have everyone acknowledge that God’s in charge of us regardless.”
But climbing those mountains sounds a little more specific on Sunday mornings. Schlueter has bragged to his congregation of meetings with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, state Sen. Brian Birdwell, and the Arlington City Council. He recently told a church in Victoria that state Rep. Phil King, a conservative Republican from Weatherford, had allowed him to use King’s office at the Capitol to make calls and organize.
“We’re going to influence it,” Schlueter told his congregation. “We’re going to infiltrate it, not run from it. I know why God’s doing what he’s doing ... He’s just simply saying, ‘Tom I’ve given you authority in a governmental authority, and I need you to infiltrate the governmental mountain. Just do it, it’s no big deal.’ I was talking with [a member of the congregation] the other day. She’s going to start infiltrating. A very simple process. She’s going to join the Republican Party, start going to all their meetings. Some [members] are already doing that.”
Doug Stringer, a relatively low-profile apostle, is one of the movement’s more complex figures—and one of the few people associated with The Response who returned my calls. His assignment for The Response: mobilizing the faithful from around the nation. Though he's friendly with the governor and spoke at the state GOP convention, Stringer says he’s a political independent, “morally conservative” but with a “heart for social justice.”
Stringer runs Somebody Cares America, a nonprofit combining evangelism with charitable assistance to the indigent and victims of natural disasters. In 2009, Perry recognized Stringer in his State of the State address for his role in providing aid to Texans devastated by Hurricane Ike.
Stringer’s message is that The Response will be apolitical, non-partisan, even ecumenical. The goal, he says, is to “pray for personal repentance and corporate repentance on behalf of the church, not against anybody else.”
I ask him about his involvement with the Texas Apostolic Prayer Network, which is overseen by Schlueter. Six of the nine people listed as network “advisors” are involved in The Response, including Stringer, Cindy Jacobs and Waco pastor Ramiro Peña. The Texas group is part of a larger 50-state network of prophets, apostles and prayer intercessors called the Heartland Apostolic Network, which itself overlaps with the Reformation Prayer Network run by Jacobs. The Texas Apostolic Prayer Network is further subdivided into sixteen regions, each with its own director.
Some of these groups’ beliefs and activities will be startling, even to many conservative evangelicals. For example, in 2010 Texas prayer warriors visited every Masonic lodge in the state attempting to cast out the demon Baal, whom they believe controls Freemasonry. At each site, the warriors read a decree—written in legalese—divorcing Baal from the “People of God” and recited a lengthy prayer referring to Freemasonry as “witchcraft.”
Asked whether he shares these views, Stringer launches into a long treatise about secrecy during which he manages to lump together Mormonism, Freemasonry and college fraternities.
“I think there has been a lot of damage and polarization over decades because of the influence of some areas of Freemasonry that have been corrupted,” he says. “In fact, if you look at the original founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, he had a huge influence by Masonry. Bottom-line, anything that is so secretive that has to be hidden in darkness ... is not biblical. The Bible says that everything needs to be brought to the light. That’s why I would never be part of a fraternity, like on campus.”
Why would Perry throw in with this crowd?
One possible answer is that he’s an opportunistic politician running for president who’s trying to get right, if not with Jesus, with a particular slice of the GOP base.
Perry himself may have the gift of foresight. He seems preternaturally capable of spotting The Next Big Thing and positioning himself as an authentic leader of grassroots movements before they overtake other politicians. Think of the prescient way he hitched his political future to the Tea Party. In 2009 Perry spoke at a Tax Day protest and infamously flirted with Texas secession. At the time it seemed crazy. In retrospect it seems brilliant.
Now, he’s made common cause with increasingly influential fundamentalists from the bleeding fringe of American Christianity at a time when the political influence of mainstream evangelicals seems to be fading.
For decades evangelicals have been key to Republican presidential victories, but much has changed since George W. Bush named Jesus as his favorite philosopher at an Iowa debate during the 2000 presidential campaign. There is much turbulence among evangelicals. There’s no undisputed leader, a Jerry Falwell or a Pat Robertson, to bring the “tribes”—to use Stringer’s phrase—together. So you go where the momentum is. There is palpable excitement in the prayer movement and among the New Apostles that the nation is on the cusp of a major spiritual and political revival.
“On an exciting note, we are in the beginning stages of the Third Great Awakening,” Jacobs told Trinity Church in Cedar Hill earlier this year. (Trinity’s pastor, Jim Hennesy, is also an apostle and endorser of The Response. Trinity is probably best known for its annual Halloween “Hell House” that tries to scare teens into accepting Jesus.) “We are seeing revivals pop up all over the United States. ... Fires are breaking out all over the place. And we are going to see great things happening.”
Moreover, various media outlets have documented a possible coalescing of religious-right leaders around Perry’s candidacy. Time magazine reported on a June conference call among major evangelical leaders, including religious historian David Barton and San Antonio pastor John Hagee, in which they “agreed that Rick Perry would be their preferred candidate if he entered the race,” according to the magazine.
Journalist Tabachnick says politicians are attracted to the apostolic movement because of the valuable organizational structure and databases the leadership has built.
“I believe it’s because they’ve built such a tremendous communication network,” she says, pointing to the 50-state prayer networks plugged into churches and ministries. “They found ways to work that didn’t involve the institutional structures that many denominations have. They don’t have big offices, headquarters. They work more like a political campaign.”
But if the apostles present a broad organizing opportunity, the political risks for Perry are equally large.
In 2008 GOP nominee John McCain was forced to reject Hagee’s endorsement after media scrutiny of the pastor’s anti-Catholic comments. Similarly, Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign nearly fell apart when voters saw video of controversial sermons by the candidate’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright. If anything, Perry is venturing even further into the spiritual wilderness. The faith of the New Apostles will be unfamiliar, strange, and scary to many Americans.
Consider Alice Patterson. She’s in charge of mobilizing churches in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma for The Response. A field director for the Texas Christian Coalition in the 1990s, she’s now a significant figure in apostolic circles and runs a San Antonio-based organization called Justice at the Gate.
Patterson, citing teachings by Cindy Jacobs, Chuck Pierce and Lou Engle, has written that the Democratic Party is controlled by “an invisible network of evil comprising an unholy structure” unleashed by the biblical figure Jezebel.
Patterson claims to have seen demons with her own eyes. In 2009, at a prophetic meeting in Houston, Patterson says she saw the figure of Jezebel and “saw Jezebel’s skirt lifted to expose tiny Baal, Asherah, and a few other spirits. There they were—small, cowering, trembling little spirits that were only ankle high on Jezebel’s skinny legs.”
Those revelations are contained in Patterson’s 2010 book Bridging the Racial and Political Divide: How Godly Politics Can Transform a Nation. Patterson’s aim, as she makes clear in her book, is getting black and brown evangelicals to vote Republican and support conservative causes. A major emphasis among the New Apostles is racial reconciliation and recruitment of minorities and women. The apostolic prayer networks often perform elaborate ceremonies in which participants dress up in historical garb and repent for racial sins.
The formula—overcoming racism to achieve multiracial fundamentalism—has caught on in the apostolic movement. Some term the approach the “Rainbow Right,” and in fact The Response has a high quotient of African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans in leadership positions.
Lou Engle, for example, is making a big push to recruit black activists into the anti-abortion ranks. “We’re looking for the new breed of black prophets to arise and forgive us our baggage,” he said at Trinity Assemblies of God, “and then lead us out of victimization and into the healing of a nation, to stop the shedding of innocent blood.”
Rick Perry is a white southern conservative male who may end up running against a black president. It doesn’t take a prophet to see that he could use friends like these.
There’s one other possible reason for Perry’s flirtation with the apostles, and it has nothing to do with politics. He could be a true believer.
Perry has never been shy about proclaiming his faith. He was raised a Methodist and still occasionally attends Austin’s genteel Tarrytown United Methodist Church. But according to an October 2010 story in the Austin American-Statesman, he now spends more Sundays at West Austin’s Lake Hills Church, a non-denominational evangelical church that features a rock band and pop-culture references. The more effusive approach to religion clearly appealed to Perry. “They dunk,” Perry told the American-Statesman. “Methodists sprinkle.”
Still, attending an evangelical church is a long way from believing in modern-day apostles and demons in plain sight. Could Perry actually buy into this stuff?
He’s certainly convinced the movement’s leaders. “He’s a very deep man of faith and I know that sometimes causes problems for people because they think he’s making decisions based on his faith,” Schlueter says. He pauses a beat. “Well, I hope so.”
But the danger of associating with extremists is apparent even to Schlueter, the man who took God’s message to Perry in September 2009. “It could be political suicide to do what he’s doing,” Schlueter says. “Man, this is the last thing he’d want to do if it were concerning a presidential bid. It could be very risky.”
Evangelical Christians' goals and the promise of a President Perry
David Sehat, special to The Washington Post
Updated: 7:31 p.m. Thursday, July 28, 2011
Published: 7:21 p.m. Thursday, July 28, 2011
On Aug. 6, Texas Gov. Rick Perry will lead a prayer rally in Houston despite criticism that his event violates the separation of church and state. Though Perry said recently that he felt "called" to run for the presidency, he also told a Christian radio show that the rally will not be political. "This is simply people calling out to God," he said.
The governor is the latest would-be presidential candidate injecting religion into Republican politics while disavowing political intent. But once they pocket the votes of fellow Christians, do these politicos keep the faith?
The track record is spotty. George W. Bush, who claimed in a 1999 Republican primary debate that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher, promised $8 billion to churches and other religious groups. Once elected, he created an executive office for faith-based initiatives; the first grants of $15 million went to small churches and other religious groups that offered job training and unemployment services in the economic slump after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Of the promised $8 billion, only about $500 million was delivered. The rest was lost to the Bush tax cuts. Moreover, David Kuo, a special assistant to Bush for faith-based initiatives, claimed that supposedly nonpartisan conferences convened in 2002 to help religious charities apply for federal funds took place in districts where Republican incumbents were in trouble. "It had to look like the idea came from members of Congress, just another way incumbent representatives were serving their communities," Kuo wrote later. "This approach inoculated us against accusations that we were using religion and religious leaders to promote specific candidates."
This dynamic — candidate courts evangelical voters, then strays from the path after Election Day — is not new. Billy Graham, the face of evangelical Christianity since his first crusades to find converts in the late 1940s, struck up an alliance with Richard Nixon when Nixon was Dwight Eisenhower's vice president. Though not an evangelical, Nixon seemed sympathetic to Graham's vision and made evangelicals central to his electoral strategy after the upheavals of the 1960s.
Graham shilled for Nixon during the 1968 campaign but consistently denied that he played a political role, even after he allowed Nixon to address a crusade in 1970. Deflecting criticism of the choice months later, Graham offered an explanation that betrayed either naivete or cynicism: "I wouldn't think that you'd call the president political."
Graham would have regrets after the Watergate scandal. He had thought that aligning himself with power would advance the evangelical cause. With the release of a partial transcript of the White House tapes, however, Graham was crushed. He said later that when he saw the real Nixon — profane, vindictive and petty — he "felt like a sheep led to the slaughter." No presidential candidate ever addressed a Graham crusade again. Rehabilitating his image as a nonpartisan adviser to commanders in chief, Graham offered prayers at the inaugurations of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. "The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it," he said in 1981.
But evangelicals continued in politics without Graham. By the time Ronald Reagan rose to prominence, they had become a permanent part of the GOP base. When Reagan appeared before 15,000 religious leaders at the Religious Roundtable's National Affairs Briefing in 1980, he told the crowd: "I know you can't endorse me ... but I want you to know that I endorse you and what you are doing." Jerry Falwell, head of the Moral Majority, called Reagan's election "the greatest day for the cause of conservatism and morality in my adult life." Reagan had counted on the televangelist to help him defeat former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter in the South. An alliance like the one between Graham and Nixon seemed mutually beneficial.
Yet Reagan did little for evangelicals once he reached the Oval Office. He gave them few key appointments in his administration, and in 1981, he met with Falwell and Paul Weyrich, founder of the conservative Heritage Foundation, and asked that they put their agenda on the back burner while he negotiated with Congress over taxes. They agreed, and regretted it. Though Reagan put pro-abortion rights justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court and made like-minded William Rehnquist chief justice, he also nominated Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, co-authors of the 1992 opinion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe v. Wade. Evangelicals wanted a constitutional amendment banning abortion, but Reagan proved unwilling to push for legislation doomed to die in a Democratic Congress. "The religious right was sweet-talked," Weyrich complained at the end of Reagan's first term.
That evangelicals have been so disappointed with the presidents they elect suggests that politics might not be the best avenue to achieve their aims. Politics demands compromise and conciliation that counter evangelical calls for purity. When Michele Bachmann insists that "social conservatism is fiscal conservatism," does she understand that conservative Christians want to do more than cut taxes? When Tim Pawlenty names his "political heroes" — "I love Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, Jesus Christ" — does he know that making war wasn't part of the carpenter from Judea's program?
If Perry thinks politicking is more important than proselytizing, conservative Christians will not fare well in 2012, even if their candidates win. Perhaps they should turn to Matthew 10:16: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents." After all, mixing religion and politics is a slithery business.
Sehat is an assistant professor of history at Georgia State University and the author of ‘The Myth of American Religious Freedom.'
In the Constitution, there is a small reminder that religion has no place in the government and it is different than the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom. In Article 6, paragraph 3, the Founding Fathers reiterated the Separation Clause with a prohibition on a politician’s faith as part of a requirement to serve in any capacity in the Federal or state government. The Constitution says, “All executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Framers knew that if left unchecked, at some juncture a religious fanatic could use a candidate’s faith as a weapon against them or as a blessing to promote a particular agenda that is not in the best interest of the country. A fanatical religious candidate could cause serious problems if they were extreme enough or had mental problems that may lead them to carry out a biblical prophecy.
In America, mental illness has become a serious problem and in extreme cases can lead to bad outcomes if untreated or undiagnosed. There are numerous examples of mental defect and disorder in the Republican Party and there is no Republican suffering delusion and schizophrenia more than dysfunctional Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and any number of evangelical Christian conservatives serving in our government. Crazy people hardly ever show outward expressions of their mental disorders and it is often surprising to discover that a seemingly normal human being is loony, and if they are in a position of power they can be downright dangerous.
One of the primary indicators of severe mental illness is when a person hears a voice in their head that gives them instructions or suggestions that they act on. It does not matter if the voices tell them to commit a crime or paint a butterfly, if they hear voices, they are most likely schizophrenic. A fair description of schizophrenia is; a psychiatric illness characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality, most commonly manifesting as auditory hallucinations, paranoid delusions or disorganized talking and thinking in the context of significant social or occupational dysfunction.” Now if a religious person claims that god has told them to do something, most people just shake their head and smile, but it is nothing to smile about if the individual is a presidential candidate or serves in any capacity of governance. The current crop of Republican candidates and many governors use religion to garner support from Christian fundamentalists, but as noted above, according to the Constitution there is not supposed to be a religious test to serve.
The Republicans who pander to the Religious Right and evangelical extremists by constantly referring to their credentials as Christians are ignoring the Constitution (no surprise there), but the real danger is that they claim to have heard god tell them it is time to run for the presidency of a secular nation. It is frightening that the majority of Republican candidates are either hearing a voice in their head, or calling on supporters to pray to assuage droughts, natural disaster, or to stave off hunger.
Michele Bachmann has suggested to people starving that they should have faith in god and pray for food and shelter instead of using government programs that are in place to help the least fortunate. It is beyond insane to tell starving Americans to pray that god will provide shelter and drop food on their tables, but that is exactly what Bachmann told an audience in South Carolina earlier this month. It is certain that a huge percentage of the millions of Americans living in poverty are devout Christians who pray for food and shelter, and yet they are still destitute. Morons like Bachmann tell the poor to pray for food and shelter because it allows her to vote to slash government programs with a clear conscience, but it absolutely does nothing to help hungry Americans. Bachmann may believe that god will provide food and shelter, but it is more likely that she uses calls for prayer to excuse her inhumane opposition to government food programs. If praying for food and shelter worked, there would not be one starving child in America and there would not be a need for government assistance, but with the poverty rate at 13 percent (2008) and 16.7 million children hungry, it is obvious prayer is not working. However, crazy politicians hear voices that tell them to vote against food programs for children because it is easier to tell the poor to pray than deprive the wealthy and corporations of their entitlements. SOURCE
God told her to run for Congress, she said in October of 2006
'God told her to run for president'.she said in June 2011.
'God told me to introduce a ' Constitutional amendment ' she said in April 2011.
When you talk to God, that's prayer. When God talks back, that's schizophrenia!
and the last woman who ran a country because God told her to was Joan of Arc, and she was burned as a witch! comment by michael rivero-what really happened .com
REMEMBER THIS NUT BAG AND HIS LAME EXCUSE FOR INVADING IRAQ?
President 'revealed reasons for war in private meeting'
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Friday, 7 October 2005
President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.
The President made the assertion during his first meeting with Palestinian leaders in June 2003, according to a BBC series which will be broadcast this month.
The revelation comes after Mr Bush launched an impassioned attack yesterday in Washington on Islamic militants, likening their ideology to that of Communism, and accusing them of seeking to "enslave whole nations" and set up a radical Islamic empire "that spans from Spain to Indonesia". In the programmeElusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, which starts on Monday, the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."
Mr Abbas remembers how the US President told him he had a "moral and religious obligation" to act. The White House has refused to comment on what it terms a private conversation. But the BBC account is anything but implausible, given how throughout his presidency Mr Bush, a born-again Christian, has never hidden the importance of his faith.
From the outset he has couched the "global war on terror" in quasi-religious terms, as a struggle between good and evil. Al-Qa'ida terrorists are routinely described as evil-doers. For Mr Bush, the invasion of Iraq has always been part of the struggle against terrorism, and he appears to see himself as the executor of the divine will.
He told Bob Woodward - whose 2004 book, Plan of Attack, is the definitive account of the administration's road to war in Iraq - that after giving the order to invade in March 2003, he walked in the White House garden, praying "that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty". As he went into this critical period, he told Mr Woodward, "I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will.
"I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I will be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then of course, I pray for forgiveness."
Another telling sign of Mr Bush's religion was his answer to Mr Woodward's question on whether he had asked his father - the former president who refused to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq after driving Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 - for advice on what to do.
The current President replied that his earthly father was "the wrong father to appeal to for advice ... there is a higher father that I appeal to".
The same sense of mission permeated his speech at the National Endowment of Democracy yesterday. Its main news was Mr Bush's claim that Western security services had thwarted 10 planned attacks by al-Qa'ida since 11 September 2001, three of them against mainland US.
More striking though was his unrelenting portrayal of radical Islam as a global menace, which only the forces of freedom - led by the US - could repel. It was delivered at a moment when Mr Bush's domestic approval ratings are at their lowest ebb, in large part because of the war in Iraq, in which 1,950 US troops have died, with no end in sight.
It came amid continuing violence on the ground, nine days before the critical referendum on the new constitution that offers perhaps the last chance of securing a unitary and democratic Iraq. "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region" and set up a radical empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia, he said.
The insurgents' aim was to "enslave whole nations and intimidate the world". He portrayed Islamic radicals as a single global movement, from the Middle East to Chechnya and Bali and the jungles of the Philippines.
He rejected claims that the US military presence in Iraq was fuelling terrorism: 11 September 2001 occurred long before American troops set foot in Iraq - and Russia's opposition to the invasion did not stop terrorists carrying out the Beslan atrocity in which 300 children died.
Mr Bush also accused Syria and Iran of supporting radical groups. They "have a long history of collaboration with terrorists and they deserve no patience". The US, he warned, "makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbour them because they're equally as guilty of murder".
"Wars are not won without sacrifice and this war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve," Mr Bush declared. But progress was being made in Iraq, and, he proclaimed: "We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory."