Constitution rewrite only 2 states away

12-14-2008, 04:33 AM

Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.

(Story continues below)

"The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."

DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.

State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.

According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.

The final vote from the 1787 Constitutional Convention

In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.

Read how today's America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it.

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."

Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.

Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

The video is available here:

DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies.

"Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget," the alert said. "But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights."

He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.

"We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny," the warning said. "Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society."

DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

"You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true," the warning continued. "However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission."

The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced.

"In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself," the warning said.

"We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100 percent to 75 percent. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn't further 'modify' Article V restrictions to suit its purpose," the center warning said.

The website Principled Policy opined it is true that any new document would have to be submitted to a ratification process.

"However fighting a new Constitution would be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle which is guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It is not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution," the site said.

American Policy cited a statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."

"This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme," the policy center said. "The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as president. … Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new 'collective' rights, awarded and enforced by government for the 'common good.'

"And state No. 34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it," the center said.

A Constitutional Convention would be, DeWeese told WND, "our worst nightmare in an age when you've got people who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, we need to have everything from controls on guns … all of these U.N. treaties … and controls on how we raise our children."

"When you take the document that is in their way, put it on the table and say how would you like to change it," he said.

American Policy Center suggested several courses of action for people who are concerned, including the suggestion that Ohio lawmakers be contacted.

WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.

The issue of Obama's own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision,'" Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83364

Humble Janitor · 12-14-2008, 05:32 AM

I think that it would be a good thing to have a con con. I'm skeptical of the idea of revolutionary changes to the constitution and again, I see that obama is once again a target. While I do not agree with re-distribution of wealth, I do believe that people who have a large amount of wealth, have a responsibility to contribute their fair share of taxes since those underneath them cannot do the same. In fact, though I'm a liberal, I don't mind the idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve or federal income tax. We've got to have balance somewhere and I concede that even Dr.Paul has a few good points.

My view on the constitution is that when the USA Patriot Act was passed, it basically scrapped the US Constitution and it has been violated ever since that. If we are going to have a constitution, it needs to be able to keep up with the times and it needs to be the most powerful document in this country.

I can understand why some have such little faith in Barack Obama. However, we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions and also we need to hold his feet to the fire when he screws up. I'm ready to criticize him should he screw up because I know he is not perfect and he wasn't even my first choice to begin with (that was the now-adulterer John Edwards).

12-14-2008, 05:55 AM

The last time a con con was attempted was for womens sufferage in 1925. At that time cooler heads prevailed and defeated the attempt. They knew that once it was thrown open every crazy and special interest group would be in there wanting their piece of the pie. It would be the best constitution money could buy....

While it is a fiction where the straw man resides in the corporate united states of america and does not represent
the free man on the land, it is the best we've got at the moment. Unless we are honest with ourselves and admit that we are not really a nation of laws under God, but slaves to the fiction under the color of law. It is after all just a g d piece of paper. The military commander in chief of the corporation has proclaimed it thus!

If we call a con con then we can dispense with the illusion of the republic and revert openly to admirality law, the haummurabic commerical code of ancient babylon under the rule of the Queen and openly acknowledge that we are 14th amendment slaves

Myplanet2 · 12-14-2008, 04:41 PM

In my humble opinion, as a non American, a constitutional rewrite of the US constitution is insane to contemplate at this time.

Just look at how those lilly livered congressmen were cowed into passing the banker bailout, and how those pushing it through refused to take no for an answer.

A con con means you'll have legal income tax for the first time.

It's likely to remove any legal basis for challenges to unilaterally cancelled rights via, exec orders, patriot act, NAU agenda, SPP, Homeland security, FEMA, you name it.

I'd expect to see redefinitions of citizen, person, etc.

No. this is a bad idea.

They'd use it to legitimize all the wool they've pulled over sleepy eyes since the 911 false flag.

BROOK · 12-15-2008, 05:08 AM

A constitutional rewrite is unacceptable

Marian-Librarian · 12-15-2008, 07:39 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Titles

Other
News
Articles:

Florida Microchipping Alzheimer's patients Despite Cancer risks

NWV Store
Books
DVDs
Merchandise
Writers
Advertise
Submit Story
Contact NWV
Donate to NWV
About NWV

NWV Home

More
News
Articles

GRASSROOTS ACTIVISTS DERAIL OHIO CON-CON RESOLUTION

By news writer Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
December 15, 2008
© NewsWithViews.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio — An attempt by GOP lawmakers to sneak a resolution through the state legislature last week calling for a constitutional convention – or “con con” -- was halted, at least until next year, by a hastily assembled coalition of grassroots activists who lobbied representatives at the state capitol and testified against the controversial measure during its committee hearing Wednesday.

“I believe it was God’s blessing that we found out about it and were able to organize quickly and put a stop to it being voted on today by the committee and the House. It was moving very quickly,” activist Teri Owens told NewsWithViews that evening.

“We seem to have put a kink in their plans because this had been introduced very quietly and we almost missed it,” she said. “We had no idea this was coming down the pike.”

Rep. Matt Huffman, a Republican first-term member of the House of Representatives, the General Assembly’s lower chamber, waited until Dec. 3 to introduce House Joint Resolution 8, which if passed by both houses would make Ohio the 33rd state to petition Congress to call a constitutional convention. Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, when the legislatures of two-thirds (34) of the states have passed a petitioning resolution, Congress is mandated to convene a convention.

Fourteen Republican legislators signed on as cosponsors but no Democrats.

On Dec. 9, the day before the hearing for HJR 8, Sen. Keith Faber (R), introduced its companion bill, Senate Joint Resolution 9, in the State Senate.

As with similar resolutions introduced over the years in Ohio and other states, HJR 8 and SJR 9 limit discussion and consideration to one amendment (in this instance, a Balanced Budget Amendment) to the Constitution, and Ohio delegates would be bound not to address or vote on any other issue that might be introduced.

“Russian Roulette with the Constitution”

Calling a constitutional convention has been a hot-button issue for over three decades. Although it is one of two methods Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment, it has never been used. The danger in holding a con con, according to most legal scholars, is that once the delegates are assembled there is no way to limit debate to one topic, and it is possible that an entirely new Constitution could be introduced and ratified.

As former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in 1983, in an oft-quoted letter to Phyllis Schafly, president of Eagle Forum:

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ …

“A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.”
Which is why Schafly characterized a con con as “playing Russian roulette with the Constitution.”

Advertisement

And it is why national organizations across the political spectrum have opposed calling one. These include the John Birch Society, Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, Daughters of the American Revolution, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way.

They’ve been largely successful. Following an initial spate of approvals during the 1970s, during which some 30 states passed con-con resolutions, no state has followed their lead since 1983, though numerous attempts have been made. Several states have rescinded their resolutions, but it is questionable that Congress will acknowledge these rescissions.

HJR 8 brings the con-con issue back into public debate.

A Slam-Dunk Passage

The plan apparently was for the committee to hear the bill (with no adverse testimony allowed), vote in its favor, and send it straight to the floor of the House for a slam-dunk passage. They had good reason for confidence. HJR 8’s introduction this late in the session meant that likely opponents wouldn’t be aware of it until it was signed into law. Moreover, the measure was assigned to the 11-member Judiciary Committee, comprised of five Democrats and six Republicans, four of whom were cosponsors.

Although Democrats took the House in the Nov. 4 election, it remains under Republican control until Jan. 3, essentially guaranteeing HJR 8’s passage if it was waved through committee. The GOP still holds the Senate by a commanding majority.

To top it off, the Judiciary Committee is chaired by Rep. Louis Blessing, a Republican who’s been with the Ohio Legislature – either in the Senate or House – for 25 years. Though not a cosponsor of HJR 8, back in 1987 Blessing had cosponsored a similar resolution, which was defeated.

“He’s a 20-year champion for getting a con-con through,” Teri Owens observed.

Wednesday’s scenario didn’t happen as planned, but only because the Institute for Principled Policy, an Ohio-based think tank, learned of it the Friday before the scheduled hearing – wrote up an incisive analysis with what-to-do instructions and posted these on the Internet. In its analysis the IPP warned:

“Kiss the second amendment goodbye, in favor of a ‘collective’ right to self-defense, meaning no private ownership of firearms or other weapons. Only police and armed forces (not to mention criminals) will have guns. Kiss the much battered and abused 4th and 5th amendments goodbye. Watch for the 1st Amendment to be ‘revised’ into a meaningless jumble of verbiage which any court can feel free to misconstrue at will. The same for the rest of the Bill of Rights.

"State sovereignty as guaranteed in the 9th and 10th Amendments and Article IV of the Constitution? An archaic idea whose time has passed in a modern world. It will be chucked in favor of wording which would allow easy melding of the United States of America with its northern and southern neighbors into a United States of North and South America as part of a regional world governance scheme under the UN.”

The news was picked up by the umbrella group Ohio Freedom Alliance and handed along to activists nationwide in a cyberspace tag-team.

Advertisement

Critics faced a major hurdle: no testimony would be allowed at the hearing. Ohioans and constitutionalists from around the country flooded the offices of committee members and other lawmakers with a phone calls and e-mails. It was apparently this massive outpouring of state and national indignation that persuaded Blessing to change his mind, though he has not admitted this. Whatever the reason, the chairman agreed to permit testimony.

Teri Owens shared details of the hearing with NewsWithViews.com.

On Wednesday, a total of 10 speakers representing the Institute for Principled Policy, the Ohio Freedom Alliance, the Libertarian Party of Ohio, the Constitution Party of Ohio, the John Birch Society, Campaign for Liberty, and We Are Change Ohio were able to address the issue and answer questions. Of those 10, perhaps one had ever testified before a committee.

“Most of us were frightened, but we knew we didn’t have a choice,” said Owens. “It was something we had to do.”

Rep. Huffman, who authored HJR 8, presented the only testimony in its favor. Owens said that during his remarks he turned to face their group, telling them that he “knew” that those in opposition were there “out of fear” – that opponents of the con-con are “just fearful of what’s going to happen.”

“So we impressed on the committee that it was not about fear, but about wisdom,” Owens said. “We laid out every objection that there is to a con-con.”

NOTE: Their testimony is transcribed and posted – with some videos -- on the Institute for Principled Policy’s website and the website for PeaceChicken.com.

Their work paid off. The committee did not take a vote on Wednesday and the latest word is that it will not do so at this time. Its companion SJR9 will not be heard in committee. So it appears the con con is dead for this session – but it will definitely be reintroduced next year. Moreover, a staff member in Blessing’s office told NewsWithViews that the chairman can call the committee for an emergency session at any time – and a vote could then be taken.

Barry Sheets of IPP warns, “Anything can happen until the General Assembly adjourns sine die [indefinitely], which may be held off until the very end of the year given the instability of the state’s budget. They may, or the governor could, call an emergency session to deal with issues, so we need to stay on guard until that last gavel drops on the 127th General Assembly.”

A Con Con to Kill the Constitution

In February, NWV columnist Jon Ryter posed the question Could the 2008 Election Bring the End of America as We Know It?, and stated that the new president, whoever that would be, had been tasked with abolishing the economic sovereignty of the United States.

“Hemispheric government -- through the merging of Canada and Mexico with the United States, followed by the inclusion of Central and then South America into what will be called the American Union with the absolute loss of national sovereignty—is just around the corner,” Ryter predicted.

Ryter further predicted that citizen groups will push for a constitutional convention in an attempt to head this off, with the argument advanced that this is the only way to thwart the Council on Foreign Relation’s plan to formalize the North American Union.

“With globalist McCain, Clinton or Obama in the White House, the argument will appear to contain enough truth that it will draw supporters like metal shaving to a magnet,” Ryter declared. “In addition, proponents of the Convention will argue that only a constitutional amendment will force the federal government to deport all illegal aliens. Again, it will sound logical.”

Earlier Story:

1. Jon Christian Ryter: Could the 2008 Election Bring the End of America as We Know It? Feb. 2, 2008

Additional Reading:

1. Institute for Principled Policy: Sowing the Wind -- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5
2. For Updates: www.peacechicken.com and American Policy Center
3. Phyllis Schlafly: Playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution, Dec. 1984
4. Phyllis Schlafly: Combating Chicanery about the Constitution, Sept. 1987
5. Phyllis Schafly: Is a Con Con Hidden in Term Limits? May 1996

Video:

Beware Article V:Message to State Legislatures -- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

© 2008 NWV - All Rights Reserved

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact Sarah Foster:
sarahfoster7433@att.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home

“We seem to have put a kink in their plans because this had been introduced very quietly and we almost missed it,” she said. “We had no idea this was coming down the pike.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Titles

Other
News
Articles:

Florida Microchipping Alzheimer's patients Despite Cancer risks

NWV Store
Books
DVDs
Merchandise
Writers
Advertise
Submit Story
Contact NWV
Donate to NWV
About NWV

NWV Home

More
News
Articles

GRASSROOTS ACTIVISTS DERAIL OHIO CON-CON RESOLUTION

By news writer Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
December 15, 2008
© NewsWithViews.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio — An attempt by GOP lawmakers to sneak a resolution through the state legislature last week calling for a constitutional convention – or “con con” -- was halted, at least until next year, by a hastily assembled coalition of grassroots activists who lobbied representatives at the state capitol and testified against the controversial measure during its committee hearing Wednesday.

“I believe it was God’s blessing that we found out about it and were able to organize quickly and put a stop to it being voted on today by the committee and the House. It was moving very quickly,” activist Teri Owens told NewsWithViews that evening.

“We seem to have put a kink in their plans because this had been introduced very quietly and we almost missed it,” she said. “We had no idea this was coming down the pike.”

Rep. Matt Huffman, a Republican first-term member of the House of Representatives, the General Assembly’s lower chamber, waited until Dec. 3 to introduce House Joint Resolution 8, which if passed by both houses would make Ohio the 33rd state to petition Congress to call a constitutional convention. Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, when the legislatures of two-thirds (34) of the states have passed a petitioning resolution, Congress is mandated to convene a convention.

Fourteen Republican legislators signed on as cosponsors but no Democrats.

On Dec. 9, the day before the hearing for HJR 8, Sen. Keith Faber (R), introduced its companion bill, Senate Joint Resolution 9, in the State Senate.

As with similar resolutions introduced over the years in Ohio and other states, HJR 8 and SJR 9 limit discussion and consideration to one amendment (in this instance, a Balanced Budget Amendment) to the Constitution, and Ohio delegates would be bound not to address or vote on any other issue that might be introduced.

“Russian Roulette with the Constitution”

Calling a constitutional convention has been a hot-button issue for over three decades. Although it is one of two methods Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment, it has never been used. The danger in holding a con con, according to most legal scholars, is that once the delegates are assembled there is no way to limit debate to one topic, and it is possible that an entirely new Constitution could be introduced and ratified.

As former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in 1983, in an oft-quoted letter to Phyllis Schafly, president of Eagle Forum:

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ …

“A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.”
Which is why Schafly characterized a con con as “playing Russian roulette with the Constitution.”

Advertisement

And it is why national organizations across the political spectrum have opposed calling one. These include the John Birch Society, Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, Daughters of the American Revolution, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way.

They’ve been largely successful. Following an initial spate of approvals during the 1970s, during which some 30 states passed con-con resolutions, no state has followed their lead since 1983, though numerous attempts have been made. Several states have rescinded their resolutions, but it is questionable that Congress will acknowledge these rescissions.

HJR 8 brings the con-con issue back into public debate.

A Slam-Dunk Passage

The plan apparently was for the committee to hear the bill (with no adverse testimony allowed), vote in its favor, and send it straight to the floor of the House for a slam-dunk passage. They had good reason for confidence. HJR 8’s introduction this late in the session meant that likely opponents wouldn’t be aware of it until it was signed into law. Moreover, the measure was assigned to the 11-member Judiciary Committee, comprised of five Democrats and six Republicans, four of whom were cosponsors.

Although Democrats took the House in the Nov. 4 election, it remains under Republican control until Jan. 3, essentially guaranteeing HJR 8’s passage if it was waved through committee. The GOP still holds the Senate by a commanding majority.

To top it off, the Judiciary Committee is chaired by Rep. Louis Blessing, a Republican who’s been with the Ohio Legislature – either in the Senate or House – for 25 years. Though not a cosponsor of HJR 8, back in 1987 Blessing had cosponsored a similar resolution, which was defeated.

“He’s a 20-year champion for getting a con-con through,” Teri Owens observed.

Wednesday’s scenario didn’t happen as planned, but only because the Institute for Principled Policy, an Ohio-based think tank, learned of it the Friday before the scheduled hearing – wrote up an incisive analysis with what-to-do instructions and posted these on the Internet. In its analysis the IPP warned:

“Kiss the second amendment goodbye, in favor of a ‘collective’ right to self-defense, meaning no private ownership of firearms or other weapons. Only police and armed forces (not to mention criminals) will have guns. Kiss the much battered and abused 4th and 5th amendments goodbye. Watch for the 1st Amendment to be ‘revised’ into a meaningless jumble of verbiage which any court can feel free to misconstrue at will. The same for the rest of the Bill of Rights.

"State sovereignty as guaranteed in the 9th and 10th Amendments and Article IV of the Constitution? An archaic idea whose time has passed in a modern world. It will be chucked in favor of wording which would allow easy melding of the United States of America with its northern and southern neighbors into a United States of North and South America as part of a regional world governance scheme under the UN.”

The news was picked up by the umbrella group Ohio Freedom Alliance and handed along to activists nationwide in a cyberspace tag-team.

Advertisement

Critics faced a major hurdle: no testimony would be allowed at the hearing. Ohioans and constitutionalists from around the country flooded the offices of committee members and other lawmakers with a phone calls and e-mails. It was apparently this massive outpouring of state and national indignation that persuaded Blessing to change his mind, though he has not admitted this. Whatever the reason, the chairman agreed to permit testimony.

Teri Owens shared details of the hearing with NewsWithViews.com.

On Wednesday, a total of 10 speakers representing the Institute for Principled Policy, the Ohio Freedom Alliance, the Libertarian Party of Ohio, the Constitution Party of Ohio, the John Birch Society, Campaign for Liberty, and We Are Change Ohio were able to address the issue and answer questions. Of those 10, perhaps one had ever testified before a committee.

“Most of us were frightened, but we knew we didn’t have a choice,” said Owens. “It was something we had to do.”

Rep. Huffman, who authored HJR 8, presented the only testimony in its favor. Owens said that during his remarks he turned to face their group, telling them that he “knew” that those in opposition were there “out of fear” – that opponents of the con-con are “just fearful of what’s going to happen.”

“So we impressed on the committee that it was not about fear, but about wisdom,” Owens said. “We laid out every objection that there is to a con-con.”

NOTE: Their testimony is transcribed and posted – with some videos -- on the Institute for Principled Policy’s website and the website for PeaceChicken.com.

Their work paid off. The committee did not take a vote on Wednesday and the latest word is that it will not do so at this time. Its companion SJR9 will not be heard in committee. So it appears the con con is dead for this session – but it will definitely be reintroduced next year. Moreover, a staff member in Blessing’s office told NewsWithViews that the chairman can call the committee for an emergency session at any time – and a vote could then be taken.

Barry Sheets of IPP warns, “Anything can happen until the General Assembly adjourns sine die [indefinitely], which may be held off until the very end of the year given the instability of the state’s budget. They may, or the governor could, call an emergency session to deal with issues, so we need to stay on guard until that last gavel drops on the 127th General Assembly.”

A Con Con to Kill the Constitution

In February, NWV columnist Jon Ryter posed the question Could the 2008 Election Bring the End of America as We Know It?, and stated that the new president, whoever that would be, had been tasked with abolishing the economic sovereignty of the United States.

“Hemispheric government -- through the merging of Canada and Mexico with the United States, followed by the inclusion of Central and then South America into what will be called the American Union with the absolute loss of national sovereignty—is just around the corner,” Ryter predicted.

Ryter further predicted that citizen groups will push for a constitutional convention in an attempt to head this off, with the argument advanced that this is the only way to thwart the Council on Foreign Relation’s plan to formalize the North American Union.

“With globalist McCain, Clinton or Obama in the White House, the argument will appear to contain enough truth that it will draw supporters like metal shaving to a magnet,” Ryter declared. “In addition, proponents of the Convention will argue that only a constitutional amendment will force the federal government to deport all illegal aliens. Again, it will sound logical.”

Earlier Story:

1. Jon Christian Ryter: Could the 2008 Election Bring the End of America as We Know It? Feb. 2, 2008

Additional Reading:

1. Institute for Principled Policy: Sowing the Wind -- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5
2. For Updates: www.peacechicken.com and American Policy Center
3. Phyllis Schlafly: Playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution, Dec. 1984
4. Phyllis Schlafly: Combating Chicanery about the Constitution, Sept. 1987
5. Phyllis Schafly: Is a Con Con Hidden in Term Limits? May 1996

Video:

Beware Article V:Message to State Legislatures -- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

© 2008 NWV - All Rights Reserved

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact Sarah Foster:
sarahfoster7433@att.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home

“We seem to have put a kink in their plans because this had been introduced very quietly and we almost missed it,” she said. “We had no idea this was coming down the pike.”

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news113.htm

Great article on the con con-its history and how it was stopped this year.
This will rear it's ugly head again....in time.

Be informed..check sources out...make up your own mind....

Namaste!

Marian-Librarian · 12-15-2008, 07:41 AM

Sorry for the double post...

Sol Invictus · 12-15-2008, 11:07 AM

Anything that is done by stealth by those at the top towards those at the bottom cannot nor ever will be any good for the little man.

The european socialist union proves that this side of the pond - nothing ever is done to help the poor or needy or even those on low wages- it is all about gaining power and money at the very head of the pyramid they sit upon.

A con con . . .. . . bad, bad idea. Wonder if this will be Obamas 'unpopular' idea?

milk and honey · 12-15-2008, 04:52 PM

The same people who trash the US Constitution want a new one eh? The new will be worse than the old and even that they will trash with impunity. Con con indeed.

Sol Invictus · 12-15-2008, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milk and honey

The same people who trash the US Constitution want a new one eh? The new will be worse than the old and even that they will trash with impunity. Con con indeed.

A new constitution prepared by them for you.

Think its going to be fair? think it will be 'of the people for the people'?

Like hell it will. This will bring back slavery in its most base form; you do as your told at all times or you lose everything.

milk and honey · 12-15-2008, 07:33 PM

A similar attempt happened in Australia in 1999. The con con met and proposed a referendum offering citizens a constitutional republic on the pretense that it was time to show maturuty as a nation and cut ties to Britain. The real reason was so they could slot Australia into APEC - Asia Pacific Economic Forum - which is a grouping of Asian and Pacific nations along similar lines to the European Economic Community before its gov'ts amalgamated into the European Union... and similar to NAFTA which plans to morph into an AMERO Union. So obviously they want a regional government in APEC not simply 'economic co-operation' between the group.

Thankfully the Australians voted against the referendum and it failed. But not because they saw the true motive - although many did - but because they respect the Queen of England as Head of State and the stability of the Australian nation which has flowed from those historical arrangements. Strategically, thats alright with me. But already there are calls for another referendum in Australia proposing the very same thing, so these guys never give up.

Clearly, the same type of plan for a regional regrouping is motivating the 'con con' in the USA. They must first deface the US Constitution as a prelude to legally merging the nations of North America into political union.

mntruthseeker · 12-15-2008, 07:54 PM

I agree with you Humble and Edwards was my first choice also. But I see both O & E as adulterous now

Edwards is in deeper than I ever thought if you can believe what all the reports are now saying. He was right in with all of the rituals and in tight with the pope.

I guess I wish I knew all the right answers but I know I don't and am quite tired of surprises.

I believe in distributing the wealth as I don't feel there is one person on all of earth that should ever be hungry,sick or without a bed. I'm a dreamer but to me for all to have their basic needs would be a wonderful place

Anytime they change the constitution is scary but I'm not dumb enough to believe it has meant anything to those in politics for the last 50 years. They have stumped on our rights all over the place. They could care less. Those few that due either end up dead or will soon be.

We together can make this a better world and I believe in my heart that it will be US that will do it. No blame will go unto Obama except what he deserves. He by no means is a saint or the 2nd coming. What a unrealistic thought for anyone to have

When I think of Obama, I think of Brezinski.........I need not say anything else. Never forget Bresinski and all he is

Humble Janitor · 12-16-2008, 07:45 AM

In regards to wealth redistribution, how do you do this successfully? I cringe when I see commercials for pyramid schemes promising to help people make $5000 a month and **** like that. I fear for humanity even more when all people live for is to acquire wealth and material possessions. That **** is practically worthless. Once you die, someone else gets it. What's the point of existing solely for that purpose? I agree that no one should have to go hungry, thirsty or without shelter.

12-14-2008, 04:33 AM	#1
Baggywrinkle Guest Posts: n/a	Constitution rewrite only 2 states away Posted: December 12, 2008 12:25 am Eastern By Bob Unruh WorldNetDaily A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society." "Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute. "Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said. The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events. Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself. (Story continues below) "The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution." DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled. State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe. According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities. The final vote from the 1787 Constitutional Convention In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events. Read how today's America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it. Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that." Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues. Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that. Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth. Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s. The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal. In the 2001 interview, Obama said: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. The video is available here: DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies. "Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget," the alert said. "But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights." He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution. "We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny," the warning said. "Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society." DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. "You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true," the warning continued. "However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission." The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced. "In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself," the warning said. "We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100 percent to 75 percent. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn't further 'modify' Article V restrictions to suit its purpose," the center warning said. The website Principled Policy opined it is true that any new document would have to be submitted to a ratification process. "However fighting a new Constitution would be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle which is guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It is not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution," the site said. American Policy cited a statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda." "This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme," the policy center said. "The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as president. … Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new 'collective' rights, awarded and enforced by government for the 'common good.' "And state No. 34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it," the center said. A Constitutional Convention would be, DeWeese told WND, "our worst nightmare in an age when you've got people who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, we need to have everything from controls on guns … all of these U.N. treaties … and controls on how we raise our children." "When you take the document that is in their way, put it on the table and say how would you like to change it," he said. American Policy Center suggested several courses of action for people who are concerned, including the suggestion that Ohio lawmakers be contacted. WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen. The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website. The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University. The issue of Obama's own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court. Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency. "The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision,'" Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83364

12-14-2008, 05:32 AM	#2
Humble Janitor Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 3,201	Re: Constitution rewrite only 2 states away I think that it would be a good thing to have a con con. I'm skeptical of the idea of revolutionary changes to the constitution and again, I see that obama is once again a target. While I do not agree with re-distribution of wealth, I do believe that people who have a large amount of wealth, have a responsibility to contribute their fair share of taxes since those underneath them cannot do the same. In fact, though I'm a liberal, I don't mind the idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve or federal income tax. We've got to have balance somewhere and I concede that even Dr.Paul has a few good points. My view on the constitution is that when the USA Patriot Act was passed, it basically scrapped the US Constitution and it has been violated ever since that. If we are going to have a constitution, it needs to be able to keep up with the times and it needs to be the most powerful document in this country. I can understand why some have such little faith in Barack Obama. However, we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions and also we need to hold his feet to the fire when he screws up. I'm ready to criticize him should he screw up because I know he is not perfect and he wasn't even my first choice to begin with (that was the now-adulterer John Edwards).

12-14-2008, 05:55 AM	#3
Baggywrinkle Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Constitution rewrite only 2 states away The last time a con con was attempted was for womens sufferage in 1925. At that time cooler heads prevailed and defeated the attempt. They knew that once it was thrown open every crazy and special interest group would be in there wanting their piece of the pie. It would be the best constitution money could buy.... While it is a fiction where the straw man resides in the corporate united states of america and does not represent the free man on the land, it is the best we've got at the moment. Unless we are honest with ourselves and admit that we are not really a nation of laws under God, but slaves to the fiction under the color of law. It is after all just a g d piece of paper. The military commander in chief of the corporation has proclaimed it thus! If we call a con con then we can dispense with the illusion of the republic and revert openly to admirality law, the haummurabic commerical code of ancient babylon under the rule of the Queen and openly acknowledge that we are 14th amendment slaves

12-14-2008, 04:41 PM	#4
Myplanet2 In The Mists Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,133	Re: Constitution rewrite only 2 states away In my humble opinion, as a non American, a constitutional rewrite of the US constitution is insane to contemplate at this time. Just look at how those lilly livered congressmen were cowed into passing the banker bailout, and how those pushing it through refused to take no for an answer. A con con means you'll have legal income tax for the first time. It's likely to remove any legal basis for challenges to unilaterally cancelled rights via, exec orders, patriot act, NAU agenda, SPP, Homeland security, FEMA, you name it. I'd expect to see redefinitions of citizen, person, etc. No. this is a bad idea. They'd use it to legitimize all the wool they've pulled over sleepy eyes since the 911 false flag.

12-15-2008, 05:08 AM	#5
BROOK Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 3,117	Re: Constitution rewrite only 2 states away A constitutional rewrite is unacceptable

12-15-2008, 07:41 AM	#7
Marian-Librarian Project Avalon Researcher Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: NE Ohio Posts: 120	Re: Constitution rewrite only 2 states away Sorry for the double post...

12-15-2008, 11:07 AM	#8
Sol Invictus Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 599	Re: Constitution rewrite only 2 states away Anything that is done by stealth by those at the top towards those at the bottom cannot nor ever will be any good for the little man. The european socialist union proves that this side of the pond - nothing ever is done to help the poor or needy or even those on low wages- it is all about gaining power and money at the very head of the pyramid they sit upon. A con con . . .. . . bad, bad idea. Wonder if this will be Obamas 'unpopular' idea?

12-15-2008, 04:52 PM	#9
milk and honey Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 222	Re: Constitution rewrite only 2 states away The same people who trash the US Constitution want a new one eh? The new will be worse than the old and even that they will trash with impunity. Con con indeed.

12-15-2008, 07:33 PM	#11
milk and honey Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 222	Re: Constitution rewrite only 2 states away A similar attempt happened in Australia in 1999. The con con met and proposed a referendum offering citizens a constitutional republic on the pretense that it was time to show maturuty as a nation and cut ties to Britain. The real reason was so they could slot Australia into APEC - Asia Pacific Economic Forum - which is a grouping of Asian and Pacific nations along similar lines to the European Economic Community before its gov'ts amalgamated into the European Union... and similar to NAFTA which plans to morph into an AMERO Union. So obviously they want a regional government in APEC not simply 'economic co-operation' between the group. Thankfully the Australians voted against the referendum and it failed. But not because they saw the true motive - although many did - but because they respect the Queen of England as Head of State and the stability of the Australian nation which has flowed from those historical arrangements. Strategically, thats alright with me. But already there are calls for another referendum in Australia proposing the very same thing, so these guys never give up. Clearly, the same type of plan for a regional regrouping is motivating the 'con con' in the USA. They must first deface the US Constitution as a prelude to legally merging the nations of North America into political union.

12-15-2008, 07:54 PM	#12
mntruthseeker Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,482	Re: Constitution rewrite only 2 states away I agree with you Humble and Edwards was my first choice also. But I see both O & E as adulterous now Edwards is in deeper than I ever thought if you can believe what all the reports are now saying. He was right in with all of the rituals and in tight with the pope. I guess I wish I knew all the right answers but I know I don't and am quite tired of surprises. I believe in distributing the wealth as I don't feel there is one person on all of earth that should ever be hungry,sick or without a bed. I'm a dreamer but to me for all to have their basic needs would be a wonderful place Anytime they change the constitution is scary but I'm not dumb enough to believe it has meant anything to those in politics for the last 50 years. They have stumped on our rights all over the place. They could care less. Those few that due either end up dead or will soon be. We together can make this a better world and I believe in my heart that it will be US that will do it. No blame will go unto Obama except what he deserves. He by no means is a saint or the 2nd coming. What a unrealistic thought for anyone to have When I think of Obama, I think of Brezinski.........I need not say anything else. Never forget Bresinski and all he is

12-16-2008, 07:45 AM	#13
Humble Janitor Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 3,201	Re: Constitution rewrite only 2 states away In regards to wealth redistribution, how do you do this successfully? I cringe when I see commercials for pyramid schemes promising to help people make $5000 a month and ** like that. I fear for humanity even more when all people live for is to acquire wealth and material possessions. That ** is practically worthless. Once you die, someone else gets it. What's the point of existing solely for that purpose? I agree that no one should have to go hungry, thirsty or without shelter.