Nov. 17, 2014

PJ-15

CHAPTER 13

 

REC #2 HATONN

 

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1990 2:48 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 288

 

PULLING A FAST ONE

 

By August of 1985 things were heated up and the curtain of lies descending. Congress was pulling a fast one on the American people to believe it could limit the proceedings of a CC specifically to a balanced budget amendment (BBA)--especially when there was really no intent to even have a BBA.

 

Two legal scholars held this viewpoint and were considered "Constitutional `experts'”. They were called to testify before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights on July 31, 1985. Now mind you, they would testify before a "loaded" Subcommittee because you ceased to have any other kind long prior to 1985. These two were professors Walter Dellinger (of Duke University Law School in Durham, North Carolina) and Gerald Gunther (Stanford Law School in Palo Alto, California). Now, if this isn't a good example of mutually exclusive terms, I have never seen one--Law Professors and Constitutional Experts! Oh well, let's get on with the "stuff' pumped out to "you the public"!

 

Gunther said the attitude by members of Congress that it could control and approve whatever comes out of a Constitutional Convention and dictate its agenda is due to Congress's "institutional egomania". Boy, when you have the lawyers and the politicians, you have about as bad a co-destroyer as possible. These groups could only be aided and abetted in total horror by the assistance of the Medical "Regressfession" and the Religious "quacktitioners". Onward, Dharma .

 

Arguing that a "Con Con" could be limited was Dean John Feerick (Of Fordham Law School in the Bronx, New York), basing his testimony on a 1973 American Bar Association special committee report. 1973 Bar Association report? What ever happened to the obvious disaster of the revi­sion of the original Articles of Confederation? That would seem a much more likely precedent to cite.

 

The testimony of both Gunther and Dellinger brought into serious question the validity of congressional legislation that purports to set guidelines for a Constitutional convention. Such a bill, entitled 'The Constitutional Convention Implementation Act of 1985" (S. 40), had been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The measure, in these scholars' opinions, went beyond the purview of a single balanced budget amendment by making ref­erence to any "subject matter' discussed at a CC.

 

Referring to the wording of the 32 petitions sent by the states to Congress calling for a CC, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said: "To the extent that a petition was required to be precise, either with respect to the specific amendment sought, or the specific language sought, there would be little use for the convention itself. To limit the convention to the consideration of a single, meticulously worded amendment is to make the convention a farce."

 

Gunther, who has spoken and written extensively on the uncertain circumstances surrounding a CC, testified that there are no legitimate and effective means to limit a convention to a "single subject specified in advance". Regardless of what state petitions list as the subject matter for a CC and what Congress directs, he said that ultimately the convention is empowered to set its own agenda.

 

"The convention delegates", he said, "will have a valid claim to consider and propose amendments on any subject of Constitutional dimension of concern to the electorate who chose them." He added that it would be "highly unlikely" Congress would question any unauthorized changes made in your Constitution in the ratification process.

 

'PRIMARY' ROLE?

 

Feerick, who participated in the 1971 commission set up by the ABA, argued that Article V of the Constitution delegates to Congress a "primary role" in deciding whether or not to ratify whatever emerges from a CC.

 

Actually, Article V's wording says that amendments approved by a CC need only be approved by three-fourths of the State legislatures or state conventions, and that Congress is only empowered to select the mode of ratification: by state convention or state legislature. It says nothing about Congress giving its own stamp of approval or rejection notice during the ratification process.

 

WELL, BUT WHO IS OUT TO WRECK

 

THE CONSTITUTION?

 

You still must go back at least as far as 1984 to get the picture and then see how facts balance against information we have already given you and shall yet give you. It goes farther back than this, but we are not giving you the entire history at this point--just the urgent information.

 

It became increasingly evidenced that the drive for a CC was not simply an effort by "conservatives" who wanted to "balance the budget" but was instead a covert attempt to destroy the U.S. Constitution and replace it with a Soviet or British parliamentary-style constitution with total top-end control.

 

Thirty-two states had petitioned Congress to call for a Constitutional Convention, in 1984, for the purpose of passing a balanced budget/tax limitation amendment. Michigan's state Senate had approved the petition to Congress and enough signatures had been collected to place the convention issue on the ballot in California in that November.

 

If Michigan, or any of the remaining 17 states, passed its convention petition, thus becoming the 33rd state to do so, and no other state followed suit, then California would be the 34th state to call for a convention. This would then fulfill the Constitutional requirement that two-thirds of the states must file petitions to force Congress to call the convention. Now here is an interesting note; if California voters OK'd the petition for a convention, the state Legislature would be forced to pass the measure or suffer loss in salary. The California referendum initiative would get a lot of publicity, but would misrepresent the actual grass-roots support for a CC.

 

Some of the state legislatures that passed petitions to Congress for a convention did not even hold public hearings. Exact figures are difficult to obtain. The NTU, the group spearheading the move for a CC for the previous decade, claimed to not have accurate records as to when states held hearings, debate and recorded votes on the issue.

 

According to David Keating, who handled the balanced budget amendment for NTU, "at least 20 public hearings were held" and some states passed the petitions by voice vote. "A voice vote just means it was passed unanimously", he said. Now you know how it goes, a little old AHO and you can sweep out your entire Constitution if nobody objects, dear ones.

 

Since 32 states had petitioned Congress, and only 20 public hearings were even discussed as to having been held then isn't there still something wrong under the worst of circumstances? That would mean that a minimum of 12 states had never had any kind of hearing or vote, oral or otherwise. That number was obviously higher since some states could have held more than one hearing and if they paid attention at all, would have had many. However, an "exact figure" was not available, according to the NTU, because "the states haven't kept very good records". Why don't you ones try that "good reason" with the IRS!

 

BRING INTO THE OPEN

 

Proponents of a Constitutional convention, notably Rep. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), leader of Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget (CLUBB), defended their position by pointing out how polls indicated that 70-80 percent of Americans wanted Congress to balance the budget. But do those same Americans also want a Constitutional convention? One does not necessarily represent the other, it would appear to me.

 

Not only were the Americans not polled, but more than likely 70-80 percent of Americans were not even aware that within mere months Congress would be calling for the convening of a CC and if they were aware, they certainly would have no way of knowing what it was about.

 

If the move for a convention was a legitimate effort by "conservatives" to balance the budget, why wouldn't your President Reagan make a nationwide address to discuss the fact that a convention was imminent? Well, for one thing he would have to point out that the IRS and tax-system is unlawful and un-Constitutional and the people would know the blinding truth of their total robbery at the hands of an unlawful and unconstitutional government of force-mongers in what has become a police-state. You see, it is intended to slip the necessary documentation and amendments through the convention to cover those little presently unlawful matters and you the public would never notice. Do you not think the budget might get really unbalanced if the American people really KNOW THE TRUTH?

 

Why wasn't this issue being openly discussed and debated in the national media if there was no under-handed motive? Why do so few, aside from certain Washington circles and nationwide patriotic groups, even know about such a convention? Well, same answer!

 

If there were nothing to hide, why did NTU Treasurer William Bonner admit he wished former California Governor Jerry Brown had not publicized his support for the convention?

 

"There is no point in heating things up," said Bonner. "When Brown announced, we had to go more public. It would have been better to let a sleeping dog lie." And that is still the attitude--believe me!

 

When NTU founder Jim Davidson was asked whether a convention could be restricted to just the balanced budget issue, he answered that it could but didn't want to explain how to end deficit spending: "Let's get the Con­stitutional restriction and then let's argue later about what programs get cut or what taxes get raised."

 

Other points brought out by Gunther:

 

* An examination of the text, history and structure of Article V indicates that the CC was to be a genuinely deliberative body with considerable autonomy, entitled to consider all major Constitutional issues of concern to the nation at the time of delegate selection, and not controllable by the applying states or Congress;

 

* Congress is given the responsibilities to call a convention when 34 states have applied for one and to "set up housekeeping details regarding the receipt of applications and the convening of the convention", and to choose the mode of ratification.

 

Dellinger said: "Virtually everyone (supporters as well as opponents of holding a convention) now concedes that it would be either impractical or un-Constitutional to limit the convention as the state legislative petitions specify." As examples he named the Senate Judiciary Committee and the National Taxpayers Union, which for the 10 years had publicly been the main force behind the CC effort.

 

      Dellinger also noted:

 

*   The framers of Article V of the existing U.S. Constitution clearly intended that the CC was to be "free of the control of existing governmental institutions", whether the state legislatures or Congress.

 

*   All of the 32 state CC calls would be invalid under S.40 because the applications refer specifically to a balanced budget amendment, while the Hatch bill refers to broader subject matter.

 

*   Six state applications say their calls are to be null and void if a CC extends beyond the subject of a balanced budget amendment.

 

CHANGING THEIR TUNE

 

Dellinger said state legislatures that have passed CC petitions were assured by lobbying groups, including the National Taxpayers Union and the National Tax Limitation Committee, that a CC could be limited to a balanced budget amendment. But "now that the last two states are within sight", he said, these groups "are changing their story. What happened to assurances that were given to the state legislatures back in 1979 that a convention could consider, only the amendment contained in the state legislative proposal?"

 

Feerick argued that a CC can be limited. However, the American Bar Association report states: "While we believe that Congress has the power to establish standards for making available to the states a limited convention when they petition for that type of convention, we consider it essential that implementing legislation not preclude the states from applying for a general convention.

 

"Legislation that did so would be of questionable validity since neither the language nor history of Article V reveals an intention to prohibit another general convention.'

 

A state application would not be "proper", Feerick said, if it called for a CC for the purposes of voting on a specific amendment since a CC "should have latitude to amend, as Congress does, by evaluating and dealing with a problem".

 

Feerick's testimony came from the 1973 study and he seemed to lack any update on the issue. It had been since that time that the 32 state petitions were filed with Congress. Feerick said he was not familiar with the wording of the petitions.

 

SERIOUS SUBJECT

 

Although Rep. Don Edwards (D-Calif.) was the subcommittee chairman, he was only present for a short period; Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) sat in as acting chairman. Subcommittee members acknowledged the seriousness of the subject. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) called the CC "the most important piece of legislation this subcommittee and Congress will confront this year'.

 

Schumer said he "might sleep better at night" if he were as confident as some that a CC could he limited to a single subject. Rep. Robert Kastenmeier (D­-Wis.) argued that "to empower a new arm of government (The Con Con 'CC') with unlimited power to rewrite the Constitution is a threatening matter".

 

Gunther said he became interested in this issue when he heard former California Gov. Jerry Brown endorse a CC after passage of a tax limitation amendment in his state. Furthermore, Jerry Brown is up to and over his eyes into this monster, dear Californians. He is also back into the political progression mode of operation. Gunther recalled that Brown gave assurances that he had checked with "every Constitutional scholar in California" and had been repeatedly told that, without doubt, a CC could be limited to a single subject--so much for scholars and experts!

 

But Gunther discovered Brown had not been so thorough (now would he lie to you?) and that his guarantee of a limited CC was based on one single little memo giving split opinions on the question!

 

On the issue of the time limitation on the validity of the state petitions, Gunther said seven years is a "universally recognized principle" and chided Hatch's bill for including a "grandfather clause" allowing seven years from the date of passage of a state petition "plus whatever it takes to get the last petitions passed". He said most of the states passing CC calls "acted in igno­rance". And so, what else is new?

 

Schumer said the subcommittee would hold at least one additional hearing on the subject before it would take any action.

 

NULL AND VOID!

 

Dellinger said he asked National Taxpayer Union Chairman (of course you heard of this--in the Rockefeller Syndicate material--and you thought it was a Union working in your behalf?!?---sic sic) Jim Davidson if a CC would be limited to one issue and he said "no". The petition of the state of Idaho, Dellinger noted, indicated it was "not completely assured by the snake oil salesmen who lobbied them". He cited the specific wording of the call to Congress that it wanted a CC for the "specific and exclusive purpose of a balanced budget amendment".

 

The petition says that the call is null and void if the CC goes beyond that.

 

Six states have such "null and void" provisions in them: Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Idaho, North Carolina and Utah. However, this language, which Dellinger said was crystal clear, is discounted by a libertarian-laissez-faire think tank, the Cato Institute (ouch!), which argues that such language is "surplus-age" that "must be disregarded", whatever that might mean!

 

Davidson, in an interview revealed he was sympathetic to the libertarian view, and numerous individuals associated with the National Taxpayers Union have agreed with libertarian and/or anarchistic ideology.

 

Feerick said that many state constitutional conventions have been held and that he was "not aware that they had any problems". However, it was revealed that New Hampshire held a CC in 1983 wherein all the major committees and CC business were controlled by lawyers, judges and members of the state Legislature.

 

The American Bar Association argued that it would be desirable to include in implementing legislation a "limited judicial review of congressional determina­tions made in the convention process". This was criticized by Gunther, who argued that this judicial review would be conducted by the Supreme Court, part of the national government which would be contrary to the intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution: "It would be an example of another branch of government squelching actions of the states."

 

Dellinger said the ABA report was inconsistent with Article V and that the idea of Congress's passing judgment on the product of a CC "trivializes" the framers' intent and is "fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of having a Constitutional convention."

 

Dellinger and Gunther basically concurred with each other. But they differed on the validity of state applications to Congress for a CC. While Dellinger said petitions that stated they would be null and void should a CC go beyond a specific amendment would be invalid, Gunther said they would still be valid because the CC itself would be empowered to do what it wants.

 

Dellinger said 1979 marked the first public hearings at all on the issue.

 

Gunther estimated that more than 20 of the 32 applications before Congress were adopted in 1978 (oops) or earlier. This means that at the most 12 of the 32 petitions to Congress were passed with any public hearings.

 

According to Gunther, no states passing petitions to Congress calling for a CC prior to 1979 held any public hearings. These states were: Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming. In these states, dear friends--how many of you citizens even heard of such a thing?

 

Arizona, Louisiana and Nevada, according to the NTU, passed CC resolutions again in 1979 and it is possible that no hearings were held at that time either. Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah were listed as passing CC calls in 1979. Information on whether public hearings were held in those states seemed to remain mys­teriously missing. How many of you citizens want to own up to attendance? Voting'? Are you citizens or not?

 

Gunther called the Hatch bill a "badly flawed product of 10 to 12 years' off­ and-on attention". In discussions during Senate Judiciary Committee meetings, all committee members have acted and spoken as if they had unquestioned authority to dictate what a CC can do and to approve or reject proposals decided on by a CC.

 

The hearing testimony would, however, apparently not affect Rep. Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) efforts for a Constitutional convention on the issue of a balanced budget. Craig was the head of Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget. Although Craig had been assuring constituents critical of his pro-CC position that the fear of a runaway convention was a "smokescreen", the congressman's administrative assistant said the testimony that a CC cannot be limited was not new information!

 

"I don't want a convention", the spokesman said publicly, "and I don't think we're ever going to have one. However, something like 'The Newstates Constitution of America' would never make it through the ratification process, nor would a parliamentary form of government." And if you readers believe this, let us just close down the efforts right now. The actions from the in-Justice system and political system as a whole already utilizes the methods and control allotted in the New Constitution--AND NONE OF YOU EVEN TRIED TO STOP THEM! IF YOU DON'T DO SOMETHING NOW, IT WILL SIMPLY FALL INTO ACCEPTANCE BY DEFAULT AND THAT WILL BE THAT! WORSE, THE CONGRESS IS CONTROLLED BY FOREIGN LOBBY AND THEREFORE, PARLIAMENTARIAN GOV­ERNMENT IS ALREADY A FACT AND IS MORE HEINOUS BECAUSE THE ZIONISTS CONTROL OVER 60 PERCENT OF YOUR CONGRESS.

 

Does the congressman's aide believe, as does the ABA spokesman, that Article V says Congress has a primary role in deciding whether to choose to ratify whatever comes out of a CC? "In explicit terms, Article V doesn't say that," said Craig's staff member. "That would depend on what the convening legislation [Hatch's implementation bill] says."

 

The NTU, which was accused by Gunther and Dellinger of being "snake oil salesmen" deceiving state legislatures into believing that there is no danger of a runaway CC, was reluctant to comment on the hearing. Of course, dear one, the conspirators all play the elusive game of hide and seek, show and lie in order to get you ones to give them exactly what they wanted in the first place. That is why you must know WHO is behind the organizations in order to realize the intended goal. The National Taxpayers Union is not for the citizen taxpayer in any remote sense of the definition of the word.

 

Adrienne Cordova, NTU director of public affairs at that time, said no one from the group attended the hearing due to a schedule conflict, this despite the fact that the NTU publicly has been the group in the forefront of pushing for CC for the previous decade. Miss Cordova said she did not feel comfortable about responding to the charges against NTU until she read the testimony herself. She acknowledged that there was a conflict of opinion among legal scholars on the issue of whether or not a CC could be limited.

 

However, the NTU flatly stated in its literature over the years that a CC could be limited and that any talk of a runaway convention was a smokescreen used by those opposed to a balanced budget.

 

The NTU was not the only proponent of a CC that missed the hearing. Now isn't this interesting? No member from Craig's staff attended. The Washington Times, which editorialized extensively over the past years in favor of a balanced budget amendment and a CC, had a reporter at the hearing but failed to report on it in the newspaper.

 

According to Times reporter Tom Brandt: "We didn't have time to produce a story on the hearing. There was a time and space crunch. Besides, it was not a pivotal hearing". But the Times did run an article the following day about a seminar by the Cato Institute, supporting a CC.

 

BILL PROVISIONS

 

Hatch's bill, cosponsored by Senators. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) and Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), provides:

 

*   Within 45 days after Congress decides that a sufficient number of valid petitions to call a CC have been sent by the states, Congress must pass a concurrent resolution calling for such a convention. This resolution will set the time and place of the meeting and indicate the "subject matter of the amendment or amendments" for consideration.

 

*   Delegates will be elected in the manner of Congress's rep­resentation: two at large from each state and one from each congressional district. Members of Congress and those "holding an office of trust or profit under the United States" will not be permitted to be delegates. Delegates will "in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest' and "shall not be questioned in any other place" on anything said at the CC.

 

*   The President of the Senate and the speaker of the House (in 1984, George Bush and Tip O'Neill, respectively) will convene the CC and preside until delegates elect an officer.

 

*   Delegates will take an oath to "comply with" the Constitution.

 

*   Delegates will get paid a salary equal to that of members of Congress, as well as any travel expenses--from the U.S. treasury. If such sums are not available, the costs will be "apportioned" among the states.

 

*   Procedurally, each delegate has one vote. Minutes will be kept (in the tradition of James Madison's notes on the 1787 convention), and the CC will meet for no longer than six months unless Congress passes a resolution extending that time.

 

*   No amendments may be proposed other than the "subject matter" stated in Congress's concurrent resolution calling the CC.

 

*   Upon notification of the CC's actions, Congress must within six months decide, as provided by Article V, what mode of ratification it prefers, or reject the CC's proposals. If Congress refuses to facilitate the ratification process and the states believe the CC's proposals are consistent with Congress's original orders, the states can file a lawsuit.

 

*   Proposed amendments become law upon ratification of three-fourths of the states and any state can rescind its ratification up until that time.

 

Let us leave this for a rest please. We can continue on this topic at our next sitting as I do not like to cause the chapters to be greater than this in length.

 

THE SPIRITUAL WAR

 

REC/T #2 SANANDA

 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1990 4:00 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 287

 

Let us continue please. I Am Sananda and I come in the golden radiance. I have come to feed a starving world the food which will nourish all men back unto health and strength. So be it. So lost is man that he sees not, nor does he hear...he moves about his daily life in arrogance and avarice...never giving thought to other than the satisfying of the basest of needs. Did not the Father tell you it would be thusly? Indeed so, and it shall get much, much worse...so bad will it get that the ugliness of man's thoughts will be worn like a death shroud for all to see...still they will deny and turn from me. Oh poor, poor of spirit man, how I have wept for thee! Yet it now is the time to dry of the tears and roll up of thy sleeves and get to the business before thee of putting to right that which has been spoiled.

 

In every quarter the sword shall strike, to the very bone of evil, for it shall be a war, a war beyond all others. I speak not of a literal war, though that will manifest also, for it must come to pass as collective man wills it...I speak here of the spiritual war between myself and the one Cast Down -- for his army has all but overrun the planet in every quarter and if it were not true that all is possible within God, then surely the battle would already be lost. Hold firmly in knowledge that God is All and All is possible within his Being, for he works in ways which are complex beyond description, yet simplicity itself in the sheer beauty of outcome. Oh man, oh man I beg of thee to hear these words being offered by my brothers who come to assist you -- take the hand I have outstretched, let me lead the way, for I have walked the path and I know well the pitfalls. Come to Father in petition, for he hears All, knows All! What have you to lose? Your pride? Pride goeth before the fall, and the fall this time will be the fall for a very long time in your soul counting -- hold firmly to the Light which I Am and ask for guidance, for surely you will be shown the way. The path ahead is dark indeed, yea even black, yet the tiniest spark lights of the way and with an army of men sparked with knowledge the path before you may be traversed in splendor and glory. Amen.

 

Let me speak of Fear, for it is fear that paralyzes man to not even read that which is offered to feed the starving collective -- does not the Bible, your own Holy Book, ill named, give you instructions for receiving of Spirit? If ye demand in the name of Holy God for all darkness to remove itself from you and call on God or Jesus to shield thee while you read there is naught to fear...hear me, there is naught to fear! If you were to do this with all you read you, man in general, would come into wisdom and understanding much sooner and the spark of hope would be kindled -- for remember, with God there is always the hope of the Great Transformation. Hold it in your hearts dear ones, hold it in your hearts.

 

Hear what Spirit says unto Spirit, hear what Light says unto Light, hear what thy Lord God says unto thee -- his peoples -- for God so loved man that he granted free will -- won't you come back into the wisdom to use of it in kindness within love, toward community in purity for the greater good? Oh, would that these not be mere abstractions but actual fact. In time man will gain the wisdom to act responsibly...how many hundred, thousand, million will die first? How many?

 

I take my leave, be at peace, I hold you close.

 

I Am Sananda

   Do you hear me?

 

 

THE RETURN TO GOD-NESS

 

REC/T #1 SANANDA

 

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1990 7:50 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 288

 

Are you settled? Please let's effort at an earlier start. Thank you. I Am Sananda, and I come in Radiance. Yes, Thomas, I Am Light. Let us begin.

 

Long has man been rebellious. Even before the pirates were the Vikings...and always it has been the same...rape, pillage, plunger -- sex, drink, and money. How much has man changed? How much has he? "Oh, but we are civilized, educated." Oh, are you? Ask the Panamanians about civilized behavior and you will get a far different response.

 

There is only one way that man will ever become civilized, and that is through a return to Godness -- a return to God and the Laws laid forth long ago in your counting. The question is, will man turn back toward God in time... for look around thee, do you see it changing? Do you? How many among you would give up one thing you do to move toward God? How many will give up even one beer a day to be closer to God? "Oh, anything but that one beer, Lord." Oh? How about sports, dirty movies, judging others, or or or...? I thought not.

 

While the ones who stand back and cast stones at these workers bringing forth the Word in integrity, yes, I said integrity, those casting of the stones are drawn further into the web of deceit, the lie itself. When will man tire enough of his plight to want to know truth? Then, when will he get off his rear-end and actually seek it out? You have forgotten how to even find out in your sluggishness for you have slept far too long, far too long indeed. And now when you go to the bookstore you find a barrage of books, entire New Age sections...where do you go for it? Who do you read first? How do you know what you are reading isn't the figment of an overactive imagination? One book tells you to sit quietly and breathe for twenty minutes, another tells you to give up everything, while still another tells you to pray hard...yet still, you hear no voices, hear no angels singing. What do you do once you have reached the point of really wanting to know? The answer, dear ones, is that you sit in the Light of God, which I Am, and you ask to be guided to the truth. And do you know what happens then? Well...you'll meet someone who just read a book that's perfect for you, or you'll go into a bookstore and one particular book will verily seem to jump off the shelf to you, or you'll be driving and suddenly get an idea to check something out and there you will find a newsletter that speaks to the heart-place.

 

Don't you see? Don't you see, first there must be the asking, the opening...then all else will be added unto thee. But man, collective man, has forgotten how to ask, so independent and arrogant in his wisdom, his ed­ucated ways...and so the stumbling blindly continues, in a fog filled maze, never knowing which turn is the correct turn. Oh man, please, please hear me -- ask of God, God the Father is real, He is real! Not only is He real, but He hears you! If you actually pray, even if you feel you do not know how to do so, if the desire or wish or intent matches the heartplace it is done in that instant! It is granted! Prayers are answered and shun any who tell you otherwise. Now I am not saying that the church evangelist is the only one who knows how to pray and where you should take lessons...man does not need those kind of lessons. Man needs an opening of the heart. Man needs to learn how to ask for help, as well as how to receive it. There is no loss of dignity in asking for help, dear ones. There is a loss of dignity in the confusion of daily living without asking for and receiving help. Don't you see?

 

We must come back into a way of life that allows for the neighbor to help of the neighbor rather than war against that neighbor. Don't you see how it could be? Nay, mostly man does not see, for the lie has been fed to you from birth...and if it is not loud, and fast, and filled with bullets and blood it is not exciting. Oh dear lost children, come home to me...come back to the gentle­ness of love, brotherly love. That is not to say don't ever fight, for the time is coming when ye will have to fight and take up arms...but defense of country and family are another matter which I shall discuss later on, for now we are speaking of community and the return to cooperative effort of man to live in brotherly harmony. Does this seem wishy-washy to you? Does this seem abstract? Does this seem a pipe-dream -- that is because the TV and movies have trained you, yes, I said trained you to want more conflict -- for the media has ingrained confusion and conflict in the peoples and it will come to a stop before I Am through with that which I have been sent by the Father to do. So be it.

 

It matters not to me whether you believe what I say unto you...for all will come into their own understanding, one way or another. How painful, how drawn out that process is is entirely up to you. Don't you see how it could be? Oh lost, lost ones, come back, come back.

 

The so called 'light at the end of the tunnel' is much more magnificent than anything you've seen on that dense place. Try opening the heart in compassion and love for one another and see if that tunnel doesn't open in your life. What have you to lose? Only your soul, only your soul.

 

Be at peace little one. We will continue.

 

   I Am Sananda

 

I am come with an army!

 

THE REVOLUTION OF THE SPIRIT

 

REC/T  #2 SANANDA

 

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1990 9:50 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 288

 

Let us continue, please. I Am Sananda and I come in the full Light of our Father.

 

Conflict lies ever to the surface of man, it is a part of his very being. Man has forgotten the inner peace that comes with full knowledge of your connection with God...the impact of your daily lives is ever upon thee, constant bombardment, motion, activity, noise. It is rare indeed today that man will slow of himself long enough to even attempt to hear that inner voice that cries from within him to make that connection that has long been lost and forgot­ten. Man must come back into memory. And when that small spark of memory springs forth, then the journey homeward may begin. Then the realization of the lie is possible. For man has become so enamored with the lie that he knows not the truth that is before him in full radiance. Yea, man himself seems to fear the very light which is the source of his being.

 

Please do not misunderstand what I tell thee. I use man to mean men and women, it is not sexist, it is a generic term, please.

 

Man has become so comfortable with the darkness that he confuses the life in the cave for spirituality, when in fact returning to God is a journey out of the cave and into the full light of day. Oh the wondrous journey before man if he will but awaken in time to change the marching masses. For it is thy own destruction that lies, yea, at thy very doorstep if ye do not take up responsible action.

 

Do I speak of revolution? I speak of revolution of the spirit, revolution of the spirit that will move man to act so responsibly that it will preserve the very Re­publican form of government guaranteed by your Constitution. Do not let this be put aside...your very lives and future are on the bargaining table. Hear me, I implore you!

 

Let us break 'til later this day, you are fragmenting, I need full focus. Thank you.

 

I Am Sananda

 

Will you awaken in time?

 

http://www.fourwinds10.net/journals/pdf/J015.pdf