Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Fake “Conservatives” Embrace Homosexual “Monster”

Fake “Conservatives” Embrace Homosexual “Monster”
Written by Cliff Kincaid
19 February 2010

Kathleen Parker is the “conservative” columnist liberals can count on to bash conservative personalities and causes. This is why her column is syndicated by the Washington Post and why she is featured on the Chris Matthews show.

Now, Parker has done her best imitation of lesbian MSNBC-TV commentator Rachel Maddow by writing a column bashing Uganda’s Christian majority for considering passage of a bill to toughen laws against homosexuality. This has been a Maddow cause for months, and Parker is now on the bandwagon.

When the MSNBC-TV host isn’t attacking Christians here and abroad for opposing homosexuality, she is promoting homosexuality in the U.S. military, as Post media critic Howard Kurtz was recently forced to acknowledge in a story about her preoccupation with this matter. But it’s really not surprising. Maddow’s show is an extension of her lesbian lifestyle. She is gay and proud and given free rein at MSNBC because of her role as the first “out” lesbian to host a show on a national cable news network.

It’s another “first” for the homosexual lobby and the media, which seem to go together.

Parker’s interest in the issue is not as clear but it may stem from her eagerness to please those who syndicate her column and quote her approvingly in the liberal press. This is how “conservatives” become mainstream media stars. However, her column is even worse in its accusations and charges than what we can find in the hysterical gay press. Parker finds those Christians opposed to homosexuality in Uganda and who base their opposition on the Bible to be in favor of “genocide.”

Losing complete control of her senses, Parker states that a proposed law against homosexuality constitutes “state genocide of a minority [that] is proposed in the name of Christianity...”

Once again, as we have documented on so many occasions, the death penalty in the bill is only one provision and is for “aggravated homosexuality” or serious crimes mostly involving homosexual behavior targeting children and spreading disease and death.

The potential genocide in Uganda is the AIDS epidemic that the government and Christian leaders are successfully combating. They understand, although Parker apparently does not, that homosexual behavior promotes the spread of AIDS.

There is a myth that AIDS in Africa has been spread exclusively through heterosexual conduct. But the internationally acclaimed medical journal The Lancet last August published the first scientific study showing that male homosexuals are more often than not infected with HIV than the general adult population in sub-Saharan Africa. The study is titled, “Men who have sex with men and HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.”

Here, all of this is out in the open and well-known. Indeed, the Cato Institute held an event on Wednesday in which HIV-positive writer Andrew Sullivan strode to the podium during a conference on “gay conservatives” with ashes on his forehead from having attended a Catholic Church Ash Wednesday service. Sullivan was caught soliciting a partner for dangerous “bare-backing” sexual practices and has since “married” another man. This is “conservative?”

Like Kathleen Parker, he is still considered a “conservative” by some and was introduced by Cato executive David Boaz, a member of the Independent Gay Forum and pro-marijuana activist. Like Sullivan, Cato is also misleadingly described in the media as “conservative” too many times to mention.

Today, as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gets underway in Washington, D.C., participants will find a literature table established under official CPAC auspices from a homosexual Republican group calling itself GOProud. CPAC organizer David Keene, whose lobbying activities have been an embarrassment to the conservative movement, approved letting the gay rights organization officially attend the conference, despite complaints from traditional conservative groups such as Catholic Families for America. 

Talk of tolerance and diversity aside, male homosexuals constitute most of the HIV-AIDS cases and they are still prohibited from donating blood because of their propensity to come down with various life-threatening diseases. Facts are facts. But don’t expect to see this information analyzed and reviewed by the mainstream media when considering such issues as allowing active and open homosexuals into the Armed Forces and into close quarters with normal heterosexuals.

Gay activists complain that thousands have been forced out of the military because of their homosexuality. The evidence, in the form of opinion polls and letters from former military officers, suggests that many thousands more will leave if the military brass force acceptance of homosexuality-and the diversity training that will inevitably go along with it-on the military rank and file.

The purpose of the Ugandan bill, quite clearly, is to keep homosexuality in the closet, where it used to be in this country. The country’s literal survival may depend on passage of this legislation, after it undergoes hearings and some revisions.

The bill will likely have more of a deterrent effect than anything else. Some of the controversial passages, such as restrictions on “touching,” are included for the purpose of defining homosexual behavior. It may sound strange to Americans who are accustomed to in-your-face homosexuality on national television and almost everywhere else in society, but Uganda is serious about avoiding a return to the time when a notorious homosexual king was ruling the country and tortured and killed young Christian men who resisted his homosexual advances.

Ironically, Parker makes reference to this terrible period, but only to contrast it with a frightening future in which she speculates that gays will be offered up by authorities in Uganda as martyrs for the gay rights cause. To drive the point home, a gay rights group recently held a news conference in Washington, D.C. featuring an alleged gay rights activist from Uganda wearing a paper sack over his head. It was a good publicity stunt, designed to generate sympathy and attention for people who only want the “right” to celebrate a behavior that is a documented public health hazard.

Hedge fund manager George Soros, who is behind the campaign to homosexualize Uganda, doesn’t wear a bag over his face and doesn’t need to. He operates mostly out in the open, in the name of promoting his version of an “open society” here and abroad. The problem is that most of the liberal media agree with his policies and proposals and therefore don’t shed light on what he is doing in terms of interfering in the affairs of not only the U.S. but other nations of the world.

In fact, the Ugandan legislation seems designed to send a message to Soros and his minions in the foreign homosexual lobby to keep their hands off Uganda’s families and kids. Soros funds efforts to legalize homosexual behavior and prostitution in Uganda and other African nations. It’s too bad Parker didn’t notice and condemn that. But such a reference might provoke criticism from the left, and she wants to avoid that so she can keep going on the Matthews show.

The eminent historian Paul Johnson, who was recently on C-SPAN taking questions from viewers, has something to say about this. His book The Quest for God laments that Western society made a huge mistake by decriminalizing homosexuality and thinking that acceptance of the lifestyle on a basic level would satisfy its practitioners. Instead, he wrote, “Decriminalization made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched.” It became, he says, a “monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental-and to most of us horrifying-changes to civilized patterns of sexual behavior.”

Today, this monster makes even more demands and inroads, especially into our government, as President Obama appoints subversives such as homosexual activist Kevin Jennings to the Education Department, and some poor mixed-up “transgendered” person to a post at Commerce. Plus, adding to our health care problems, he has lifted the ban on AIDS-infected foreigners from traveling to and living in the U.S.

His gays-in-the-military proposal would not only make the Armed Forces a laughingstock but would end its value as a fighting force capable of defending us against foreign threats. Indeed, a homosexualized military could itself become a threat, just like it was in the Nazi period.

Instead of finding a “monster” in a gay rights movement that wants to impose itself on all of us, including our children in the schools, Kathleen Parker finds the monster to be the Christians in Uganda who want to spare their children from a lifestyle that too frequently ends in premature death. She accuses them of “genocide” for being patriots and good parents. Shame on her.

Parker’s “conservatism” is a farce and a fraud. But it seems to be in fashion at CPAC this year.



Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org  



Copyright © 2010 Right Side Publications, LLC - Privacy Policy Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Remembering The Alamo

Remembering The Alamo
By Chuck Baldwin
February 23, 2010

February 23 marks the anniversary of the beginning of the battle of the Alamo back in 1836. For more than 13 days, 186 brave and determined patriots withstood Santa Anna’s seasoned army of over 4,000 troops. To a man, the defenders of that mission fort knew they would never leave those ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet, they chose to fight and die. How foolish they must look to this generation of spoiled Americans.

It is difficult to recall that stouthearted men such as Davy Crockett (a nationally known frontiersman and former congressman), Will Travis (only 23 years old with a little baby at home), and Jim Bowie (a wealthy landowner with properties on both sides of the Rio Grande) really existed. These were real men with real dreams and real desires. Real blood flowed through their veins. They loved their families and enjoyed life as much as any of us do. There was something different about them, however. They possessed a commitment to liberty that transcended personal safety and comfort.

Liberty is an easy word to say, but it is a hard word to live up to. Freedom has little to do with financial gain or personal pleasure. Accompanying Freedom is her constant and unattractive companion, Responsibility. Neither is she an only child. Patriotism and Morality are her sisters. They are inseparable: destroy one and all will die.

Early in the siege, Travis wrote these words to the people of Texas: “Fellow Citizens & Compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. . . . The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword . . . I have answered the demand with a cannon shot & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. . . . VICTORY OR DEATH! P.S. The Lord is on our side. . . .”

As you read those words, remember that Travis and the others did not have the A.C.L.U., P.E.T.A., People for the un-American Way, and the National Education Association telling them how intolerant and narrow-minded their notions of honor and patriotism were. A hostile media did not constantly castigate them as a bunch of wild-eyed extremists. As schoolchildren, they were not taught that their forefathers were nothing more than racist jerks.

The brave men at the Alamo labored under the belief that America (and Texas) really was “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” They believed God was on their side and that the freedom of future generations depended on their courage and resolve. They further believed their posterity would remember their sacrifice as an act of love and devotion. It all looks pale now.

By today’s standards, the gallant men of the Alamo appear rather foolish. After all, they had no chance of winning—none. However, the call for pragmatism and practicality was never sounded. Instead, they answered the clarion call, “Victory or death!”

Please try to remember the heroes of the Alamo as you watch our gutless political and religious leaders surrender to globalism, corporatism, and political correctness. Try to recall the time in this country when ordinary men and women had the courage of their convictions and were willing to sacrifice their lives for freedom and independence.

One thing is certain: those courageous champions at the Alamo did not die for a political party or for some “lesser of two evils” mantra. They fought and died for a principle, and that principle was liberty and independence. So did the men at Lexington and Concord. That is our heritage.

Today, however, our national leaders are in the process of turning America over to the very forces that the Alamo defenders gave their lives resisting. On second thought, do they look foolish, or do we?

Beyond that, how much longer do we have before it will become necessary for freedom-loving states such as Texas (and maybe Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Vermont, or South Carolina) to declare their independence one more time? An argument could be made that Washington, D.C., is considerably more brutish and tyrannical than old Santa Anna ever was. I’m not so sure that it isn’t already time to again hoist the “Don’t Tread On Me” flags, shout “Remember The Alamo,” and renew the faith and courage of William Travis and Patrick Henry.

Accordingly, I strongly recommend that readers study the current series of columns that my son, Tim Baldwin, is writing regarding the historical, constitutional, and legal support for State secession. These columns are brilliantly written and thoroughly documented. No honest person could read these columns and not recognize the right of states to secede. There will be a total of 12 parts to Tim’s thesis. See them at:

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

*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:
© Chuck Baldwin 



NOTE TO THE READER:
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
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


Tuesday, February 23, 2010

A New Age of Jefferson: New Hampshire’s “Free Staters” started it all

A New Age of Jefferson: New Hampshire’s “Free Staters” started it all
By Bernie Quigley
15. Feb, 2010

At the beginning of every movement is a wild bunch. Rowdy workers on the docks in Boston, John Brown and his half-mad family. When historians trace back from Scott Brown to the beginning, they will get to a wild bunch in New Hampshire called the “Free Staters.”

They moved here a few years back and live on the edge of the forest, not more than a handful at first but expecting thousands to follow, intending to start the republic fresh again. And in a way they did. I came to their attention with an article in 2003 titled “A States’ Rights Defense against Dick Cheney” premised on Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, making the claim that New Hampshire and Vermont need not participate in the war on Iraq without the permission of our state governors.

They had moved up here drawn to our state motto, I think – Live Free or Die. But it was no big ideological thing, more a free-spirited awakening which brought the usual scoffs from the lace curtain MSM and conventional political religionists here in the cold where local politics sometimes seems a substitute for religion. I received an email from one blithe spirit who said that she was basically about “ . . . opposing gun laws, legalizing marijuana and Hillary is a bitch.”

What we had in common was the premise that Thomas Jefferson had recognized the natural state that formed of its own initiative when ideology was removed from the equation. And acknowledged that in the Constitution by declaring that the states had the natural right and the ability to defend themselves against an abusive, arrogant, immoral or delirious federal government.

From then till now, this idea has taken off. I think now it cannot be held back. It will bring us a new breed of politician and a new political generation. It is already doing so.

This thinking first began to move last February when Dan Itse, a New Hampshire state representative, read commentary related to Jefferson and the Kentucky Resolutions and proposed a 10th amendment defense against the Obama administration’s deficit spending; spending so extensive that it would tax future generations. 37 other states immediately followed his initiative.

Then again on April 15, 2009, when the Tea Party revolts started across the country. When Texas governor Rick Perry appeared at one at the Alamo it brought greater legitimacy to this movement. His friend Ted Nugent brought his own inimitable style. Sarah Palin undoubtedly brought this movement nationally when she led support of other governors to the NY 23 race, bridging the Tea Partiers and the mainstream.

Mainstream conservatives and the Tea Partiers need to merge, Palin told Fox’s Greta Van Susteren. “Definitely, they need to merge. I think those who are wanting the divisions and the divisiveness and the controversy — those are the ones who don’t believe in the message. And they’re the ones, I think, stirring it up.”

They have already merged.

The election of Bob McDonnell as Virginia’s governor completed this transformation and fully legitimized the Jeffersonian ideals in Jefferson’s home state. This can be seen now as the new mainstream. The election of Scott Brown insured that Massachusetts and the East would not be left out.

In his speech in response to President Obama’s State of the Union, McDonnell made several references to the singular man of the Enlightenment who awakened the world: “It was Thomas Jefferson who called for ‘A wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ….and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned…’ He was right.”

Jefferson could awaken us again in 2010 and 2012. And it all started up here in woods of New Hampshire with the Free Staters. Never underestimate the power of a handful of rural red necks, duty-bound, born-again to the Constitution and hell-bent on a free vision of starting the world again. ‘Twas ever thus.



Bernie Quigley [send him email] writes a “Pundit’s Blog” column for “The Hill,” political journal in Washington, D.C. He is a prize-winning writer and has worked more than 30 years as a book and magazine editor, political commentator and book, movie, music and art reviewer. He lives in the White Mountains with his wife and four children. 

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Monday, February 22, 2010

Who’s Afraid of “Interposition”?

William N. Grigg
Thursday, February 18, 2010

Those who are mystified by the political concept called “interposition” can find a very compelling tutorial in a vignette from Larry McMurtry’s novel Lonesome Dove.

Led by former Texas Rangers Augustus McRae and Woodrow Call, the men of the Hat Creek Cattle Company left their village of Lonesome Dove, Texas to drive a herd of cattle to Montana. During a brief stop to replenish supplies and give their horses a rest, the cowboys encounter a small party of soldiers. Their commander, one Captain Weaver, approaches a Hat Creek Co. employee named Dish Boggett and explains that he seeks to “requisition” Boggett’s horse, along with any others the soldiers find suitable.

After Boggett replies that his horse isn’t for sale, Weaver tries to intimidate the man and his friends by saying that defying the U.S. Army is “treason” and that they could be hung. Once again, Weaver demands the animal, and once again Boggett refuses to sell it.

At this point, Weaver lets Dixon, his Army Scout, off the leash. The malodorous wretch beats Boggett to the ground and moves to steal his horse. This prompts young Newt—a teenager who more than carried his weight in the company—to intervene, grabbing the reins of Boggett’s horse and reminding the scout that the animal, an item of private property, was not for sale and not the government’s to take by force.

Newt’s act is a form of peaceful interposition in defense of his friend’s property rights. His reward is to be assaulted by the infuriated scout, who repeatedly lashes the young man with a quirt. From across the plaza, Woodrow Call - who had been shopping at a dry goods store—spies the assault on Newt, his only son (a fact not known to the young man).

After quickly saddling up and dashing on horseback the length of the town, Newt’s infuriated father knocks Dixon from his horse. Woodrow dismounts, kicks Dixon in the teeth—and then he gets rude.

A blacksmith’s shop nearby yields a branding iron that Woodrow wields as a club. His anger not abated, Woodrow then grabs the scout by collar and belt and hurls him, face-first, into an anvil. A pair of tongs then finds its way into Woodrow’s hands. He is approaching the battered and bloodied bully with lethal intent when he is lassoed by his best friend, Augustus, who drags Woodrow away to let his fury dissipate.

“I can’t stand rude behavior in a man,” Woodrow politely explains to a group of stunned settlers who had witnessed the incident. “I won’t tolerate it.”

In addition to being the most beautiful scene in American literature, this episode illustrates several applications of the principle of interposition—the lawful, necessary intervention by one person in defense of the rights of another.

Newt interposed to protect his friend’s horse; Woodrow intervened with righteous violence to protect Newt from the Army scout’s criminal assault.

It could also be said that Augustus interposed on behalf of the scout by preventing his friend Woodrow from exceeding his moral authority: Yes, Dixon deserved a stout beating, but killing him outright would have been disproportionate.

By threatening the use of lethal violence against those who refused to surrender their property, the fictional Captain Weaver made explicit the implicit threat made every day by his analogues in real life. In terms of both morality and the law, Boggett’s refusal to sell or surrender his horse ended the matter. The violence that ensued was an entirely credible dramatization of what happens when agents of the state’s killing apparatus refuse to take “no” as the final answer to a demand for the legal property of a law-abiding man.

By using the term “law” we are not referring to the positivist enactments through which governments plunder the productive on behalf of the parasitical, and inflict criminal violence on anyone who objects; rather, we are referring to what Frederic Bastiat described as “the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.”

While providing for that common defense is supposedly the purpose of government, it is government that most consistently threatens individual rights and property. Interposition could be considered a form of “citizen’s arrest”—that is, an action taken to arrest criminal aggression by government. The most basic form of interposition is defensive physical action, whether through peaceful non-cooperation or lawful exercise of defensive violence.

In political terms, interposition is an organized effort to accomplish the same end by way of deputized representatives. In the U.S. constitutional system, interposition can take the form of nullification of unconstitutional federal acts by a state government, or of the application of an unjust “law” by a jury (as in “jury nullification”).

Critics of the concept treat it as either an invention of fringe-dwelling conspiracists or the disreputable refuge of race-fixated segregationists. Typical of such people is self-styled “expert” on extremism David Neiwert (the author of a deeply silly and incurably dishonest book on “hate politics”), who—exhibiting his proprietary blend of ignorance and mendacity—refers to interposition and nullification as concepts supposedly created by the “militia movement” in the 1990s.

The truth, which is readily available to anyone with a library card (or access to Google) and a mind not shackled by statist prejudices, is that those concepts were first propounded centuries ago in England, and that they are part of the warp and weave of the U.S. constitutional system. The Magna Carta is the product of interposition. The pseudonymously published 17th Century Puritan tract Vindiciae contra Tyrannos (elements of which clearly anticipate the Declaration of Independence), describes interposition by legislative bodies as a critical means of restraining a lawless king’s corrupt ambitions.

The most systematic and compelling exposition of interposition and nullification was provided by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—neither of whom was among the living during the much-hyped “militia” scare of the mid-1990s—in their 1798 Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which were enacted by the legislatures of those states in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The December 1798 Virginia Resolution condemned the Alien and Sedition Acts as an exercise of a power “no where delegated to the federal government” and subversive of “the general principles of free government,” including “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press.” In the face of such usurpation, the states that created the federal government as their agent “have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil [represented by those Acts], and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

Kentucky’s Resolution, which had been passed earlier, addressed the same concerns described in Virginia’s measure and focused particularly on the Alien Act, which provided for the deportation of non-citizens arbitrarily deemed to be threats to the “peace and safety of the United States.” The Kentucky measure declared that “alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are [and] that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from the power over citizens.”

In 1814, shortly before the end of a disastrous war with Great Britain, delegates from New England States met in Hartford, Connecticut. Using the same constitutional reasoning Madison himself had invoked in 1798, the Hartford delegates discussed the possibility of seceding from the Union as a way of interposing on behalf of constituents whose livelihoods and liberties were imperiled by “Mr. Madison’s war.”

Among the possible actions contemplated by the delegates was enactment of state measures nullifying federal laws “which shall contain [any] provision subjecting the militia or other citizens to forcible drafts, conscriptions, or impressments....”

From this we see that the concepts of nullification and interposition were not created by southern politicians seeking to preserve Jim Crow, as we’re told by Neiwert and other self-ordained pontiffs of “progressivism.” In fact, they were most forcefully articulated in opposition to war and conscription, and in defense of civil liberties and the rights of unpopular minorities.

Either out of deliberate deceit, incurable ignorance, or some alloy of the same, Neiwert acts as if this history is of no relevance to the current controversy over nullification.

In fact, when former federal judge Andrew Napolitano observed that state legislatures have the authority to enact health freedom measures intended to nullify Obama’s proposed “health care” legislation, Neiwert’s reflexive response was to traduce the judge as a proto-Klansman, rather than to engage his argument in the fashion of a practicing adult. (In a moderated debate with Judge Napolitano, Neiwert would be whipped more thoroughly than a pint of heavy cream in a French pastry shop.)

If so much as a particle of honesty resided within Neiwert he would acknowledge that many of George W. Bush’s left-leaning critics, to their credit, re-discovered the merits of the “states’ rights” perspective during his reign. Some of them eagerly practiced nullification and interposition ala carte, particularly with respect to the so-called USA PATRIOT act.

In early 2002, the municipal government of Ann Arbor claimed the honor of being the first to enact a resolution urging outright nullification of key sections of that odious act; by 2005, hundreds of other municipal, county, and state governments had passed similar resolutions of their own.

Somehow those entirely commendable acts of nullification and interposition were spared the indignant condemnation of Neiwert and other anti-“hate” activists, who now insist that invocation of those principles is a rhetorical “dog whistle”—a type of political code used by cunning racists seeking a PR-friendly way to rile up their vast and stealthy constituency.

Likewise, during the late, unlamented Bush era, some 30 major U.S. cities enacted “sanctuary city” measures forbidding local police to enforce federal immigration laws. Unlike opposition to the PATRIOT (sic) act during the Bush era, and to much of the Obama administration’s agenda today, the “Sanctuary City” movement was obviously and undeniably rooted in racial politics, as practiced by foundation-funded (and often federally supported) ethnic lobbies such as MALDEF and La Raza. Yet those racially tinged acts of nullification and interposition—a form of city-by-city secession from a national immigration policy—escaped censure by Neiwert and other self-appointed titans of tolerance.

The desire for power frequently begets petty hypocrisy, which is among the world’s most tragically abundant resources. Just as many of yesterday’s leftist dissidents now treat political nonconformity as a species of treason, many of those who denounce the current president as a domestic enemy would have considered such rhetoric a Gitmo-worthy offense just a few years ago.

Many of yesterday’s most strident “peace” activists are either deferentially silent, or dutifully supportive, as their president slays thousands of innocent foreigners via remote control. Likewise, many (by no means all) of those who condemn Obama’s orgy of federal spending are recent converts to the church of public austerity, having endured eight years under the reign of the equally profligate Bush without audible complaint.

The problem here, of course, is that both sides in this manufactured conflict are manipulated by power-obsessed people into defining the enemy in “horizontal” rather than “vertical” terms; that is, the real threat consists of “those people” over there, rather than those who presume to exercise power over all of us. Rather than seeking an end to the Leviathan State, each side seeks to control its coercive appendages while protecting its own interests in the cynical and entirely misplaced confidence that the powers they surrender to the state today won’t be pitilessly deployed against them tomorrow.

There are at least a few campaigns that offer some modest cause for optimism:

Ø      Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, who insists that the only legitimate function of peace officers is the protection of person and property (he denounces most “law enforcement” as “taxation by citation”) has finding at least some traction in his campaign to educate county sheriffs regarding their duty to interpose on behalf of constituents threatened by federal agencies, including—no, especially—the IRS.

Ø      *New Hampshire’s Free State Project is seeking to cultivate an agorist society through both electoral politics and creative acts of peaceful non-cooperation with the state.

Ø      South Carolina state representative Mike Pitts, who obviously has absorbed some of the lessons taught by the Ron Paul “End the Fed” movement, has proposed legislation to forbid the use of the Regime’s fraudulent script (Federal Reserve Notes, commonly called “dollars”) as legal tender in the Palmetto State. Although it is entirely symbolic at present, that measure may acquire substance as the collapse of the Regime’s fiat currency accelerates.

Ø      The Second Vermont Republic has not confined itself to symbolic repudiation of the Regime’s currency. That movement, which promotes peaceful withdrawal from Washington’s empire, has minted a silver token with a face value of $25. Last month, the movement announced that it would field nine candidates for state-wide office, including gubernatorial candidate Dennis Steele.

A veteran of the U.S. Army, Steele reduces his political program to the essentials: The bastards who are running things are not getting his sons.

“I see my kids going off to fight in wars for empire 10, 15, 20 years from now,” Steele told Time magazine. Think of Captain Woodrow Call racing to rescue his son Newt, and you’ve got a good picture of Steele’s motivations.

That’s interposition in its most elemental form. In what sense is this difficult to understand?



An Entirely Inadequate “Thank You”
I am profoundly thankful for the incredibly generous help my family has received during the last week—not just the donations of any size (all of which are tremendously helpful), but also the kind notes, prayers, and very useful advice. While I intend to express thanks individually, I wanted to acknowledge your kindness in public. On behalf of Korrin and our kids—thank you.

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Sunday, February 21, 2010

“Spiritual Wickedness In High Places”

Hello Everyone,

I certainly see a lot of truth in this one.  It is time now as much as ever for much of the “church” and the nation to first repent, then step up and make it right.  This can only be done through Great God Almighty!

Godspeed,

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit



“Spiritual Wickedness In High Places”
By Chuck Baldwin
February 17, 2010

Almost immediately after Adam’s fall, Lucifer and his minions collaborated with evil men to usurp God’s authority and sovereignty. And nowhere is God more sovereign than in the heart and conscience of man. In the spirit world, the First Commandment (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me”) is the battleground that is most fought over. The war for man’s heart and soul is never-ending.

Nimrod was the first would-be tyrant to try and bring the world into a global “New World Order.” His handiwork produced the Tower of Babel, which brought about a cataclysmic judgment from Jehovah. However, while Nimrod was the first globalist to try and unify the nations against God, he was certainly not the last. The Pharaohs, Darius, Artaxerxes, Cyrus, Alexander, Nebuchadnezzar, the Caesars, and hundreds like them have all brought their tyrannical rule over the hearts of men. And their ideas and passions are as alive and active in the world today as ever.

With every would-be world tyrant, there is one constant: the unholy marriage between a supranational government and Big Religion. If Jehovah God made anything clear in the Mosaic model of government, it was the fact that—until Christ Himself comes to occupy both offices—the offices of Priest and King were to be eternally separate. At least one Old Testament Jewish king learned that lesson the hard way.

Yet, Big Government and Big Religion have always come together for the purpose of enslaving the masses. The devilish duo of Big Government and Big Religion killed the Old Testament prophets. They hung Jesus on the cross and persecuted the early Church. They murdered masses during the Dark Ages; they managed the Holocaust; and their obnoxious offspring are still at work today. This criminal cabal has been the bane of genuine faith and personal liberty since the beginning of time.

When Colonial America fired that shot heard around the world and fought their way to independence, they broke free, not only from the political domination of the Crown, but also from the religious domination of a State Church. No longer would citizens be required to join a particular church in order to hold public office. No longer would citizens be required to financially support churches and institutions they deemed to be offensive to their spiritual convictions. No longer could a religious institution use the power and force of civil government to subjugate men to its tenets and, yes, tentacles. Indeed, the apostate kingdom created by Constantine’s spiritual whoredom ended at the eastern shore of America!

And dare I say that I am proud of my Anabaptist forebears for helping to embed the principle of religious liberty into American law and jurisprudence? Indeed, I am! What many Americans do not know (and what many militant secularists refuse to acknowledge) is that it was the influence of the Colonial Baptists—most notably, the Baptist minister John Leland—that was most responsible for the First Amendment being added to the US Constitution.

Therefore, it is more than disturbing when I see evangelical Christians being seduced by the ancient Big Government/Big Religion whorish union today. How can any true Gospel preacher accept federal Faith-Based Initiative monies, except that he has either lost all understanding of what freedom truly means, or is willing to sacrifice the sacred principles of liberty upon the altar of his own selfish interests? How can any true Gospel preacher not realize that Big Religion has always conspired with tyrannical governmental forces against the true Gospel message? Why are they so blind to these devilish conspiracies? At the highest levels of virtually every major religion, the conspiracy to hijack truth and enslave the masses is constantly at work, whether it is Catholicism, Judaism, or Protestantism.

This is what the Apostle Paul warned about in Ephesians 6:12. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

Of course, the “rulers of the darkness of this world” are demonic. But it is also an absolute certainty that these demonic forces accomplish their devilish deeds through evil men who are given to “spiritual wickedness in high places.”

Was not the spiritual netherworld complicit in helping to construct Nimrod’s Tower of Babel? Was not spiritual wickedness at work when Pharaoh murdered the little children of the Hebrews? Were not dark principalities at work when Nebuchadnezzar ordered everyone to bow to the image of the Babylonian leader? When the Lord Jesus called Jewish King Herod a “fox,” was not He acknowledging Herod’s complicity with evil? Were not spiritual powers aiding and abetting the Jewish Sanhedrin when they moved the crowd to crucify the Son of God? When the early Church was being persecuted, was not spiritual wickedness at work? When nonconforming Christians were thrown to the lions and sawn asunder, were not their tormentors influenced by these same rulers of darkness? Of course they were!

Then, why is it so difficult for modern Christians—especially our pastors and preachers—to understand that this unholy union of Big Government and Big Religion is as evil and sinful today as it ever was? Why are they unwilling to recognize that the same devilish system that plagued the Church throughout the ages—suspended only temporarily by the successful revolution for American independence—is rearing its ugly head again? Why are they unwilling to believe that many of America’s leaders (from both parties) routinely give themselves to luciferian rituals, such as those annual dances around the fire at the Bohemian Grove? Why is it so hard to believe that we have leaders (from both parties) who have given themselves to dark, secret societies, such as Skull and Bones? Why are they not suspicious when certain religious schools and institutions repeatedly produce many of the leaders (from both parties) who seem to universally take America down the same path of globalism?

As most Christians should know, The Beast of Revelation is as much a SYSTEM as it is a person. As the Apostle John warned, the “spirit of antichrist … even now already is it in the world.” (I John 4:3) He also warned, “Even now are there many antichrists.” (I John 2:18)

Any Big Government/Big Religion system that seeks to bring nations into global unity, enshrine a politically correct theology of universalism, establish Church/State uniformity, and marginalize independent, nonconformist ideology is nothing more than the emergence of another Tower of Babel or Beast-like system! And, dear Christian friend, has it occurred to you that our central government in Washington, D.C., is currently engaged in all of the above?

Both political parties—including most of our national leaders and news media—actively promote globalism; universalism is, without a doubt, the unofficial—but clearly understood—national religion; and anyone who holds nonconformist views (i.e., pro-life, Jesus-only theology, anti-UN, anti-illegal immigration, questioning official government explanations of national tragedies, etc.) is being viciously ridiculed, impugned, and marginalized by virtually everyone in the national press corps and central government. Yes, I am saying it, THE BEAST IS EMERGING IN WASHINGTON, D.C.!

The powers that be in both Big Government and Big Religion want to control both our hearts and our minds. They cannot tolerate dissent. Mind you: they do not care if one is Republican or Democrat, because at the national level, both major parties are marching in the same beastly direction. They do not care if one is conservative or liberal, because the leaders of both camps are, likewise, marching in lockstep to the tune being played by The Beast. They do not care if one is Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant, because at the highest levels, these religions are committing whoredom with The Beast.

If a pastor or preacher is going to be true to his calling today, he must be willing to adopt the philosophy of the late, great Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who said, “The more prominent you are in Christ’s service, the more certain are you to be the butt of calumny [slander]. I have long ago said farewell to my character. I lost it in the earlier days of my ministry by being a little more zealous than suited a slumbering age. And I have never been able to regain it except in the sight of Him who judges all the earth, and in the hearts of those who love me for my work’s sake.”

Any desire for promotion, pleasure, riches, or fame will quickly make one a servant of The Beast. And, I’m afraid, that is exactly what many of today’s pastors and preachers have become.

The fight for independence was as much for the freedom of the heart and mind as it was for the freedom of a State or nation. In fact, one cannot enslave the latter until he first enslaves the former. And this is what is currently at stake: the freedom of the heart and soul to be governed by God and no other! And this battle will never be won—at least not nationally—as long as Christians and pastors are unwilling to recognize the enemy for what it is: “spiritual wickedness in high places.”

*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:

© Chuck Baldwin 



NOTE TO THE READER:
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
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