Archive for December 12th, 2008

U.S. Only Two States Away from Rewriting Constitution

Friday, December 12th, 2008

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.

“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.

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.

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.

Original Link.

Anti-Marriage Bullying Equals ‘Epitome of Intolerance’

Friday, December 12th, 2008

The [Pacific Justice Institute (PJI] is offering the assistance in the wake of threats to the safety and livelihoods of people and groups that voted for the amendment or contributed to it.

“This is the epitome of intolerance,” Dacus asserts. “The ability for the opposition to succeed in intimidating and costing people their jobs because of their political expression is a serious, serious threat to the ability for democracy to survive in this country, and we cannot allow this to go unchecked.”

On November 4, California voters approved Prop. 8 by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin.

Original Link.

“The Secularization of the Church” by Albert Mohler

Friday, December 12th, 2008

Secularization is the process by which a society becomes more and more distant from its Christian roots. Though the formal sociological theory is more complicated than that, the essence of secularization is the fact that the culture no longer depends upon Christian symbols, morals, principles, or practices. While most of the world is resolutely unsecular, much of Europe is pervasively secular — and this includes Great Britain.

Nevertheless, the secularization of society is one thing, but the secularization of the church is another. Yet, at least one major leader of the Church of England now assumes what can only be described as a secular vision of the church.

Writing in a new publication of the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, Dr. John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, calls for the Church of England to represent people of all faiths, and those of no faith at all.

Writing in Faith in the Nation: Religion, Identity, and the Public Realm in Britain Today, the Archbishop argues that the Church of England deserves its place as the established church of Great Britain because it now serves as a “public utility” serving the common good.

As The Times [London] reported the story:

The Church of England should be open for use by people of any religion or none, like a hospital, says Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York.

There is a strong case for regarding the Church as a public body that does not exist simply to serve believers, he argues. Whether or not most people attend regularly is irrelevant.

This is a strange and pathetic vision of the church. No longer the assembly of believers, the church is now defined merely as a public utility. What does this public utility do? It exists, he argues, in order to provide service such as education, funerals, and a context for important national events — such as, he suggests, the funeral of Princess Diana.

In his chapter in the book, Archbishop Sentamu argues that the Church of England serves as a public utility that offers services “at the point of need for populations who will sooner or later require their services.” Quoting researcher Grace Davie, a specialist on religion in Britain, Archbishop Sentamu explains that “the fact that these populations see no need to attend these churches does not mean that they are not appreciated.”

This has to be one of the strangest and most unbiblical concepts of the church ever to reach print. The church is now to be more or less on-call for a population that sees no need to attend these churches but nonetheless is assumed to appreciate the fact that they exist. Confused?

Read the rest of the article here.

White House Considers Auto Bailout After Senate Rejects Deal

Friday, December 12th, 2008

When the first rounds of bailout occurred, I made the comment of “where does it end?” When are businesses allowed to succeed or fail based on their business model? Who is going to bail out the little guys? If the big guys get a bailout, shouldn’t the little businesses? This country is founded on small business. Don’t they deserve it too?
Well, last night the Senate rejected a bailout for the big three automakers. The White House is now considering putting them under the umbrella of the last bailout.
The bailout that never ends…

The White House said Friday it is willing to consider using part of the $700 billion approved to rescue the financial services industry for the domestic auto industry.

The announcement came hours after a deal on $14 billion in aid to Detroit’s Big Three automakers collapsed. The deal fell apart Thursday night in the Senate despite intense negotiations on Capitol Hill between lawmakers, union officials and representatives from the three companies.

The White House declined to say when a final decision would be made on response to the failed legislation but added that letting the auto industry fail would be irresponsible.

“It’s disappointing that Congress failed to act tonight,” Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto said in a statement Thursday. “We think the legislation we negotiated provided an opportunity to use funds already appropriated for automakers and presented the best chance to avoid a disorderly bankruptcy while ensuring taxpayer funds only go to firms whose stakeholders were prepared to make difficult decisions to become viable.”

The bailout died after failing 52-35 on a Senate procedural vote.

Original Link.