The Spiritual Dimensions of the 2008 Presidential Campaign



Presidential Election 2012: Epilogue to "The Spiritual Dimensions of the 2008 Presidential Campaign"


On Election Day, November 6, 2012,

the Principality operating behind the spirit Victory

lost its place to operate through

America’s White Male Establishment


The Stronghold of the Nicolaitan spirit

that has ruled over America since the days

of America's Founding Fathers was weakened

when President Obama was elected in 2008 and

was Pulled Down over America when he was re-elected


However, the Principality operating behind

Santiago the Usurper

has not lost its place over America

and this spirit will manifest itself through the

offspring of the Spanish Knights of Santiago -


See Presidential Election 2012 for articles: Hurricane Sandy – the Mighty Flood Waters; General Petraeus – His Triumphal Entry; and We the People


November 6, 2012:  Against all reasoning - President Barack won a second term to serve as President of the United States and his landslide Victory stunned America's White Male Establishment.      


"We the People" has been redefined:  America's "White Male Establishment" was birthed by the "White Males" who wrote America's Constitution.  And, according to the White Males who wrote the Constitution, only white men who owned land could vote. Yet, it was the diverse coalition of minorities, women, youth and lower income people, the very people that America's Founding Fathers would have thought unthinkable of allowing them the right to vote - they are the very ones who redefined "We the People" and did the more unthinkable - the man they voted for was an African American - a man the Founding Fathers deemed was only three-fifths of a man.  Needless to say, not all educated or wealthy white males embrace the mentality of the "White Male Establishment" - as many voted for Barack Obama as well. 


One might argue that the Constitution was amended to allow everyone to vote.  However, an Amended Constitution did not nor does not change someone's heart - otherwise changes to the Constitution would have been made other than through the shedding of blood and other long fought political battles.  


Although there are other spirits operating through the "White Male Establishment" for the purposes of this paper - the principality I want to focus on is the "Nicolaitan Spirit" whose goal is to have victory over others by lording over them through various forms of fear and intimidation.  Needless to say, anyone who enslaved another human being and excluded others from the right to vote was to lord over them as well.  


Now the word "Victory" is important to take note of.  Again, the Nicolaitan spirit gains Victory over people by "lording over" them.  And, it's obvious that a manifestation of this spirit was operating through the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution.  And, it's also obvious that this spirit no longer has the Victory - the White Male Establishment has suffered defeat at the hands of the very people that America's Founding Fathers sought to lord over.  President Obama did indeed have "Victory" both in the Natural realm and the Spiritual realm.



The Nicolaitan Spirit is portrayed in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol Building


The main focus of the Apotheosis of Washington, as shown below, is Washington portrayed as Jupiter with Liberty seated to his right and the main subject of this paper – the goddess Victory seated to his left – all 3 representing the Americanized version of the three deities worshipped on Capitoline Hill in Rome. 




The terms Victory & Nicolaitan are one and the same spirit



The symbolism of Victory seated alongside Washington on a rainbow reveals the Founding Fathers embraced the "doctrine of the Nicolaitans":  to be victorious over the people.  Given that the rainbow is symbolic of a covenant - then we know that America's Founding Fathers entered into covenants with the spirits operating behind the gods pagans worshipped.  This too was forbidden in Scripture.


Victory is an aggressor and "delights" in leading nations into war as well as a goddess who "delights" in war for the sake of war.  And, interestingly, many nations view America as just that:  an aggressor in war and a nation who delights in war.


It is one thing to defend your country – it is quite another thing to invade another country.  America is well known to justify invading other countries – however their justifications are often  based on “rumors” that are nothing more than "rumors."   


Two articles that ran in the Wall Street Journal & The Washington Post say it all: 


1.  The Wall Street Journal:  Mitt Romney won the white vote 59% to 39%, the biggest share for a Republican since 1988 - and it was still not enough to put him in the White House.[1] 


2.  The Washington Post:   Republican leaders awoke Wednesday to witness their grim future.  And then they promptly began what promises to be an extended period of internal strife over how a party that skews toward older white men can compete in an increasingly diverse nation.[2] 




"Stunned" Fox News Commentators:  The following comments made by Bill O'Reilly and John McCain are representative of the White Male Establishment and their disbelief that President Obama could be re-elected:    



Bill O'Reilly to John McCain:  But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want?  They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have.  In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right.  So I say you've got to cap with a number.  Resource: YouTube



Bill O'Reilly to Megyn Kelly:  The White Establishment is Now the Minority:  O’Reilly went on to predict that Romney would lose the election if he lost Ohio.  “How do you think we got to that point?” host Megyn Kelly wondered.  “Because it’s a changing country,” O’Reilly insisted. “The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff, they want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.”  The white establishment is now the minority,” he added. “And the voters — many of them — feel that this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama, overwhelming black vote for President Obama and women will probably break President Obama’s way.”  People feel that they are entitled to things. And which candidate between the two is going to give them things?”  Resource: YouTube







The Spiritual Dimensions of the 2008 Presidential Campaign – main Article





In this year’s Presidential campaign the candidates’ personal ethics and religious beliefs are being questioned and judged based on the church they attend and their religious affiliations and endorsements, to the determent of all involved.  Because America’s government is a civil government, the U.S. Constitution forbids any form of religious test as a prerequisite for political office.  Article VI of the Constitution reads in part:  “… but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the Unites states.”  Furthermore, the first amendment to the Constitution guarantees religious freedom.


Despite this Constitutional ban and guarantee, the 2008 presidential campaign has been more religiously charged than at anytime since John F. Kennedy successfully campaigned as a Catholic candidate for president in 1960.  One candidate’s Church has even received death threats.[3] 


Examples of our religious toleration abound.  In October 2007, American lawmakers honored a man believed to be the embodiment of a god, the Dali Lama, with the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor that can be awarded to a civilian.  President Bush compared the exiled spiritual leader of millions of Tibetan Buddhist to himself and other Americans who promote religious freedom, religious toleration and human rights.  In another example of celebration of America’s religious rights, Keith Ellison, a lawmaker on Capitol Hill who is Muslim, in 2007 took the oath of office on the Koran, Islam’s holy book.


Surprisingly, the candidates in the 2008 presidential race and the pastors who have endorsed them, all Christians, along with their Churches have not been afforded the same religious tolerance.  The right to practice religion according to their beliefs has not been tolerated by the media,[4] other candidates and the public, who have analyzed and criticized their sermons.  A candidate’s eligibility and electability to serve as President of the United States should not be threatened by his personal religious beliefs or the religious beliefs of those that he is associated with – yet that is happening. 


Repeatedly the Presidential candidates have yielded to the media’s demands and have rejected endorsements, refuted their pastor’s past statements, and when their Church became a liability to their bid for the Presidential nomination, even resigned from their Church.[5]  In doing so, they have allowed the media to pass judgment on the Church. 


Today’s media can be likened to the Pharisaical Scribes of Jesus’ day who were offended by the teachings (and works?) of Christ (Matt 21:15).  They were among those who plotted against Him (Luke 22:2-6 & 23:10) and who persecuted Christians (Acts 6:12).  So it is with the media today who have gone sleuthing in search of words and sound bites to take out of context to harass and persecute the Christian community.[6]  Similar to the Scribes who added the traditions of man to the Law, the media have added their own secular understanding and interpretations of Christ’s teachings to falsely accuse Christians.


Furthermore, politicians, including the Presidential candidates themselves, all of whom are lawmakers, have also judged the character of each other based upon religious affiliations.  In the process, they condemned the character and refuted the beliefs of several Christian Pastors and their congregations.  In doing so, they have violated their oath of office to uphold a Constitution that requires them to tolerate all religious beliefs as well as guarantees religious freedom – even those of their opponents.[7]



On Earth as in Heaven: The Spiritual Component of Natural Events


We know from Scripture that many natural events are influenced by the spiritual realm or have a spiritual component.  Perhaps the clearest example of this is found in the Book of Job where God removed his hedge of protection and allowed Satan to afflict Job.  The natural events that ensued were clearly as a result of spiritual (satanic) intervention. 


The reason we can so easily see the spiritual component in Job’s circumstances is that we are given this specific insight in the first two chapters of the Book of Job.  However, we have other examples in Scripture that illustrate the dual components of natural events.  First is the principle of double reference and accountability and second is the conspiracy of church and state manipulating each other.


The Principle of Double Reference and Accountability


The principle of double reference and accountability refers to a situation that occurs simultaneously in the natural and the spiritual realms.  While the natural realm is visible, the spiritual realm is not.  Nonetheless, those in the natural realm – either knowingly or unknowingly – are influenced by the satanic in the spiritual realm.  That’s why Paul told the Ephesians that our battle is not against people, but against those in the spiritual realm and to fight this spiritual battle, we need to put on spiritual armor – the Armor of God (Eph 6:10-12). 


In many situations when people acted in response to the prompting or provoking of those in the spiritual realm confederated with Satan, the LORD dealt with both simultaneously.  For example, when Satan deceived Eve, he hid (invisible to Eve) behind the serpent (visible to Eve) to achieve his goal, which was to tempt Eve and ultimately Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  However, when the LORD spoke to the serpent – the main rebuke was directed at Satan (Gen 3:14-15).


The principle of double reference and accountability was demonstrated by judgment pronounced on the serpent and Satan simultaneously.  For the serpent who allowed Satan to operate through him, “upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life”, and for Satan, “and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; I shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:14-15).  In Revelation 12:9 & 20:2, Satan is identified as that “old serpent”.  Therefore, we know this passage is addressed not only to the physical creature, but to a spiritual being as well. 


In another example of this principle, Jesus rebuked Peter (the visible), and at the same time, He rebuked Satan (invisible to Peter):


“Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.(Matt 16:22, KJV, emphasis added)


As Jesus was being condemned by the chief priests and elders – Judas simultaneously committed suicide.  At the same time that Satan thought he had triumphed over Jesus when he was crucified on the cross – it was Jesus who triumphed over Satan (Colossians 2:15).


Satan has to operate through the natural environment as he did in the Garden of Eden or through man as he did with Peter or Judas.  However, he cannot operate or exercise authority without the cooperation and willingness of man unless he can find a place in man (i.e., a spiritual opening because of sin), which he gains legal access to work through.  


Church and State Manipulation


The Book of Ecclesiastics tells us that there is nothing new under the sun and that what has been will be again (Eccl 1:4, 9 – 10).  In the case of the religious and governmental establishments, this means that Satan will use the same tactics today to pervert the relationship between the Church and State that he did in Biblical times.  A good example of this was the manipulation used to sentence Jesus to death by crucifixion. 


“When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.(Matt 27:1-2, KJV, emphasis added)


Notice how the Sanhedrin, when they took Jesus to the Roman government, turned a spiritual battle into a political battle.  Likewise today, there are those who are Christians, as well as those who profess to be Christians but are not, who turn spiritual battles into political battles and vice versa, turn political battles into spiritual battles.


Just as there were those among the Sanhedrin who were afraid of confessing their faith in Jesus for fear of loosing their praise from men, there are some today who it seems have rejected the endorsements of Christian pastors and even left their home Churches because they too are afraid of loosing their praise from men.[8]


“Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:  For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.(John 12:42-43, KJV)


Satan’s strategy is the same today – he operates through plots and alliances to manipulate people and events.  The difference is that “what has been” reemerges camouflaged as the generations come and go. 


 The Plot Against Jesus:  According to Scripture, the government rests on the shoulders of Jesus Christ.  Therefore, the issue of Church and the State taking counsel together – when necessary due to circumstances – was not the problem.  The problem was that the Church and State took counsel against Jesus.


“The kings of the earth took their stand in array [for attack] and the rulers were assembled and combined together against the LORD and against His Anointed (Christ, the Messiah).  For in this city there actually met and plotted together against Your holy Child and Servant Jesus, Whom You consecrated by anointing, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and peoples of Israel.(Acts 4:26-27, Amplified Bible, emphasis added)


There were two dimensions to the plot to kill Jesus:  the events occurring in the natural realm and the events that were simultaneously occurring in the spiritual realm. 


The Natural Realm:  We have already pointed out that Acts 4:26 reveals that the people of Israel, the Gentiles, Herod and Pontius Pilate, all plotted together to crucify Jesus Christ.  Interestingly, one of these Israelites was one of Jesus’ own disciples – Judas Iscariot.  It was because of Judas that the Jews were able to arrest Jesus without the danger of a revolt by the people they feared (the multitude that followed Jesus).  In other words, it was because of Judas that they were even able to put their plot into motion.  


“And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.  Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.  And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.  And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.  And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.(Luke 22:2-6, KJV, emphasis added)


The Spiritual Realm:  Notice that it was after Satan entered Judas that Judas went to the chief priests and took counsel as to how he might help them betray Jesus.  In other words, Satan was very much a part of the conspiracy. 


 The Plot Against Trinity United Church of Christ: Plots and alliances are formed in the spiritual realm – then manifest on earth.  During the 2008 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton, spouse of Hillary Clinton indicated that a conspiracy had been formed against his wife’s candidacy for President.[9]  In reality, plots and alliances on both fronts of the Democratic Party have been formed and these conspiracies are a reflection of the alliances formed in the spiritual realm.  People manipulating others, being manipulated and divisive behavior are just part of Satan’s ongoing strategy.     


The most significant example thus far of plots and alliances during the 2008 presidential campaign is the plot against Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ, Barak Obama’s former church.  Satan operated through the same cast of characters to try to accomplish his objective of discrediting or otherwise bringing down this church. 


In the plot against Jesus discussed above, Satan used the alliance of scribes, gentiles, Jewish religious leaders, the Roman government, and an insider (a disciple) who betrayed Jesus (Judas Iscariot).  In the plot to try to bring down Trinity Church, Satan used the modern-day equivalents of these groups:


·         Scribes – the media in America, especially those professing to be Christians

·         Gentiles – unbelievers in America who believed the reporting and judgment pronounced by the media

·         Religious leaders – Christian religious leaders who judged Rev. Wright and Trinity Church according to secular standards

·         Government – representatives of America’s government, Senators Clinton and McCain who severely criticized both Rev. Wright and Barak Obama

·         Insider betrayal – Barak Obama who refuted Rev. Wright’s statements, called him his ex-pastor and resigned his membership in Trinity Church


When Jesus was arrested and crucified, for the most part, His disciples were confused and fearful.  Similarly, the Christian brethren of Trinity Church had these same feelings and more.  They felt betrayed, wounded, hurt, fearful, frustrated, dismayed and heartbroken.  These feelings were summed up in an article in The Washington Post titled, “At Obama’s Former Church, Hurt Lingers”:


“… A vast distance separates Obama from the church he quit last month, as hurt feelings continue to fester on both sides.  Obama, his patience exhausted by the most recent controversial remark from a pastor, said in late May, ‘Our relations with Trinity have been strained.’  And some of the church’s 8,000 members – as well as some other black pastors – feel abandoned, betrayed and misunderstood after their contentious turn in the national spotlight. … As the controversy over Trinity crescendoed earlier this month, the church’s new pastor, Otis Moss III, released as statement to his congregation: ‘We, the community of Trinity, are concerned, hurt, shocked, dismayed, frustrated, fearful and heartbroken … We are a wounded people and our wounds, the bruises from our encounter with history, have scarred our very souls.’ Said Renee Carter, another Trinity member: ‘Our church has received bomb threats, our members have been harassed, and our pastors have received threats on their lives.’”[10]


At the very foundation of America, even though they were out of sight, Satan, principalities and the demonic, were behind the scenes influencing America’s Founding Fathers at all levels of government.  These same forces are operating behind the 2008 Presidential Campaign and have turned spiritual battles into political battles and vice versa. 



Spiritual Components of the 2008 Campaign


The behavior of the presidential candidates and the media are a reflection of what is manifesting in the spiritual realm.  Therefore, it is not surprising that one of the dimensions to this Presidential campaign involves religion.  As a result, both Barak Obama and John McCain have experienced major media gaffes concerning pastors with whom they had once been associated.   


One of the principalities operating behind all this maneuvering is a very powerful spirit: the Nicolaitan Spirit.  This ancient spirit and its accompanying doctrine are documented in Scripture and its effects on the 2008 presidential campaign to date are unmistakable.  Again, by understanding the spiritual dimensions of this campaign, we can better understand the religious posturing and reactions of the candidates in the natural realm.


Doctrine of the Nicolaitans


            There are only two direct references to the Nicolaitans in Scripture, both found in the Book of Revelation.  In the first reference, a letter to the church in Ephesus, Jesus said,


“Yet this is to your credit:  you hate the work of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.(Rev 2:6 NRSV)


Jesus was saying two things in this verse.  First, he praised the Ephesian church for their strong position of intolerance towards the works (deeds or actions) of those embracing Nicolaitanism.  Apparently, the Ephesians were united in their stand against the behavior and intent of the Nicolaitans and wouldn’t allow them to operate in their church.  Second, Jesus explained why He was praising them:  He hated this behavior.  The deeds of the Nicolaitans were extremely displeasing to Him and so were any in His church who tolerated the actions of such people or the spirit operating behind them.


The praise given to the church in Ephesus can be contrasted to the second reference in Scripture to the Nicolaitans:  the rebuke directed to the church in Pergamos:


“But I have a few things against you, because … you also have those hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.(Rev 2:14-15, NKJV)


Jesus condemned the open-mindedness of the church in Pergamos towards some of its members who held to or believed in the doctrine (teachings) of the Nicolaitans    .  He reiterated that He hated these teachings and didn’t want His flock to be following this false doctrine.  So what can we conclude?


The Doctrine and Deeds of the Nicolaitans


From these two churches, we can see that the Nicolaitans had both a doctrine and works or deeds based upon or as a result of that doctrine.  We also know that Jesus was very strong in his reaction to the Nicolaitans:  He hated both their doctrine and their deeds.  Therefore, we can easily conclude that since the Nicolaitan doctrine was definitely not of the Lord, it must have come from worldly thinking and motives, from demonic influence or both.  We can also conclude that their doctrine and deeds posed a serious threat to the Body of Christ, otherwise, why would Jesus find their doctrine and deeds so repugnant?


When combined with Christianity, this worldly knowledge produced varying forms of syncretism – the combining of non-Christian ideas or practices into Christian theology and worship.  This syncretism became a new doctrine:  part Christian and part worldly – the doctrine of the Nicolaitans – a doctrine that opposed Christianity.


It is easy to see that syncretism poses a consequential danger to Christians and Christian fellowships.  By combining opposing beliefs, such as paganism or worldviews, into Christianity, two results can be observed.  First, it weakens an individual’s walk with the Lord.  Incorporating false doctrine into Christianity absolutely cannot strengthen a person’s walk – the ways of false religions and the world are always inferior to the perfect ways of the Lord and thus, can only serve to damage an individual’s walk.  Second, syncretistic beliefs and practices misrepresent Christianity to be unbeliever and unbelieving world.  The ways of Christ are polluted and defiled by syncretism thereby distorting and weakening the gospel message. 


In Scripture, names always have meanings.  Much can be gleaned from the Nicolaitan name, including an understanding of the deeds of the Nicolaitans.  Nicolaitan is a compound Greek word comprised of niko or nikao, meaning conquer, overcome, prevail, or get the victory, and laos, meaning people.  In other words, it means to triumph over the common people or laity.  The Greek name of this conquering or victorious spirit operating behind the Nicolaitans was Nike, also known to many as Victory.


Overall, the objective of the doctrine of the Nicolaitans and the Nicolaitan spirit is to weaken both the Church and individual members of the Church, thereby gaining victory over the people in the church, lording it over them in the process.  This is why Jesus was so adamant about hating both their doctrine and deeds.  Their doctrine, deeds and the spirit operating behind them were at war with the Lord and He wanted His Church to stand unflinchingly against them.  We can summarize the doctrine and the deeds of the Nicolaitans as follows (examples of the spirit in operation are described in later sections):



·         Combining worldly ideas and practices (man-made tradition, pagan

principles, etc.) with Christian theology and worship



·         Gain victory over Christians by weakening their walk with the Lord

·         Gain victory over the Church by weakening and perverting the Gospel message and bring the Church into disrepute

·         Gain victory over Christians who do not embrace the doctrine of the Nicolaitans as well as  unbelievers by operating through those who do

hold to the Nicolaitan doctrine. 


Practices or Deeds

·         Interpreting Christianity and Christian principles using the Nicolaitan doctrine rather than the Bible

·         Using feigned (deceptive) words to teach the Nicolaitan doctrine to Church the Church and unbelievers

·         Use feigned words to lord over and enslave others

·         Using the Nicolaitan doctrine to justify unbiblical practices, in the Church or society thus bring Christianity into disrepute

·         Slandering spiritual Christians and churches who disagree with the Nicolaitan doctrine


The Nicolaitans were not victorious over those in the church in Ephesus because the church was intolerant of their deeds.  They hated the works of the Nicolaitans and consequently, their doctrine could never take hold.  Conversely, the Nicolaitans were victorious over those Christians in the church in Pergamos gaining a foothold with those who either tolerated or embraced their false doctrine (not all of those in the church in Pergamos accepted their doctrine).  The Lord told the church in Pergamos to repent; otherwise, He would come and personally fight against them!


The Doctrine of Balaam


Jesus rebuked the church in Pergamos for tolerating yet another false teaching in their fellowship:  the doctrine of Balaam:


“But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.”  (Rev 2:14, NKJV)


The story of Balaam is found in the Book of Numbers (Num 22:1 – 24:25). He was a prophet who heard clearly from God (Num 24:3-4, 15-16), but at times also resorted to sorcery (Numbers 24:1).              Intimidated by Israel’s strength, Balak, the King of Moab, attempted to hire Balaam to curse the Israelites who were traveling through his country at the time.  Balak believed that Israel could be weakened and defeated by means of witchcraft.  However, the LORD would not allow Balaam to curse the Israelites (Num 23).


Nonetheless, it was through Balaam’s teachings that the pagans gained the knowledge of how to defeat Israel.  As a result of this knowledge, they became skilled at leading the Israelites into sexual immorality and spiritual adultery with pagan women.  Their intention was that the Israelites would defile themselves, thus bringing God’s judgment upon them, which actually happened (Num 25 & 31:8, 16).   


Whether then or now, these pagan women bring their pagan beliefs and practices into a marriage, which is one more reason why Satan wants to arrange these marriages.  God’s people are joined to their wives and their wives’ pagan customs and gods.  In turn they will bring these beliefs into the Church. 


Numbers 25:6-18 clearly reveals that these marriages were planned and that Israel’s leaders were targeted, as well as the file and rank.  Verses 14-18 reveal a marriage between a Prince of Israel and a Princess – the daughter of a Prince of Midian.  Marriages to pagan women, such as that of Zimri to Cozbi, were a significant stumbling block to the Israelites.  These women brought their pagan customs and gods with them into a marriage thus leading their husbands into idolatry.  This is exactly what happened to King Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-13); King Solomon turned away from the Lord because of all his foreign wives and started worshipping their gods.


Today, the same danger of these types of marriages exists.  Especially at risk is leadership, much like Zimri, who was a prince and a leader.  Today’s church leadership is targeted with the objective of bringing pagan (worldly) customs and gods into the Church through marriages to women not of the Lord, thus compromising the pure Word of God.


Balaamism is also mentioned in two other contexts in Scripture:  the error of Balaam (Jude 1:11) and the way of Balaam (2 Peter 2:15).  The error of Balaam was assuming that he could curse what God had blessed – the Lord quickly disavowed him of this.  The way of Balaam was exchanging the gifts of the Lord for a profit, in other words, charging for ministry.  The way of Balaam also works in reverse where people will try to buy the gifts of the minister.


The Church in PergamosA Marriage made in Hell


It is significant that both the doctrine of the Nicolaitans and the doctrine of Balaam were in operation in the church in Pergamos.  This clearly indicates that the spirits behind these doctrines will be found operating together.  This is the only church of the seven churches listed in the Book of Revelation where these two doctrines are found.


We can better understand the operation of these doctrines and the spirits behind them by understanding the church that they were found in.  Like the word “Nicolaitan”, Pergamos is a compound word: per meaning thoroughly or completely and gamos meaning married or wedding.  Thurs, the word Pergamos is significant and means “thoroughly married.[11]  When you are married, you are joined together with someone or something and it was at Pergamos where the church was thoroughly married to the State and its worldly doctrines, hence, a political marriage.


As an example of this today, when a church applies for and accepts a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the Internal Revenue Service for non-profit organizations, it effectively becomes a State corporation or married to the State (Balaamism).  The church agrees to abide by certain IRS regulations, one of which requires them to refrain from political campaign activities.  Thus, when a church violates that provision by formally endorsing a political candidate, they provide an opening for the Nicolaitan spirit to lord over the church, pastor and congregants through the media or the IRS, as we shall see later.


Satan is also prominently mentioned in relation to the city of Pergamos:


“I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.  And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.”  (Rev 2:13, NKJV)


Satan not only had his throne or seat of authority in Pergamos, but he also lived there.  His influence, therefore, over this church would be of enormous significance.  The church in Pergamos was the perfect setting for the twin doctrines of the Nicolaitans and Balaam to co-exist. 


The Spiritual Christian vs. the Carnal Christian


The dynamic of these two doctrines exists within the context of two types of Christians in the world:  the spiritual Christian and the carnal Christian.  Our walk with the Lord is a combination of our heart attitude and our mindset.  The heart is the seat of our emotions and true feelings.  For example, our very belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is heartfelt.  The mind is the seat of our reasoning and when we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, our mindset needs to change from a worldly perspective to a spiritual one.  As Paul reminded the Romans:


“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.  Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will.(Rom 12:2, NIV)


Spiritual Christians have changed their mindset to conform to spiritual principles (God’s mind); consequently, they shun worldly interpretations and let Scripture define who the Lord is, His will and His ways.  They will discern the difference between worldly knowledge and Scriptural principles and will reject the former while embracing the latter. 


            Conversely, carnal or worldly Christians embrace worldly reasoning and interpretations and treat Scriptural interpretations and principles lightly.  Some are not that well versed in Scripture and thus do not know what Scripture teaches or what Scriptural principles are.  Others have an incomplete commitment to the Lord (a heart attitude); consequently, they don’t take His word as seriously as they should.  Still others try to use worldly principles to reason out spiritual issues, which usually results in compromise or a distortion of Christianity.  They have not been transformed by the renewing of their mind (Rom 12:2) and still apply worldly knowledge and reasoning to God’s will and ways. 


Regardless of the underlying reason(s), the carnal Christian’s worldly, non-conformed thinking often produces worldly doctrine and traditions that nullify the Word of the God, much as it did in the time of Jesus’ ministry (see Mark 7:3-9 on Corban).   Consequently, the carnal Christian, unable to discern the difference between worldly knowledge and Scriptural principles, will follow the ways of the world.


            The spiritual Christian will reject the doctrines of the Nicolaitans and Balaam because they are worldly doctrines; the carnal Christian will embrace these doctrines.  Worse, the carnal Christian, like the unbeliever, will not accept the spiritual Christian’s correction concerning these doctrines and instead, will despise the spiritual Christian for speaking the truth (see Amos 5:7, 10).  This is an opening for the demonic to operate, especially the Nicolaitan spirit.  The Nicolaitan spirit cannot operate among spiritual Christians, such as those found in the church in Ephesus, because they won’t tolerate it.  The worldly or carnal Christians in the church in Pergamos embraced the doctrine of the Nicolaitans and the spirit was allowed to gain a foothold.


            The world can accept carnal Christians; they are considered open-minded and understanding towards worldviews.   Moreover, carnal Christians seek and value the approval of unbelievers and other carnal Christians over the approval of God.  This is very similar to the Jews who believed in Jesus, but were afraid to confess that faith because they feared being put out of the synagogue (John 12:42-43, see also Matt 10:32, 33).  This is another reason that carnal Christians reject spiritual Christians – they are afraid of being rejected by other carnal Christians and the unbelieving world.  In short, they have no compunctions about compromising their Christian beliefs.


On the other hand, spiritual Christians are not accepted by the world.  They are viewed as close-minded, intolerant and not accepting of ideas or practices that oppose Biblical teachings.  The carnal Christian is non-threatening to the unbeliever, while the spiritual Christian is definitely a threat because they expose sin, whether corporate sin or personal sin in the unbeliever’s life. 


            Given the number of different Christian denominations today, it is easy for the unbelieving world to construe that Christians disagree among themselves on Biblical principles.  The assumption is that all Christians are equal and that this is all just a matter of interpretation of Scripture.  What the unbeliever does not fully understand is that a carnal Christian even exists within the Body of Christ, much less that they misrepresent Christianity.  Yet all too often, the unbeliever analyzes Christianity and evaluates the spiritual Christian through the eyes of the carnal Christian.  As a result, the spiritual Christian is likely to be judged when he does not live by the standards set by the carnal Christian.


            A good example of this, as we shall see below, can be found in the 2008 presidential campaign.  A carnal Christian will tend to place worldly values at the same level as or above Biblical principles, which causes great confusion not only within the Christian community, but with unbelievers as well.



Spiritual Issues of the 2008 Presidential Campaign


            The 2008 presidential campaign has been unusual in a number of different ways.  Two of the main Democratic contenders in the presidential race, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, are without precedent: Mr. Obama is of African American descent, while Mrs. Clinton is a woman.  However, not since John F. Kennedy’s presidential run has religion played such an important part in the campaign, but not in a way that many might have been imagined. 


            Both Barak Obama (Democrat) and John McCain (Republican) have been attacked directly and indirectly because of their relationship with pastors, bringing into question their own religious beliefs.  As might be expected, Mrs. Clinton (Democrat) has joined in the attack, mostly to gain political advantage.  Below are the four political/religious issues involved in these attacks: racism, gender, patriotism and religious beliefs of others.


            Racism and Gender


            The 2008 presidential campaign was barely underway in early 2008 when race and gender became a campaign issue.  Gender bias is similar to racism in both the natural and spiritual realms and what can be said about one, can generally be applied to the other, even though they are distinct issues. 


Racism is nothing new in America and its roots go back to colonial times.  Although this premise is a well-accepted fact, what is not generally understood is the spirit behind racism, which is the same spirit behind slavery: the Nicolaitan spirit.


            Without a doubt, the Nicolaitan spirit has been one of the principalities operating within the Christian Church over time.  Prior to and during the Civil War, the Nicolaitan spirit worked through carnal Christians in the Church to misuse Scripture to justify slavery (the worldly Nicolaitan doctrine) and lord it over both African slaves and Native American Indians.  The Nicolaitan spirit used the carnal Christians to try to be victorious over the spiritual Christians who were abolitionists and rejected both slavery and cruelty to Indians based upon Biblical teachings. 


While the Nicolaitan spirit failed to gain a victory over spiritual Christians on an individual basis, it did gain a partial victory over the Church in causing a number of church splits (e.g., the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention separating out from the Baptist denomination) based upon the issue of slavery before the Civil War.  This spirit also seeks to discredit and humiliate the Church (2 Peter 2:2).  Because of the false and worldly teachings within the Church justifying slavery, the true Way was maligned and defamed.


            It is dreadful enough to enslave people for economic gain, as was in the case of our forefathers during colonial times and later, up to the Civil War.  One of the root causes of this is primarily greed – the lust for money and land at any cost.  It is worse yet, however, to consider our fellow human beings as sub-human savages, property to be treated, used, abused, merchandised or even disposed of (i.e., killed) as slave owners or others saw fit.  This is a manifestation of the Nicolaitan spirit lording it over the slaves.  Even if a person was not a slave owner, the irrational attitude of superiority over Africans and American Indians was indicative of the Nicolaitan spirit in operation influencing evil and unbiblical thoughts and actions towards fellow human beings.  A common example of this evil and irrational behavior was lynching a person just because of their skin pigmentation (this occurred both before and after the Civil War).


            Ironically, slave owners, including and especially many of our Founding Fathers, were enslaved to slavery!  As our Founding Fathers were writing “liberty” for all men, many of these drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were themselves slave owners and were depriving their slaves of the very liberty they so cherished.  What they didn’t realize was that, according to Scripture, the enslavement went both ways.  As the Apostle Peter said,


“They promise them liberty, when they themselves are the slaves of depravity and defilement – for by whatever anyone is made inferior or worse or is overcome, to that [person or thing] he is enslaved.(2 Peter 2:19, Amplified Bible, emphasis added)


In other words, whatever we submit to will be enslaving to us.  For example, when we submit to sin, we become enslaved to sin (John 8:34, Rom 6:16).  When the slave owners submitted to the concept of slavery, they quickly became enslaved themselves.  With the economic model they had adopted, the slave owners could not survive without their cheap labor.  They were totally dependent upon them to make money and maintain their standard of living; without the slaves, their plantations and farms would not be profitable or sustainable. 


In Old Testament times, the Israelites were guilty of selling their brethren as slaves to outsiders.  The Lord, speaking through the Prophet Joel, told the Israelites that He would retaliate by turning the very ones they enslaved against them.  In effect, He was going to use the weapon they had used, slavery, against them:


“Also the people of Judah and the people of Jerusalem you have sold to the Greeks, that you may remove them far from their borders.  Behold, I will raise them out of the place to which you have sold them, and will return your retaliation upon your own head.(Joel 3:6-7, NKJV)


This was another aspect of the enslavement of the slave owners.  During colonial times and up to the Civil War, the slave population in America steadily increased until the African slaves often outnumbered the general population in large portions of the South.  This produced considerable angst on the part of the slave owners and the population in general, fearing slave rebellion and retribution in kind.  It required constant vigilance and extra work to ensure that the slaves kept their place (lording it over them), while all the time, fear lorded over the enslavers.


            What slave owners and others who embraced the worldly doctrine of the Nicolaitans did not understand, is that when they acquiesced to this spirit, they gave the spirit the authority to lord it over them as well.  The slave owners were indeed enslaved to slavery and the Nicolaitan spirit was victorious over both the African slave and slave owner, but obviously not in the same way.  While the shackles of the slaves were visible, the shackles that bound the slave owners were invisible – nonetheless both were in bondage.


            America’s Founding Fathers and other slave owners have long since passed from the earth.  However, spirits don’t die.  Although the Nicolaitan spirit over America has been weakened over time, it has not been dislodged.  Its goal to be victorious and lord over others has not changed, only its strategy and tactics.  Slavery has been abolished, but racism is still alive and well.  This is why race has become and will remain a campaign issue and a national problem to one degree or another.




            There is a fine line between patriotism and nationalism.  Patriotism, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is a “love or devotion to one’s country.”  Nationalism, on the other hand, is defined as “loyalty and devotion to a nation, especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups” (emphasis added).  Patriotism does not imply superiority, while nationalism does.  Thus, we can see that the Nicolaitan spirit may or may not be behind patriotism, but is definitely behind nationalism.


            Sadly, these two concepts of patriotism and nationalism have been thought of and used interchangeably by the media and the candidates themselves.  A love or devotion to America has been replaced with the superiority of America and the American way.  Thus, when a spiritual Christian applies a Biblical principle to something negative in America, for example, God’s judgment because of a national sin or the Biblical principle of reaping and sowing, they are immediately branded as unpatriotic by the media and others, especially carnal Christians.  They mistake loyalty to the Lord and His word as being unpatriotic.


To spiritual Christians, the interpretation of national crises as judgment or as the result of reaping and sowing, is unmistakable.  It has nothing at all to do with patriotism; it’s all about God, His will and His ways.  God is in control of all things and either causes them to happen, or in the case of spiritual openings (sin), allows them to happen using people or the forces of nature that He created.  Regardless of whether we perceive something to be good or bad, God is in the middle of it – spiritual Christians do not believe in events happening by chance or by accident.  On the other hand, carnal Christians and unbelievers do not see God’s hand in all things and see events as lucky/unlucky, fortunate/unfortunate, a freak accident, and so forth.  Consequently, they interpret national events in terms of human error/incompetence, evil people (the 9/11 events) or natural random occurrences in nature (e.g. a hurricane or earthquake).


Expressing such Biblical principles as judgment and reaping/sowing can certainly be interpreted as non-nationalistic because they call into question America’s accountability and national superiority when measured by Scriptural standards.  However, they are in no way unpatriotic.  Spiritual Christians can still love their country, but their loyalty and allegiance are to God, not nationalistic ideals.  Spiritual Christians are put on the defensive by the Nicolaitan spirit trying to replace Biblical principles with worldly beliefs (the Nicolaitan doctrine) and by lording it over them with accusations of being unpatriotic.


            Religious Beliefs of Others


            Finally, the religious beliefs of the candidates became a 2008 campaign issue.  It was one of the first issues raised by the media due to the diversity of the initial slate of Republican candidates, which included a divorced Roman Catholic (Rudi Gullianni), a practicing Mormon (Mitt Romney) and a former Baptist pastor and born-again Christian (Mike Huckabee). 


However, as the campaign progressed, things became extremely testy with two candidates in particular, Barak Obama and John McCain, because of their past associations with a pastor.  The media took past statements of two pastors, displayed them out of context on national television and other media, and then demanded that each candidate denounce these pastors and their (out-of-context) statements.  In the midst of all this was the Nicolaitan spirit.



The Nicolaitan Spirit in the Operation


            Barak Obama and John McCain both came under scrutiny and criticism by the media because of past pastoral associations.  The Nicolaitan spirit, operating through the media, sought to have victory and lord it over both the candidates and their respective pastors.  With one exception, it was successful in promoting its worldview agenda with unbelievers and carnal Christians alike, bringing the participants into submission as a result.


            Barak Obama vs. Rev. Jeremiah Wright


            The primaries had only been underway for several months when excerpted film footages of past sermons of Pastor Jeremiah Wright started appearing on television.  The excerpted comments were immediately judged by the media as inflammatory, racist and most of all, unpatriotic.  The focus, however, was not placed so much on Rev. Wright, but on candidate Obama.  Barak Obama had been associated with Pastor Wright of Trinity Church in Chicago for over twenty years, and he knew him well.  Therefore, it was reasoned by the media, that this was guilt by association.  The question then became, what was Senator Obama going to do about it? 


The media called for Senator Obama to explain himself and his association with Pastor Wright.  Senator Obama immediately capitulated by denouncing Pastor Wright’s statements, saying he did not agree with them, and called Rev. Wright his ex-pastor.  Senator Obama, by many measures a carnal Christian, found it politically advantageous to side with unbelievers and other carnal Christians in severing his relations with Rev. Wright.  As reported on the front page of The Washington Post:


“A simmering controversy over Wright’s provocative rhetoric and his connection to Sen. Barak Obama ignited last week after some of his old sermons were aired, prompting the Democratic presidential candidate to condemn them and severing Wright’s connection to the campaign.”[12]


Pastor Wright was also assailed by the media, but unlike his former congregant, Pastor Wright refused to back down and instead, vigorously defended his ministry saying that he had to answer to a higher authority, God.


            Pastor Wright, who is of African American descent, was unilaterally investigated, tried, found guilty and castigated – all by the media and all in the space of several weeks in March and April of 2008.  Astonishingly, many, if not most people, including and especially carnal Christians, accepted the media’s pronouncement without further investigation or question.  At issue were his comments about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as judgment upon America because of slavery and his pronouncement of “God [condemn] America.”


Upon closer examination, when Pastor Wright’s comments were put into context, a completely different picture emerged.  Pastor Wright actively preached (he is now retired) a “liberation theology” to his congregation, which in part says that God is on the side of the righteous who are oppressed.  This is analogous to the Israelite slaves in Egypt when Pharaoh would not release them from their captivity.  God supernaturally intervened, the Israelites were freed (liberated) and the rest, as they say, is history.  When the media interviewed other well-known pastors on television, both black and white, many, but certainly not all, defended Pastor Wright.  They did not find his messages racist or unpatriotic – they found them Scriptural.


In addition to the media, Senator Hillary Clinton weighed in on the debacle claiming that she certainly did not agree with Pastor Wright and would not have been a congregant of his church given his views.  This would be the typical response of a carnal Christian.  However, as Senator Clinton was also running for president, she obviously saw this as an opportunity to gain political capital and promote herself at the expense of her opponent. 


Mrs. Clinton’s actions were motivated by covetousness.  As the campaign progressed and her assumed nomination victory was in serious doubt, it became evident that she coveted the presidency and wanted to win at any cost.  As Peter said:


“By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.(2 Peter 2:3, NKJV)


The King James Bible uses the words “make merchandise of you” instead of “exploit you”, meaning to enslave or deal with as a slave (Deut 24:7).  Mrs. Clinton was trying to enslave both Senator Obama and Pastor Wright using deceptive (feigned, KJV) words, gaining victory and lording it over them, just another manifestation of the Nicolaitan spirit.  Since Satan can no longer enslave African Americans with visible shackles, his strategy is to enslave African Americans with the invisible shackles of feigned words.


            In an editorial in the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson summed up Senator Clinton’s motive and strategy concerning support for her from uncommitted super delegates.  The article is also indicative of her overall covetousness of the Democratic nomination and the office of the presidency:


“From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right… look at the argument she made Wednesday [May 7,2008] in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barak Obama.  She cited an Associated Press article, ‘that found how Senator Obama’s support … among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.  I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.’ … Here’s what she’s really saying to party leaders: There’s no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy.  Come November, you’ll be sorry.[13] (emphasis in original)


Using excerpts of sermons taken out of context and combining and interpreting these comments through a worldview, the Nicolaitan spirit sought victory over all parties concerned on the issues of racism and patriotism.  It was successful with the carnal Christians and unbelievers, but not with the spiritual Christians.  It certainly gained victory over Senator Obama; he gave in to this spirit without putting up a fight, renouncing his pastor and friend in the process.  Senator Clinton sided with the spirit in claiming victory over her opponent and Pastor Wright.  However, the Nicolaitan spirit was not victorious over Pastor Wright.  Rev. Wright unapologetically stood his ground and defended his ministry, as he should have, even going on the offensive. 


            John McCain vs. Rev. John Hagee


            Unlike Senator Obama, Senator McCain actively sought an endorsement from an influential evangelical, Rev. John Hagee, a pastor with whom he had not been previously associated.  Pastor Hagee is the founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church, a mega church in San Antonio, Texas with over twenty thousand members.  In addition to his ministry, Pastor Hagee is the author of several books and has an international following with his television shows.  In February 2008, he formally endorsed Senator McCain’s bid for the presidency.


            After all the negative publicity arose concerning Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Senator Obama, there was a protest, primarily from the Democratic Party, that Pastor Hagee’s endorsement of Senator McCain was similar, if not identical, to the guilt by association leveled at Senator Obama.  At issue were past sermons of Rev. Hagee where he spoke about God’s judgment upon America, specifically Hurricane Katrina hitting the city of New Orleans due to past sins.  This was branded by the media as insensitive, idiotic and certainly unpatriotic.  However, there was an additional dimension to the criticism of Pastor Hagee: religion. 


            Rev. Hagee in past sermons had referred to the Roman Catholic Church as the great whore spoken of in the Book of Revelation (Rev 17 & 18).  He was thus branded as anti-Catholic by the media and Catholic organizations, such as the Catholic League.  The Catholic League is the Catholic version of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.  Its main purpose is to defend the Roman Catholic Church against negative comments made about it and individual Catholics because of their faith.  To the Catholic League, Pastor Hagee was the enemy.


            Senator McCain was challenged by the media concerning his association with Pastor Hagee and Hagee’s positions about judgment on America and Catholicism.  Similar to Senator Obama’s reaction, Senator McCain was quick to distance himself from Rev. Hagee.  He denounced anti-Catholicism, stated that Rev. Hagee had not been his pastor for over twenty years, but stopped short of renouncing his endorsement.  This was not surprising given that Senator McCain needs all the votes he can get, including the Catholic vote.  What was surprising, however, was the reaction of Pastor Hagee.


            Deal Hudson, an influential Republican Catholic and friend of Catholic League President, Bill Donohue, had quietly brokered a deal of conciliation between Pastor Hagee and the Catholic League.  Pastor Hagee wrote a letter to Mr. Donahue apologizing to the Catholic League, expressing “deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful.”[14] Mr. Donohue’s response was ecstatic.  He said, “I got what I wanted.”[15]


            The final chapter of this three-month saga ended on May 21, 2008.  Another quote of Pastor Hagee’s surfaced, this time in reference to Adolf Hitler and the formation of the Jewish state.  At this point John McCain completely rejected Rev. Hagee’s endorsement ending any relationship that he might have had with him.  “Speaking to reporters later, McCain said: ‘I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable,’ adding that while ‘Pastor Hagee is entitled to his views,’ he does not want to be affiliated with them.”[16]  At the same time, Pastor Hagee withdrew his endorsement, in effect, apologizing to Senator McCain for the distraction.


            The footprint of the Nicolaitan spirit can be clearly seen in this incident, only in this case, the spirit was victorious over all parties.  Just as with Senator Obama, Senator McCain was confronted by the media and quickly backed down.  Similarly, Pastor Hagee surrendered to the spirit operating through the Catholic League declaring that his past teachings had been misunderstood and that he was in no way anti-Catholic.  The Catholic League was exempt from all of this as the Nicolaitan spirit is one of the main principalities already operating through the Roman Catholic Church.  As most are aware and as recently stated by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, the Catholic Church is (and has long considered itself) the only true Christian denomination and all other churches and denominations are mere pretenders.[17]  Thus, the Roman Catholic Church tries to lord it over and be victorious over anyone who disagrees with them.


            The Bottom Line


            In both of the above incidents, Pastors who were spiritual Christians and who spoke spiritual truths were publically slandered by the Nicolaitan spirit working through the media.  Scriptural truths were interpreted through the prism of the carnal Christians and unbelievers in the media.  The doctrine that they espoused was not that of Christianity, but the doctrine of demons.  They tried their best to make a mockery of both Pastors accusing them of being racist, unpatriotic and intolerant of other denominations.  In the process, all three candidates, Obama, Clinton and McCain, renounced these spiritual Christians resulting in the Way being maligned. 


            It is important to understand that the spiritual opening allowing the spirit behind Balaamism to operate with these churches and pastors was their tax status with the IRS.  When they entered into this agreement, they entered into a political marriage with the State.  Engaging in political activities by these churches was a potential violation of this agreement.  In fact, it was a private investigation by the media into Pastor Wright’s sermons that uncovered statements that generated the media flap.  The original intent of the investigation was to determine if Pastor Wright had violated the IRS tax code (the IRS determined he had not).  Churches without this type of tax status are not married to the state and are thus not accountable to the state.


There is, however, a positive aspect in all of this turmoil.  After the above incidents, a group of evangelical leaders in Dallas issued what they called an “Evangelical Manifesto” in May 2008 urging evangelical Christians to pullback from partisan politics.  “The manifesto was signed by leading and mostly centrist evangelicals such as Leith Anderson, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals; Mark Bailey, president of the Dallas Theological Seminary; and evangelical academic and author David Gushee.”[18]  The manifesto has detractors as well.  Not all prominent evangelical leaders signed the document.  Further, not all were invited to sign it; specifically excluded were African American pastors and theologians.  


Despite its shortcomings, the manifesto is a start in the right direction.  As Jesus said, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. (Matt 22:21b, NKJV)


Gwen Thomas, © May, 2008






June 3, 2008:  Barack Obama, an African American, became the Democratic Party’s presumed nominee for president of the United States of America.  In doing so, this further weakened the Nicolaitan spirit over America.


In Genesis 15:13-16, God revealed to Abram specific events that would take place in the future.  At the completion of a period of 400 years of enslavement, Abram’s descendents would be freed from a strange land to return to the very land in which Abram now resided.   The 400 years was significant because it would take that long for the sins of the Amorites to reach their full measure – at that time they would be judged. 


It is meaningful, then, that Barack Obama’s presumed nomination happened just one year after America celebrated its 400th year anniversary.  In May of 2007, Americans celebrated the 400th anniversary of America and its first English settlement, Jamestown.

It was of the utmost significance that as part of that celebration, the sins of slavery were acknowledged, officially and publicly, at all levels of government in America (See article on Jamestown).  And for that reason, the door for an African American to become President of the United States was opened. 


God’s Timing:  Long before Moses was born, the LORD had revealed to Abraham that his offspring would be in bondage for 400 hundred years (Gen 15:13-14 & Acts 7:6).  Moses’ first attempt at freeing the Israelites from bondage, which resulted in the killing of an Egyptian (Ex  2:11-15), would have fallen short of the set time.  However, at the appointed time, God sent Moses back (Acts 7:34) to deliver the Israelites and after 400 (Acts 7:6) or 430 years (Ex 12:40-41) of bondage Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. 


God’s timing for the Israelites to be set free from slavery was specifically linked to the point in time that He judged the Amorites as a nation.  God told Abraham that after 400 years of slavery his descendants would possess Canaan when the sins of the Amorites were full and complete (Gen 15:13-16).  The term Amorite and Canaanite are one and the same and it seems their sins as a nation were full and complete in the fourth generation, which corresponded to the 400 years the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites.  Given that it was after 400 years of slavery that the LORD intervened and judged Egypt for enslaving the Israelites, it is reasonable that the sins of other nations would be full and complete at 400 years as well.  As Jesus said, “Fill up, then, the measure of your father’s sins to the brim [so that nothing may be wanting to a full measure].(Matt 23:32, Amplified Bible) 


We also know that Scripture reveals that if a nation repents of their sins, the Lord will forgive their sin and will heal their land (Leviticus 26:40-42 & 2 Chronicles 7:14-15).  Thankfully, after 400 years America acknowledged her sins of slavery.  Barack Obama’s presumed nomination as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate is bringing healing to America. 


            40 Years:  The Israelites were in the wilderness for 40 years.  It is interesting that the first year an African American to be the presumed Democratic nominee for president coincides with the 40th year anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination.  The night before he was assassinated on April 4, 1968, King told a rally at Mason Temple that God had allowed him to go up to the mountain: “And I’ve seen the promised land.  I may not get there with you.  But I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land.”              Although Mr. Obama’s presumed nomination is bringing healing to America, we need to keep in mind that even after the Israelites entered the Promised Land, there were still many battles to be fought – and these battles were not won overnight.


            45 Years:  It is also interesting that 45 years to the day that Reverend King gave his famous “I have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, Barack Obama will officially accept the Democratic nomination at the Colorado Convention to run for president of the United States. 



June 3, 2008:  Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama in her bid for the Democratic Nomination to run for President, yet in defeat, she proclaimed victory over Obama, trying to “lord over” him with feigned words.  Even though Barack Obama won the nomination, he nonetheless graciously acknowledged Hillary Clinton and her historical achievements in the 2008 presidential campaign.  However, Hillary Clinton would not – nor could she – acknowledge Barack Obama’s historic victory, because that meant she would be acknowledging his victory over her.


On the night she was defeated, rather than concede, Hillary Clinton continued in her attempts to be “victorious” over Obama and shackle him with “feigned words” (false cunning arguments). 


“And in their covetousness (lust, greed) they will exploit you with false (cunning) arguments.  From of old the sentence [of condemnation] for them has not been idle; their destruction (eternal misery) has not been asleep.(2 Peter 2:3, Amplified Bible) (emphasis added)  


With veiled threats, she attempted to undermine Obama’s victory.  She indicated that if Obama wanted the support of the 18 million that voted for her, then he needed to pick her as his running mate – otherwise they would stay home election day.  To suggest that he needed her was to imply that he was weak.  If she could not be president, or at least vice president, the message was that she was willing to destroy him.


Hillary Clinton Became a Slave to Victory:  Scripture reveals that whatever we submit to will enslave us, and Hillary Clinton was enslaved to being victorious. even if it meant lording over others.  That is why she could not admit defeat on June 3, 2008. 


“They promise them liberty, when they themselves are the slaves of depravity and defilement – for by whatever anyone is made inferior or worse or is overcome, to that [person or thing] he is enslaved.(2 Peter 2:19, Amplified Bible)


What Hillary Clinton and others who embrace the worldly doctrine of the Nicolaitans do not understand is that when they acquiesce to this spirit, they give this spirit the authority to lord it over them as well.  According to Scripture, the enslavement goes both ways.  Hillary Clinton is enslaved to being “victorious” and “lording it over others” – yet the Nicolaitan spirit operating through her is victorious over both those she lords over as well as Mrs. Clinton herself, albeit not in the same way. 


That is why Hillary Clinton only acknowledged Barak Obama’s victory when those who were in a position to lord over her did so, and demanded that she endorse Mr. Obama.  Fearing a divided Democratic Party going into the general election, Hillary Clinton raised the ire of several high-powered Democrats after she refused to concede and acknowledge Obama’s historic achievements on the night he won, as explained in the

following article titled:  Clinton’s exit:  When push came to shove”:


“… On Wednesday, Clinton was asking supporters to wait – it was unclear for what … but Rep. Charles B. Rangel, the blunt, 77-year-old dean of New York’s congressional delegation, had had enough.  In public statements and on a crucial afternoon conference call, he told Clinton it was time to go.  And Rangel, for reasons of state politics, personal history and race, is not a man Clinton could ignore.  On the call, Rangel was firm.  He suggested holding an event where Clinton could endorse Obama.  ‘That way we’re endorsing Barack through you,’ he told her.[19] (emphasis added)


Barack Obama was not the only one that Hillary Clinton felt she could lord over and enslave with feigned words.  Even those who dared work for Obama or other Democratic candidates that campaigned against her were threatened with becoming unemployable in the nation’s Capitol.  That is the power that Hillary Clinton felt she possessed!  The following is from an article posted on


“…When Clinton first embarked upon her quest for the Democratic nomination, there was no sense that hers was a long-shot candidacy seeking to break through the proverbial glass ceiling.  No, her candidacy was first and foremost the establishment/dynastic steamroller.  The other Democratic candidates were deemed hapless underdogs.  And remember those rumblings about whether staffers who dared to join other campaigns would ever again find gainful employment in Washington?[20] (emphasis added) 



June 5, 2008:  On Earth as in Heaven: As the Nicolaitan spirit becomes further weakened, the consequences of its weakening are becoming more and more apparent to Americans in the natural realm.  The significance of this is already being realized by historians from a secular standpoint, as reported in The Washington Post:


“… ‘I think this will be in a class by itself,’ said John Hope Franklin, who at 93 is the dean of the American historians who think and write about race.  Obama’s campaign ‘is the most radical, far-reaching, significant [undertaking] by any individual or group in our history,’ he said.  This strikes at the very heart of national ideology on race and the political patterns of this country’s history.’  Obama’s candidacy is ‘monumental,’ said Manning Marable, 58, professor of history at Columbia.  It can redeem American history from the specter of race that has plagued us for nearly 400 years.’  Race is the original sin of American democracy, said William Chafe, 65, professor of history at Duke, so ‘this will be historic in a thousand ways.’  It could be, added Alan Brinkley of Columbia, ‘a very important event in the effort to put race to bed as an issue.’  These scholars were all talking about the phenomenon – unexpected for all of them – of a black man becoming a leading candidate for president in 2008.  They agree that this is something big, even it if is too early to know just how big.  And

several of them agreed that is also something complicated. … Many of these scholars commented on their students’ excitement about Obama. … The enthusiasm of the students suggested that ‘the country has turned a corner,’ said Harvard Stikoff, professor of history at the University of New Hampshire.”[21] (emphasis added)


Notice the reference to “sin” and the timing of “400 years”.  See first section above under June 3, 2008



June 7, 2008: Under pressure, Hillary Clinton endorsed Barack Obama as the Democratic Presidential Nominee.  From all appearances, this concession was not heartfelt on Mrs. Clinton’s part, but something that was forced upon her.  However, force cannot change someone’s heart.  That is why Christ Jesus dealt with the attitudes of the heart rather than “lord over” anyone.  Hillary Clinton conceded because she was forced to, not because it was in her heart, and for that reason, we should not be surprised that she chose to keep her options open by not releasing her delegates to Barack Obama. 


To retain her delegates ensures Mrs. Clinton the political leverage at the Democratic National Convention in Colorado that she will need in any final attempts to “lord over” Barack Obama.  To keep her delegates just in case circumstances change reveals Mrs. Clinton’s heart – she is still hoping to represent the Democratic Party as their nominee for the Presidency or at the very least, maintain some control over the nominee.  


“Mrs. Clinton, who arrived 45 minutes late for the day’s first and only campaign event, did not release her 1,915 delegates to Mr. Obama, keeping open her options in case circumstances change before the August nominating convention in Denver.”[22] (emphasis added)



© Gwen Thomas, June, 2008






Bellantoni, Christina. Clinton suspends her bid, endorses Obama”, The Washington Times. 08 June 2008


CNN Website. “Bill Clinton: ‘Coverup’ hiding Hillary Clinton’s chances”, Sinderbrand, Rebecca. 26 May 2008,


Dinan, Stephen. “McCain renounces pastor’s endorsement”, The Washington Times. 23 May 2008


Eilperin, Juliet and Kindy, Kimberly. “McCain Rejects Pastor’s Backing Over Remarks”, The Washington Post. 23 May 2008


Kaiser, Robert G. “A Run for the Ages?  Scholars Say Obama’s Campaign Is History in Motion”, The Washington Post. 05 June 2008


Kravitz, Derek. “Dogged by Incendiary Comments, Obama Quits His Longtime Church”, The Washington Post, 01 June 2008


Kurtz, Howard. “A Complex Speech Boiled Down to Simple Politics”, The Washington Post. 20 March 2008


Los Angeles Times Website. “Plenty of soul-searching at Obama’s former church”, Huffstutter, P.J. 02 June 2008,,0,4796891.story


Milbank, Dana. “Still More Lamentations From Jeremiah”, The Washington Post. 29 April 2008


Murray, Shailagh and Harris, Hamil R. “Priest Again Apologizes For Remarks In Sermon”, The Washington Post. 02 June 2008


Pierce, Greg. “Inside Politics”, The Washington Times. 01 May 2008


Politico Website. “Bill Clinton’s enemies list”, Vogel, Kenneth P. 30 May 2008,


Politico Website, Clinton’s exit:  When push came to shove”, Amie Parnes, Avi Zenilman and Ben Smith, 05 June, 2008,


Politico Website. “Text of Obama’s church remarks”, Politico Staff. 31 May 2008,


Reuters Website. “U.S. evangelicals call for step back from politics”, Stoddard, Ed. 07 May 2008,


Robinson, Eugene. “The Card Clinton is Playing”, The Washington Post. 09 May 2008


Saslow, Eli. “Congregation Defends Obama’s Ex-Pastor”, The Washington Post, 18 March 2008


Stewart, Phil. “Vatican Reaffirms Catholic Primacy”, The Washington Post. 11 May 2008


Washington Post Website. “Evangelical leaders say their faith is too politicized”, Zoll, Rachael. 07 May 2008,


Washington Post Website. “Televangelist John Hagee apologizes to Catholics”, Huhnhenn, Jim. 14 May 2008,


Washington Post Website, Voters to Hillary:  No, You Can’t, Andres Martinez, 06 June 2008,




Epilogue Endnotes

[1] Juan Williams, - "Obama's Daunting Demographic Message for the GOP”, The Wall Street Journal, 8 November 2012, Sec A, p.21


 "The critical political message from President Obama's re-election victory Tuesday is that he cemented a new coalition of Democrats, led by the Latino vote, which threatens to reduce Republicans to an after-thought in future national elections.  Yes, Mr. Obama won with the same group of voters - Hispanics, blacks, Asians, young people and educated women - that brought him to power in 2008. 


"Obama's Daunting Demographic Message for the GOP"  Mitt Romney won the white vote 59% to 39%, the biggest share for a Republican since 1988 - and it was still not enough to put him in the White House.  He won the white-male vote by a whopping 27 point.  But white men made up only 34% of all voters. ... These numbers and the persistence of this new Democratic coalition present a threat to the future of the GOP, which is becoming the party of a declining number of older, white voters geographically centered in the South and in small towns and rural communities. 


[2] Peter Wallsten, “Party Coalition at a Crossroads”, The Washington Post, 8 November 2012, Sec A, p.01


[3] Shailagh Murray and Hamil R. Harris, “Priest Again Apologizes For Remarks In Sermon”, The Washington Post, 02 June 2008, p.A04 


“Obama’s decision to leave Trinity was not mentioned during services yesterday, according to parishioners and church officials.  But the Rev. Otis Moss III, … passed out a six-page Declaration of Interdependence … In it, Moss described the Trinity community as a ‘wounded’ people and asked parishioners to ‘imagine a church on the other side of this public moment.’  Renee Carter, A Trinity member who attended services yesterday, welcomed the pastoral letter.  Our church has received bomb threats, our members have been harassed, and our pastors have received threats on their lives,’ she said.(emphasis added)


[4] Los Angeles Times Website, “Plenty of soul-searching at Obama’s former church”, 02 June 2008,,0,4796891.story


“As thousands of churchgoers gathered on a warm spring morning Sunday, some directed their anger toward those they blamed for the loss of a favored son:  the media.  ‘Why won’t they leave?”    Glaring at the satellite trucks and clusters of news camera crews, she shook her head in disgust.  ‘Leave us alone,’ she mumbled.  ‘They’ve already driven one of our best away.’  For months, church members … have insisted that the media’s portrayal of Trinity and Wright … is unrecognizable.(emphasis added) 


[5] Shailagh Murray and Hamil R. Harris, “Priest Again Apologizes For Remarks In Sermon”, The Washington Post, 02 June 2008, p.A04


“Leaving Trinity was the candidate’s latest effort to distance himself from what had become one of his campaign’s biggest liabilities.”


Politico Website, “Text of Obama’s church remarks”, 31 May 2008,


[In an interview in Aberdeen, South Dakota, Obama comments on his decision to formally resign from his home church of 20 years – Trinity United Church of Christ:]


“… I had a long conversation with Michelle and also had a long conversation with Reverend Moss. We prayed on it and you know, my interest has never been to try to politicize this or put the church in a position where is subject to the same rigors and demands of a presidential campaign. My suspicion at that time, and Michelle, I think, shared this concern, was that it was going to be very difficult to continue our membership there so long as I was running for president. The recent episode with Father Pfleger I think just reinforced that view that we don't want to have to answer for everything that’s stated in a church. On the other hand, we also don't want a church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes. … I don't want Reverend Moss to have to look over his shoulder and see that his sermon vets or if it’s potentially problematic for my campaign or will attract the fury of a cable program. And so, I have no idea how it will impact my presidential campaign. But I know it's the right thing to do for the church and for our family.(emphasis added)


[6]  Howard Kurtz, “A Complex Speech Boiled Down to Simple Politics”, The Washington Post, 20 March 2008, p.C01


“… Did Obama adequately distance himself from the radioactive reverend? … ‘Folks, don’t fall for this,’ Sean Hannity said on his radio show.  ‘Most of America is not going to buy this flimsy excuse … If you can’t disown Reverend Wright, you’re not qualified to be the president of the United States.  I don’t even think you’re qualified to be senator.’ … But it wasn’t until last week, when Fox News and ABC News bought DVDs of Wright’s sermons from the church, that the simmering controversy reached full boil.  The recordings have long been sold by the church, but journalists did not seek them until now.  Fox Chicago correspondent Jeff Goldblatt says he was looking into whether Obama’s Trinity Unity Church of Christ deserved its tax-exempt status. “ (emphasis added)


[7] Derek Kravitz, “Dogged by Incendiary Comments, Obama Quits His Longtime Church”, The Washington Post, 01 June 2008, p.A6


[Hillary Clinton’s campaign demanded that Barack Obama personally renounce statements made by a visiting Pastor at Obama’s home Church that mocked her – even though Obama was not in attendance – nor a view that Obama shared.]  


Pfleger, a former spiritual adviser to Obama, said he intended to expose ‘white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises it head’ and mimicked a teary Clinton upset over ‘a black man stealing my show.’… Clinton’s campaign was quick to [sic], calling on Obama to renounce the statements Pfleger made during the sermon.  ‘We remain disappointed that Senator Obama didn’t specifically reject Father Pfleger’s despicable comments about Senator Clinton,’ Clinton spokesman Howard Wofson said.  ‘We assume that he will.’”


[8] (a) through (d) concerns Barack Obama & (e) through (f) concerns John McCain


(a) Dana Milbank, “Still More Lamentations From Jeremiah”, The Washington Post, 29 April 2008, p. A3


“Most problematic for the Democratic presidential front-runner was Wright’s suggestion that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his former pastor.  ‘He didn’t distance himself,’ Wright announced.  ‘He had to distance himself, because he’s a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American.’  Wright spoke of friends who told him that ‘we both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected,’ and he said of his past parishioner:  ‘Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls.’”


(b) Greg Pierce, “Inside Politics”, The Washington Times, 01 May 2008, p.A6


“… ‘The most damaging thing Rev. Jeremiah Wright said at the National Press Club on Monday … had to do with whether Barack Obama is telling the American people the truth about himself,’ … ‘Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls,’ Wright told the Press Club.  ‘Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. … I do what pastors do.  [Obama] does what politicians do.’ By questioning Obama’s honesty, Wright was striking at the heart of the Obama campaign.  The most damaging thing Wright could ever say is that he knows, based on his long personal relationship with Obama, that Obama agrees with him but can’t say so publicly for political reasons.  Put another way, if voters believe that Obama fundamentally rejects Wright’s views, they might question Obama’s judgment in remaining close to Wright for 20 years.  But if voters believe that Obama secretly agrees with Wright but is putting on another face to win an election, then all is lost.’”


(c) Shailagh Murray and Hamil R. Harris, “Priest Again Apologizes For Remarks In Sermon”, The Washington Post, 02 June 2008, p.A04


“Leaving Trinity was the candidate’s latest effort to distance himself from what had become one of his campaign’s biggest liabilities.”


(d) Politico Website, “Text of Obama’s church remarks”, 31 May 2008,


[In an interview in Aberdeen, South Dakota, Obama comments on his decision to formally resign from his home church of 20 years – Trinity United Church of Christ:]


“… I don’t want Reverend Moss to have to look over his shoulder and see that his sermon vets or it’s potentially problematic for my campaign or will attract the fury of a cable program.  And so, I have no idea how it will impact my presidential campaign.  But I know it’s the right thing to do for the church and for our family.” 


(e) Juliet Eilperin and Kimberly Kindy , “McCain Rejects Pastor’s Backing Over Remarks”, The Washington Post, 23 May 2008, p. A01


“Sen. John McCain on Thursday repudiated the presidential endorsement of the Rev. John Hagee after learning about a sermon in which the megachurch pastor from San Antonio declared that God allowed the rise of Adolf Hitler because it resulted in returning Israel to the Jewish people. The Arizona Republican’s decision to distance himself from Hagee came after months of mounting criticism, particularly from Roman Catholics, over his acceptance of Hagee’s endorsement in late February. … When asked what McCain thought of the remarks, … ‘Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them,’ McCain said.  ‘I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well,’ … Mindful of the controversy that ensnarled Sen. Barack Obama, his possible opponent in the November election, McCain tried to draw a distinction between his link to Hagee and Obam’s ties to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who was the pastor for many years of the church Obama attends in Chicago.  Hagee issued his own statement Thursday, saying that he was withdrawing his endorsement to prevent any further damage to the presumptive GOP nominee’s candidacy.(emphasis added)


(f) Stephen Dinan, “McCain renounces pastor’s endorsement”, The Washington Times, 23 May 2008, p. A14


 “… ‘Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them.  I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well,’ the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said in a statement yesterday afternoon.  Democrats for months have demanded Mr. McCain repudiate Mr. Hagee, who has made derogatory comments about homosexuals and the Catholic Church.  Now, with the primaries behind him and his current focus on centrist voters, Mr. McCain may see Mr. Hagee’s endorsement as no longer worth the trouble.(emphasis added) 


[9] CNN Website, “Bill Clinton: ‘Coverup’ hiding Hillary Clinton’s chances”, Rebecca Sinderbrand, 26 May 2008,


“Former President Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to loose in November if Sen. Hillary Clinton is not the nominee and suggested that some were trying to ‘push and pressure and bully’ superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely.   Clinton also suggested that some were trying to ‘cover up’ Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning in key states that Democrats will have to win in the general election.  ‘Oh, this is so terrible:  The people they want her.  Oh, this is so terrible:  She is winning the general election, and he is not.  Oh, my goodness, we have to cover this up.’  Clinton did not expound on who he was accusing.(emphasis added)


Politico Website, “Bill Clinton’s enemies list”, Kenneth P. Vogel, 30 May 2008,


“With Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign on the verge of defeat, Bill Clinton has been placing blame on enemies including a brazenly biased media … a powerful anti-war group that endorsed rival Barack Obama and weak-willed party leaders unable to stand up to either of these nefarious forces.  Pieced together from the former president’s public remarks … and a private conversation last week with top donors to her campaign, the theory goes something like this:… powerful forces conspired to pressure the superdelegates who will decide the nomination to back Obama by discouraging her supporters from voting and trying to hide evidence proving she would fare better than Obama against … John McCain.(emphasis added)


[10] Eli Saslow and Hamil R. Harris, “At Obama’s Former Church, Hurt Lingers”, The Washington Post, 15 June 2008, p. A01


[11] Pergamos”:  “Per” – “Gamos

·         Per

o    means “Thoroughly” or “Completely”  

o    See Dictionary or Etymology

·         Gamos

o    The Greek word for “Marriage” is “Gamos

o    Marriage:  Greek 1062, Strong’s:  gamos, gam'-os; of uncertain affinity; nuptials :- marriage, wedding  


[12] Eli Saslow, “Congregation Defends Obama’s Ex-Pastor”, The Washington Post, 18 March 2008, p.A01


[13] Eugene Robinson, “The Card Clinton is Playing”, The Washington Post, 09 May 2008, p.A27


[14] A complete copy of Pastor Hagee’s letter can be found on the Catholic League’s website:


[15] Washington Post Website, “Televangelist John Hagee apologizes to Catholics”, Jim Huhnhenn, 14 May 2008,


[16] Juliet Eilperin and Kimberly Kindy, “McCain Rejects Pastor’s Backing Over Remarks”, The Washington Post, 23 May 2008, p.A01


[17] Phil Stewart, “Vatican Reaffirms Catholic Primacy”, The Washington Post, 10 July 2007, p.A11


[18] Reuters Website, “U.S. evangelicals call for step back from politics”, Ed Stoddard, 07 May 2008,


[19] Politico Website, “Clinton’s exit:  When push came to shove”, Amie Parnes, Avi Zenilman and Ben Smith, 05 June, 2008,


[20] Washington Post Website, Voters to Hillary:  No, You Can’t”, Andres Martinez, 06 June 2008,


[21] Robert G. Kaiser, “A Run for the Ages?  Scholars Say Obama’s Campaign Is History in Motion”, The Washington Post , 05 June 2008, p. C01


[22] Christina Bellantoni, “Clinton suspends her bid, endorses Obama”, The Washington Times, 08 June 2008, p. A10