It’s Time to Decide

It’s Time to Decide

by Timothy Baldwin

Posted on 05 January 2010

http://libertydefenseleague.com/liberty/2010/01/05/its-time-to-decide/

If the current version of the US Constitution, as construed and applied by the federal government (in every branch) over the past 220 years, were reduced to writing in the form of a new constitution (the original language and meaning of the US Constitution notwithstanding), would the people of the states, as they existed in 1787, ratify the constitution? I think you would have to be utterly void of understanding of the principles of a constitutional federal republic and void of the history of our country and forefathers to state that such a constitution would be ratified today. This does not even take into consideration whether the states today would ratify the constitution of 2010–though there would likely be several states that would choose to be bound to the tyrannical national system existing today, but most certainly not all would.

Through various ways and means, the constitution as applied in 2010 literally contradicts not only the limitations placed upon the federal government, but also the retained powers of the sovereign states and the very character and nature of the union in 1787. So, what does this mean for the posterity of those people in 1787? It means that we are living under the force of a constitution which we did not ratify or consent to. Put differently, we are living in slavery, for the very definition of slavery is a people living under the force of government against their will.

It is quite clear from the plain meaning of the US Constitution that it was ratified with certain principles and understandings at that time to protect usurpations of the federal government over the states and the people respectively. The states sent delegates to the constitutional convention from May to September 1787 to address and remedy the flaws of the Articles of Confederation. For five months those men debated, articulated and prayed over the formation of the constitution. After the proposed constitution was sent to each state for consideration, each state convened in their own conventions to discuss the principles of free government as it related to the proposed constitution and whether that state should ratify it. For each state that ratified the constitution, they expressly stated that their ratification was to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY.”

One thing is certain: those involved in the ratification of the US Constitution expected that its principles and meanings be followed by their posterity, for without its fixed meaning, the “security” of the constitution would be seriously compromised. Indeed, how can a constitution secure the blessings of liberty for posterity when the meanings and applications of the constitution change by the opinion of 9 non-elected, President-appointed, life-term judges, who are connected to and dependent upon the very system of government the constitution was intended to limit? Talk about a conflict of interest.

If our forefathers who ratified the US Constitution intended to secure the blessings of liberty for their posterity but believed that its meaning, application and limits would change over time, then the US Constitution (as applied today) falls severely short of securing the blessings of liberty for their posterity. Are the people of fifty states in 2010 bound by principles and applications that contradict those believed in 1787, especially when we have not ratified the constitution as it is forced upon us today? America’s history proves that even a written constitution does not adequately protect the freedoms of a people. James Madison admits this much in Federalist Paper 49 before the ratification of the constitution:

“Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these [federal] departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment [constitutional] barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?…[E]XPERIENCE ASSURES US, THAT THE EFFICACY OF THE PROVISION HAS BEEN GREATLY OVERRATED; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government…The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a MERE DEMARCATION ON PARCHMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS, IS NOT A SUFFICIENT GUARD AGAINST THOSE ENCROACHMENTS WHICH LEAD TO A TYRANNICAL CONCENTRATION OF ALL THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT IN THE SAME HANDS.” (Emphasis added).

Was Madison right on or what! Madison could not be clearer: limiting the federal government by a mere piece of paper does nothing to protect freedom. What effect do words have when their intended meaning and their forming principles are not complied with? As the Federal Supreme Court repeatedly said in its earlier opinions, “Let the nature and objects of our Union be considered; let the great fundamental principles on which the fabric stands be examined.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 423 (1821). Indeed, something more than words is necessary to protect freedom.

Unfortunately, there are some (though I cannot judge their intentions necessarily) in the US who argue that the only lawful means by which the people of the states may redress federal grievances is through the (1) election, (2) judicial or (3) amendment processes. They argue as a basis for their position that whatever the federal government passes (through Congress), executes (through the President) and upholds (through the courts) is the “Supreme Law of the Land” and that the states are thus required by the US Constitution to submit to those laws, even if it is admitted that those laws are in fact unconstitutional and that those federal powers are exercised at the expense of the retained sovereign powers of the states and the people.

Any studier of political theory knows these advocates believe that the US Constitution places the decision of “what is constitutional” into the sole and exclusive purview of the Federal Supreme Court; that this court has the power to define not only the limits and powers of Congress and the President (not to mention its own powers) but also the power to define the lines of sovereignty of the states who created the federal government by their sovereign powers; that nine unelected, President-appointed, life-term judges possess a power equal to what the ratifiers placed into the hands of at least three-fourths of the states as mandated by the US Constitution. Without getting into the details of the fallacy of this position, which creates a dangerous oligarchic power in the federal court, destroys all principles of a free federal republic, contradicts principles of natural law, ignores the intention of the ratification documents of the states, and reduces the power of state sovereignty to mere state submission, let us consider what James Madison said in the Federalist Papers relative to what ingredients are actually required and necessary in a federal constitutional republic to protect the freedom of the people (note: James Madison was one of the proponents in the constitutional convention who actually proposed that the federal courts have a negative power over state laws contrary to the constitution, which was of course rejected in the convention):

Federalist Paper 51: “TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments [of the federal government], as laid down in the Constitution? …It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: [1] by creating a will in the community independent of the majority — that is, of the society itself; [2] BY COMPREHENDING IN THE SOCIETY SO MANY SEPARATE DESCRIPTIONS OF CITIZENS AS WILL RENDER AN UNJUST COMBINATION OF A MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE VERY IMPROBABLE, IF NOT IMPRACTICABLE.

“The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. THE SECOND METHOD WILL BE EXEMPLIFIED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES…[T]HE STABILITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF SOME MEMBER OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE ONLY OTHER SECURITY, MUST BE PROPORTIONATELY INCREASED.” (Emphasis added)

Madison notes that the only way a minority of the people and of the states can be protected against the tyrannical actions of the majority through the federal government is that minority’s stability and independence be maintained and that minority’s stability and independence be proportionally increased with the increase of the majority’s power and influence. Thus, a mathematical equation is created: The Minority’s (e.g. the states) stability and independence increases in direct proportion to the majority’s (e.g. the federal government) attempt to circumvent the minority’s freedom. Madison continues in this line of thought:

Federalist Paper 52: “[The] federal legislature will not only be restrained by its dependence on its people, as other legislative bodies are, BUT THAT IT WILL BE, MOREOVER, WATCHED AND CONTROLLED BY THE SEVERAL COLLATERAL [STATE] LEGISLATURES…With less power, therefore, to abuse, the federal representatives can be less tempted on one side, and will be doubly watched on the other.” (Emphasis added)

Madison, as nationalistic-minded as he was in 1787, cannot escape the principle of states checking federal usurpations because it was so engrained into the conscience of the people and governments. Thomas Jefferson expresses the same principle of check and balance in a federal republic system: “the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary.” Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900), 133.

This application of state sovereignty was explained by James Madison in Federalist Paper 39, when he states, “[T]he [state] authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the [federal] authority, than the [federal] authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” Nothing can be more provable in American jurisprudence: sovereignty necessarily carries with it the power to defend it. Yet, even today, after seeing the usurpations of the federal government for more than 150 years, there are still those who would deny the states their power to defend sovereignty and thus the freedom of their citizens.

This can mean only one thing: these people prefer a national system of government (as certain of our founders did and as did the Tories) over a federal system of government. That may be their choice, but did our ratifiers create a national system, whereby the states gave up their right to defend their powers? The answer is most certainly, No. The evidence expressed even by those who advocated for a national government (e.g. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton) in the Federalist Papers, not to mention the vast array of freedom documents forming our country, confirms this. Yet, constitutional (de)construction, through federal courts, supposedly has created the very form of government that our ratifiers rejected.

A decision must be made in 2010: Are states politically and legally incapable of governing themselves within their borders, or do they have the power and right to defend their sovereignty retained? Are the states subject to the tyrannical definitions and lines drawn by the federal government’s court as sole arbiter, or do they have the power to judge for themselves and defend their powers given to them by the people of that state? Are the states bound to live under a constitution that applies to them contrarily to the constitution ratified in 1787, or do they have the natural law and constitutional right to be governed by the principles of a free republic without interference from other government bodies and to perpetuate those principles for them and their posterity? There is no neutral ground on this issue.

Those who advocate that the states MUST pass constitutional amendments to correct federal usurpations do not understand the first thing about living in freedom in a federal constitutional republic. Why should we–the non-aggressors–have to go through the arduous process of getting three-fourths of the states to correct federal abuses, when the federal government does not have the power or authority to act the way it does in the first place and are contradicting the limits we have already placed upon them? This line of thinking says, the federal government’s usurpations are valid and effective until the States pass a constitutional amendment stating otherwise. This effectively eliminates the usefulness of a written constitution, delegating only special and limited powers to a government, just as Madison explained.

How about this instead: a state can protect its own borders and powers by resisting and arresting federal tyranny, and if three-fourths of the states do not believe that state is correct in its defense of its powers, then let them pass a constitutional amendment limiting the states’ sovereignty in this regard. Giving the federal government (which our founders admitted and acknowledged would and should not comprise the vast majority of powers over the lives of the people) preference of sovereignty over the states contradicts the very structure and nature of our union in 1787, whereby the states possessed defendable concurrent power with the federal government–states who won their complete and absolute independence through a bloody and arduous seven years war, through the infinite pains and labors of millions and the lives of thousands of men, women and children. Any person or government that would have these states give up their powers and rights, when these states did not do so, commits treason against those states.

Thomas Jefferson rightly describes the tendency of human nature to suffer evils while evils are sufferable. Most of us would agree with this practical reality. Accordingly, “we must be patient…and give [the federal government] time for reflection and experience of consequences.” Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, 133. Perhaps so, but the states in America have suffered long enough. Our freedom and our posterity’s freedom are at stake. If the correct, appropriate and proportional actions are not taken soon, freedom will be that much harder to secure. It is time for the people of the states to decide which constitution they want to be governed by: a free one or an enslaving one.

Copyright © Timothy Baldwin, 2010

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

Praise For Lee And Jackson

Hello Everyone,

For a lot of people this writing by Chuck Baldwin will show a perspective on history not always seen, and certainly not known by so many. 

I am a New Englander by birth, and from way back when, that would make me a “Northerner.”  And I never heard of the things Baldwin and some others wrote about until perhaps the last ten years.  It certainly was not taught or brought up in any way I recall from growing up. 

A review of history, even if it changes some of your views, does not automatically make one a “Southerner.”  After not much thought on the topic, as not much was needed, I choose rather to just do what is right the best I can and not worry about what some may call us.  The label does not make the man or woman, but doing that which is right makes one a better man or woman. 

Foremost, I plan on following the Christian principles I have learned and teach others.  If the nation as a whole behaved as a Christian nation from the start until now, there would not have been the pickle they got into not that many score after the foundation, nor would we face the one we are in now.  We may yet not have seen the worse; lines may be drawn, and sides may be taken.  May God forbid!  I still pray for America.

And a minor side note; I know from his previous writings that Baldwin is not from the South either. 

Godspeed,

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

Praise For Lee And Jackson

By Chuck Baldwin

January 6, 2010

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2010/cbarchive_20100106.html

January is often referred to as “Generals Month” since no less than four famous Confederate Generals claimed January as their birth month: James Longstreet (Jan. 8, 1821), Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19, 1807), Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson (Jan. 21, 1824), and George Pickett (Jan. 28, 1825). Two of these men, Lee and Jackson, are particularly noteworthy.

Without question, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were two of the greatest military leaders of all time. Even more, many military historians regard the Lee and Jackson tandem as perhaps the greatest battlefield duo in the history of warfare. If Jackson had survived the battle of Chancellorsville, it is very possible that the South would have prevailed at Gettysburg and perhaps would even have won the War Between the States.

In fact, it was Lord Roberts, commander-in-chief of the British armies in the early twentieth century, who said, “In my opinion, Stonewall Jackson was one of the greatest natural military geniuses the world ever saw. I will go even further than that—as a campaigner in the field, he never had a superior. In some respects, I doubt whether he ever had an equal.”

While the strategies and circumstances of the War of Northern Aggression can (and will) be debated by professionals and laymen alike, one fact is undeniable: Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson were two of the finest Christian gentlemen this country has ever produced. Both their character and their conduct were beyond reproach.

Unlike his northern counterpart, Ulysses S. Grant, General Lee never sanctioned or condoned slavery. Upon inheriting slaves from his deceased father-in-law, Lee freed them. And according to historians, Jackson enjoyed a familial relationship with those few slaves that were in his home. In addition, unlike Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant, there is no record of either Lee or Jackson ever speaking disparagingly of the black race.

As those who are familiar with history know, General Grant and his wife held personal slaves before and during the War Between the States, and, contrary to popular opinion, even Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves of the North. They were not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed after the conclusion of the war. Grant’s excuse for not freeing his slaves was that “good help is so hard to come by these days.”

Furthermore, it is well established that Jackson regularly conducted a Sunday School class for black children. This was a ministry he took very seriously. As a result, he was dearly loved and appreciated by the children and their parents.

In addition, both Jackson and Lee emphatically supported the abolition of slavery. In fact, Lee called slavery “a moral and political evil.” He also said “the best men in the South” opposed it and welcomed its demise. Jackson said he wished to see “the shackles struck from every slave.”

To think that Lee and Jackson (and the vast majority of Confederate soldiers) would fight and die to preserve an institution they considered evil and abhorrent—and that they were already working to dismantle—is the height of absurdity. It is equally repugnant to impugn and denigrate the memory of these remarkable Christian gentlemen.

In fact, after refusing Abraham Lincoln’s offer to command the Union Army in 1861, Robert E. Lee wrote to his sister on April 20 of that year to explain his decision. In the letter he wrote, “With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the army and save in defense of my native state, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed . . .”

Lee’s decision to resign his commission with the Union Army must have been the most difficult decision of his life. Remember that Lee’s direct ancestors had fought in America’s War For Independence. His father, “Light Horse Harry” Henry Lee, was a Revolutionary War hero, Governor of Virginia, and member of Congress. In addition, members of his family were signatories to the Declaration of Independence.

Remember, too, that not only did Robert E. Lee graduate from West Point “at the head of his class” (according to Benjamin Hallowell), he is yet today one of only six cadets to graduate from that prestigious academy without a single demerit.

However, Lee knew that Lincoln’s decision to invade the South in order to prevent its secession was both immoral and unconstitutional. As a man of honor and integrity, the only thing Lee could do was that which his father had done: fight for freedom and independence. And that is exactly what he did.

Instead of allowing a politically correct culture to sully the memory of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson, all Americans should hold them in a place of highest honor and respect. Anything less is a disservice to history and a disgrace to the principles of truth and integrity.

Accordingly, it was more than appropriate that the late President Gerald Ford, on August 5, 1975, signed Senate Joint Resolution 23, “restoring posthumously the long overdue, full rights of citizenship to General Robert E. Lee.” According to President Ford, “This legislation corrects a 110-year oversight of American history.” He further said, “General Lee’s character has been an example to succeeding generations . . .”

The significance of the lives of Generals Lee and Jackson cannot be overvalued. While the character and influence of most of us will barely be remembered two hundred days after our departure, the sterling character of these men has endured for two hundred years. What a shame that so many of America’s youth are being robbed of knowing and studying the virtue and integrity of the great General Robert E. Lee and General Thomas J. ”Stonewall” Jackson.

Furthermore, it is no hyperbole to say that the confederated, constitutional republic so ably declared by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and codified into statute by the U.S. Constitution of 1787 was, for the most part, expunged at the Appomattox Court House in 1865. After all, it was (and is) the responsibility of the states to be the ultimate vanguard of liberty. Without a tenacious, unrelenting defense of liberty by the sovereign states, we are reduced to ever-burgeoning oppression—which is exactly what we see happening today.

Thankfully, freedom’s heartbeat is still felt among at least a few states. State sovereignty resolutions (proposed in over 30 states), Firearms Freedom acts (passed in 2 states—Montana and Tennessee—and being proposed in at least 12 other states), and official letters (Montana), statements (Texas Governor Rick Perry), and resolutions (Georgia and Montana) threatening secession have already taken place.

Yes, freedom-loving Americans in this generation may need to awaken to the prospect that—in order for freedom to survive—secession may, once again, be in order. One thing is for sure: any State that will not protect and defend their citizens’ right to keep and bear arms cannot be counted on to do diddlysquat to maintain essential freedom. It is time for people to start deciding whether they want to live free or not—and if they do, to seriously consider relocating to states that yet have a heartbeat for liberty.

I will say it straight out: any State that will not protect your right to keep and bear arms is a tyrannical State! And if it is obvious that the freedom-loving citizens of that State are powerless to change it via the ballot box, they should leave the State to its slaves and seek a land of liberty.

I, for one, am thankful for the example and legacy of men such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. They were the spiritual soul mates of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They were men that loved freedom; they were men that loved federalism and constitutional government; and they were men of courage and understanding. They understood that, sometimes, political separation is the only way that freedom can survive. Long live the spirit of Washington, Jefferson, Lee, and Jackson!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

---

NOTE TO THE READER:

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

The Lord Is Calling His People Out From The Midst Of The False

The Lord Is Calling His People Out From The Midst Of The False

by Kevin Reeves

Lighthouse Trails Research

Posted January 4, 2010

Source page

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spirituality/lighthousetrails/010/1-calling-out.htm

History is filled with stories of those who have stood for truth, many of whom gave their lives to defend the faith God had put in their hearts. History is also filled with those who tried to squelch that truth.

In his riveting account of the Nazi empire, historian William L. Shirer meticulously documents the internal workings of a system that once threatened to take over the world. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is a chilling account of the effects of mind-numbing propaganda.[1] The endless barrage of misinformation, incredibly, molded a once-beaten and fragmented people into the icon of elitism, which culminated in grisly death camps and the cold-blooded murder of those deemed lesser humans.

A firsthand witness and opponent of the Nazi regime, Shirer recounted instances of conversation with German people, when he dared contradict the ludicrous governmental and media declarations of ethnic, cultural, and military superiority. He was met with shocked silence or an amazed stare. He noted that to question the Nazi machine’s view of anything was considered blasphemy of the highest order. It dawned on him that the minds of many of the people had become so warped that they were no longer able to think for themselves or evaluate anything by a higher standard. Shirer observed that with the rise of the new German empire, the truth had become whatever Hitler and Goebbels said it was; they were the final arbiters of reality—spiritual and otherwise.

Some may think it is extreme to compare the spiritual deception and control tactics within the church today to that of the Nazi regime and the death camps, but we should remember that the church in Germany in the 1930s was very much like the church is today—having a head-in-the-sand mentality about spiritual deception and turning religious leaders into super-human heroes who can do no wrong. Perhaps we are not all that different than Christians in Germany back then. We should not fool ourselves and think we would never be duped like that. The apostle Paul issued a warning to Christians:

“Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” (I Cor. 10:11,12)

Despite all of this, there is hope in the Lord; He is “Faithful and True” (Rev. 19:11). And He promised to preserve His church, that true body of believers whom He calls the Bride of Christ. Praise His name—there is hope. When truth is challenged, mocked, and thrown against the wind, we can be sure, it will never be altered. And that Word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.

The Lord is calling His people out from the midst of the false, to adhere to His truth, no matter what the cost. Let us respond with joy and thankfulness, knowing His grace is sufficient to strengthen us and give us courage.

“Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.” (Hebrews 13:13-14)

Notes:

1. William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster/Touchstone, 1959).

(From The Other Side of the River by Kevin Reeves, pp.214-215)

---

Source page. This page also includes the following introduction by Lighthouse Trails Research:

In 2009, we witnessed a huge growth in the contemplative/mystical New Spirituality in the Christian church.

This is not just some kind of fad or an isolated phenomenon. It is building momentum month by month, and more and more people are seeing this mystical spirituality as a valid and powerful way to experience the presence of God. Many influential and respected people within Christianity view this practice as being perfectly in accordance with orthodox Christianity. However, there is no way one can reconcile interspirituality (the “fruit” of contemplative) with the preaching of the Cross and still remain faithful to biblical fidelity.

One of the things we have noticed in 2009 is a significant blurring of the lines between outright New Age/New Spirituality and this new Christianity. An example of this blurring came to our attention just as we were about to release this newsletter. In Charles Stanley’s January 2010 In Touch magazine, it features an article titled, “I Didn’t Want to Be a Christian, But . . . how running away can take you on an unexpected journey” by Joseph Bentz.

In the article, Bentz (author of Silent God) highlights the spiritual journeys of two women, one of whom is Anne Lamott (Traveling Mercies). Most In Touch readers are probably not familiar with any problems associated with her name.  But Lamott, mentioned in several Lighthouse Trails articles, reveals her true spiritual sympathies when she endorsed the back cover of the made-popular-by-Oprah book, Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert. The book is about Gilbert’s search for spirituality, which took her to India and eastern meditation. Her book is a virtual primer on New Age thinking.... Of Gilbert’s book, Lamott states: ‘This is a wonderful book, brilliant and personal, rich in spiritual insight.”1

William Paul Young includes Lamott in his New Spirituality book, The Shack, as someone he is “grateful” for....

In 2010, it is our hope that we can continue to warn others about the spiritual deception taking place today. It is also our desire that we can encourage believers in Christ to stand strong in defending the faith and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the only avenue through which salvation can come.

“And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” Galatians 6:9

Notes:

1. from Elizabeth Gilbert's website

2. Ignacio Larrañaga, Sensing Your Hidden Presence, p. 11, citing Rahner.

3. (from A Time of Departing, quoting Thomas Merton, Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander -1989 edition, pp.157-158)

4. Yungen, A Time of Departing, pp. 59-60 citing from Rob Baker and Gray Henry, Editors, Merton and Sufism, pp. 109-110.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Muslim Condom Bomber Attacks America on Christmas Day

Muslim Condom Bomber Attacks America on Christmas Day

By Doug Giles

Clash Radio

http://clashradio.com/column.html

While the Thought Police want us to trip over ourselves trying not to offend poor, misunderstood Muslims in the classroom, the newsroom or on the battlefield, another one of their privileged and educated peace lovers, Umar Abdulmutallab, attempted to “bother” 289 Americans (I’m guessing mostly Christians) on a flight bound for Detroit on the day we celebrate Jesus’ birth.

I have a message for Umar: Dude, what were you thinking? You’re kind of whizzing on Obama/Napolitano’s “Islam is Awesome! Campaign” by trying to ignite your crotch at 20,000 feet on a Christmas flight packed with innocent folks. That “man-made disaster” would likely have forever derailed Barack’s BS Express as far as Islam is concerned.

Yep, Abdulmutallab, if you had succeeded at “troubling” those passengers and “inconveniencing” many, many families, Obama and his ilk would have had a helluva time keeping up the chipper vocab when it comes to explaining away you and your … uh … nonviolent … um, religion . . . especially considering that it hasn’t even been two months since your brother from another mother, Nidal Malik Hasan, killed 13 American military men and women and wounded 30 others on our own military base.

Indeed, Umar, Obama and his boys have had a brutal time trying to divert attention from Hasan and his murderous Muslim mayhem, and then here you go again jamming jihad in everybody’s face.

You’re not helping BHO with his PR. People are getting suspicious. People are beginning to think that Barack is lying through his purple lips, Napolitano is a nabob, and that the exact opposite of what they say about Islam is the truth. In addition, people are starting to, how should I put it . . . get concerned . . . that this PC smack regarding Islam is setting our nation up to get our butts handed to us - as in big time.

Another thing I can’t figure out, Mr. Umar, is why you attacked us on Christmas day. What the heck is up with that? Haven’t you read the new Candy Ass Rule Book? Didn’t you know you’re not ‘sposed to attack us on our sacred holidays because we don’t attack you on yours? Didn’t you get that wall post on Facebook?

In case you didn’t hear about the Polite War we’re trying to wage with you, the gist of what we’ll do for you and your people who are trying to slaughter us is this: We will not attack you during your sacrosanct celebrations.

Matter of fact, we’ll go a step further and court martial our troops when they play a game of pin the tail on Mohammed at Gitmo, or flush a Koran, or accidentally serve Achmed Jell-O. Not only that, but we’ll prosecute our intel ops who ferret out your Islamic mass-murderous plots, and we’ll promote Muslim maniacs to major within our own ranks.

This sensitive approach to war is supposed to have the intended effect, if you wouldn’t mind, of preventing you from blowing up planes full of American Christians on Christ’s birthday, thank you very much. It’s just a suggestion. And it would be nice if you would play our game, as well.

However, if you don’t capitulate to our level of niceness, we will continue to maintain that level because we want to prove to the world that we’re pleasant even if thousands more Americans have to be killed. Again, we’re not pressuring you to stop the Christmas attacks, we’re just trying to give you something to think about while you’re screaming in tongues and burning our American flag.

Until then we might have to inconvenience some of you who wish to fly our friendly skies. Yep, you might start getting profiled because everybody and their dog think you suck and don’t trust your type much anymore. No offense, of course.

Oh, and for your information, I hear Kevin Jennings has volunteered to do the TSA pat downs and cavity searches on those who fit the “man-made disaster” profile. I hear he’s very thorough.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Sitting Ducks

Hello All,

Most of you that have known me for any length of time know I retired just a little over a couple of months ago from our state run correctional system.  I did not make it to the very top, and I really did not want to.  But I did reach a point where I had access to some fairly high-level info concerning some of those at the top.  I learned some interesting things. 

One of my observations was that when you reach a certain point of the upper echelon in state corrections any big thing happens under your domain that sets a negative pall on the department, you may be gone with little or no warning.  If you reach that upper level, you serve at the pleasure of the warden, or if you are a warden or higher, you serve at the pleasure of the governor. 

These things have variations however.  If you are at that level and not so well liked, one bad event will get you terminated, or get an adverse demotion that will often come with a transfer to someplace you did not really want to go.  If you are well liked by the powers that be, you can mess up time and time again before you will actually have to face the music.  And when you do, you will be allowed to “honorably” retire for “reasons unrelated to” whatever the matter was.  Or the rest of us will be told it was for personal reasons.  Who you know, what you know, and particularly if you know something fishy about one or more of those of whom you served under, will often determine that the last one of these will apply. 

Did I just say that there was corruption in high places?  Yes, I did.  Did I imply that what I learned about some in the state also apply to the federal level?  Most certainly!

I have to agree with Charlie Daniels that the Napolitanos, Holders, and others who serve at the pleasure of those at the top (and who would that be) are riding high “in the car” and sooner or later will be gone.  But I have to wonder just how much damage they will do us in the meantime.  The bad guys we face as a nation want to kill us as a nation!  They are not so different than the bad guy inmates I met in state corrections.  There are just many more of them, have a lot more power, and are not locked up any place. 

I hope enough Americans learn soon that those in the high levels of government should be serving at our pleasure, or fired at our displeasure. 

Godspeed,

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

Sitting Ducks 

By Charlie Daniels

January 01, 2010

http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox-2010/soapbox-2010-0101.htm

What has to happen in America to convince people that the Obama administration is in way over its head, in danger of drowning and taking the whole country down with them?

When a man on the terrorist watch list gets on a plane headed for America it is totally unacceptable. The system failed miserably and what was Janet Napolitano’s first reaction? She said something to the effect that the system worked just fine.

If this doesn’t demonstrate just how lost the Obama administration is I don’t know what will, short of another 9/11-style attack or something even worse.

There have recently been instances of Middle Eastern types coming aboard a plane in numbers, reserving the seats closest to the main fuel tanks, belligerently refusing to shut off their cell phones and arrogantly refusing to abide by regulations.

They are doing “dry runs”, probing our defenses or lack there of, planning for a day when by hook or by crook, inefficiency or political correctness they can slip explosives on board a plane.

People of America, please listen to me. This is not about the economy; it’s not about health care. It’s about the very survival of the United States of America.

It’s about the lives of your children being in danger, not on the mean streets of Baghdad or the mountains of Afghanistan, but right here at the shopping centers, schools and commercial plane flights in our hometowns.

Obama’s lackadaisical and passive attitude toward Islamic terrorism puts the country in more danger with every passing hour. These people don’t have the foggiest idea of what’s going on and the clear and present danger of another attack on American soil.

Their response has been to move scumbag mass murderers from the safe confines of Guantanamo Bay to the largest city in America where all kind of havoc can be wreaked on the biggest and most densely settled population mass in the country.

As they used to say in the Marine Corps, Janet Napolitano don’t pack the gear to be the Secretary of Homeland Security.

How can a woman who doesn’t even consider the War on Terror serious enough to call it what it is, possibly conduct the deadly business of securing the homeland from terrorist attack?

Obama should replace her immediately with a Colin Powell or a Tommy Franks or somebody of their ilk who understands terrorism and the dedication of the terrorists.

Janet Napolitano treats the War on Terror as if was bridge game and people if something isn’t done about the downright inability and inexperience of this administration America could well become an armed camp in the next few years.

Does anybody out there think that Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban or al-Qaeda is seriously afraid of Barack Hussein Obama and the bunch of idealistic snobs who serve under him?

He can’t even gain the respect of an insignificant little tin dictator like Hugo Chavez, much less the likes of the hard-core maniacs in al-Qaeda.

His sickening “it’s all America’s fault” speeches around the world must be a real source of humor and encouragement to them.

These people are minor leaguers playing in a Super Bowl situation. Their naivety and arrogant politically correct approach to the War on Terror is going to get a lot of people killed if somebody with authority in Washington doesn’t wake up from spending our children’s inheritances long enough to do something about the scatterbrained negligence of the Janet Napolitanos and Eric Holders.

And these idiots expect America to docilely give up their guns.

Never!!!

And my advice to you America is if you ain’t got one, go out and get one. A good start would be a twelve-gauge shotgun. You can buy one without going through all the hassle of getting a handgun and loaded with buckshot there is no better close up protection.

Don’t leave the protection of your home to the likes of Janet “everything’s alright” Napolitano. Or Harry “the surge is not working, the war is lost” Reid.

It’s coming folks, be ready for it.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

© Copyright The Charlie Daniels Band

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---