Thursday, December 18, 2008

Constitutional Convention

This has been copied from a friend on another site. I think it's an important read so please read it and repostpass it on!


A Possible New Constitutional Convention NOT GOOD NEWS
Got this in an email today and I really don't like the sound of it. It is a bit unnerving to say the least. What the hell is happening in this country? I also wonder will there be states to reject anything that comes of this and declare their sovereignty. With Obama coming into power how far will this be pushed? If he gets his way I'd lay odds that there would be nothing on rights to keep and bear arms. Maybe this is the "CHANGE" he keeps talking about.

Act Now To Reject Con Con
By Chuck Baldwin
December 16, 2008

This column is archived at

My good friend, Tom DeWeese, chairman of the American Policy Center,
recently issued an urgent alert regarding a revived effort to assemble a
modern Constitutional Convention. Mind you, the United States has not
assembled such a Convention since 1787, when a Constitutional Convention
replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution.
Fortunately, the delegates to the Con Con of 1787 were composed of
freedom-loving patriots who had just fought a bloody war for independence
and were in no mind to reenact tyranny upon the land they had just fought to
liberate. However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of
politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the
power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States
of America, and that is no hyperbole.

The modern Con Con effort began back in the 1970s. Since then, 32 states
have issued the call. The total number of states that are required to enact
the Con Con is 34. Simple math reveals that we are only two states short of
this disaster. As word of this potential calamity began to surface, the
effort stalled with the total states issuing the call stuck at 32. With the
election of Barack Obama, however, supporters of a Con Con have been
emboldened and are now trying to resurrect the momentum. The state that is
currently in the crosshairs appears to be Ohio.

States that have already approved a Con Con include 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. A few of these states have since seen
the error of their ways and have voted to rescind their approvals. This
fact, alone, should be enough to kill the push for another Con Con, but
don't expect the powers that be to see it that way. Therefore, it seems that
if Ohio approves the Con Con, only one more state would be required, and
upon the call of that 34th state, a Con Con would be seated. And, no doubt,
state number 34 is already sitting quietly, but excitedly, in the wings,
ready to act with "lightning speed" to seal the deal.

Lest anyone take this lightly or think that a Constitutional Convention is
no big deal, DeWeese properly warned, "In truth no restrictive language from
any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a [Constitutional]
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."

DeWeese is right. If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could
declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely
rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
Warren Burger once declared, "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."

Given the fact that Washington, D.C., is comprised mostly of Big-Government
liberals and neocons, it is almost certain that the founders'
Constitution--which was founded on the principles of Natural Law that
protects individual liberty--would be replaced with some sort of "collective
rights" document protecting an ambiguous "common good." At that point, there
is no more United States of America. There would be no more Bill of Rights
protecting individuals from governmental abuse and overreach. Furthermore,
the principles of Natural Law would be forever removed as a basis of all our
nation's laws and statutes. The nation that had been bequeathed to us by our
forebears would be gone forever.

Yes, it is that bad, and, yes, it is that close to happening!

In the short term, every freedom-loving American must do everything they can
RIGHT NOW to prevent this from happening. Since the state of Ohio is
currently in the crosshairs, it would behoove us to contact every person we
know in Ohio and do whatever it takes to motivate them to be sure to let
their Ohio legislators know how dangerous this is. Residents and citizens of
Ohio need to make sure the Ohio legislature rejects the call for a
Constitutional Convention. By the same token, it would be wise for all of us
who live in states that have not yet ratified the call for a Con Con to
contact our state legislators to make sure that they understand the issue,
and that they will do everything in their power to resist any attempt to
call for a Constitutional Convention.

For more information on the status of a new Con Con and how to fight it, go
to the American Policy Center web site at

In the longer term, there is another question that must be addressed. What
will we do if and when a modern Constitutional Convention is called and our
U.S. Constitution is declared null and void, with a completely new
constitution enacted? Which states will reject the new constitution? Which
states will declare their independence from any such new union? Or, will
they all surrender their state constitutions and go along with this
Twenty-First Century New World Order--a New World Order that will doubtless
incorporate some form of North American Community or Union?

It might be a very good idea to immediately begin identifying those states
that would unequivocally reject any new union, and would be willing to
declare their independence from whatever government would evolve from a
modern Constitutional Convention. Yes, I am saying it: we may need to
resurrect the original Thirteen Colonies, except they would probably not
number thirteen, and, in all likelihood, they would not be located on the
East Coast.

I am convinced that there are still millions of Americans who are sick and
tired of surrendering their liberties to Big-Government sycophants in both
the Democrat and Republican parties, and that if a Constitutional Convention
is called--and our U.S. Constitution is wiped away or rewritten--are ready
and willing to declare their independence all over again. So, I issue the
call: where are the new Thirteen Colonies?

We better start looking now, because there will come a point when the time
for looking for good ground is over and the time to stand our ground will be
upon us.

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

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 + Others are Not Reliable Sources of Information

Alrighty people, here I go again!
The topic for this post is:

Why and Various other sources are Unreliable

Why is it unreliable? Well because it is owned and funded by the Annenberg Foundation. It even says so on it's website banner. Why is the Annenberg Foundation bad? Well, because our soon-to-be President, Barack Obama, was a first chairman for the Annenberg Chicago Challenge, part of the Annenberg Foundation.

Now, that may indirectly connect him to But indirect or not, they have a motive to support and disapprove any bad stuff about Mr. soon-to-be President. is used by many people to prove information. Same as Wikipedia and Snopes. All of which I try very hard not to refer to as reliable sources of important information, because they are not real sources for information.

Wikipedia is a site run by mostly nerds. Most of their information is donated by anyone who can access the site. It's a free online encyclopedia with alot of information on it. And while it can be very useful, I would not always refer to it as the most correct source of information. I would use it to look for basic information about a certain person. But I wouldn't just go by what it has to say about whatever or whoever if I'm looking for a good solid information source. has no background that I can find. I spent almost the last hour looking for a background on them, and could not find anything about who founded it, who runs it, or when it really started. If one cannot find the background info on a source for information then why would one want to use it as an informative source? So does not pass my standards for reliable, unbias, true information on important issues.

I already listed why is unreliable, because they are indirectly involved with Obama. But I'll go into detail on it, just for all you liberals reading this. ^_~*wink*

Aside from their indirect connection with Obama, they also support him. They have supported him by "trying" to clear him of all accusations regarding his citizenship and his birth records. They did an investigation on his birth records and took pictures of his Certificate of Live Birth. Now, I have said this before but I'm going to say it again, because it doesn't seem to really stick. A Certificate of Live Birth is NOT, in any way, shape or form, a Birth Certificate. Anybody can get one. Only a U.S. BORN Citizen can obtain a real, legal, Birth Certificate.

A Certificate of Live Birth does NOT have alot of information on it. It does NOT have the signatures of both parents on it. And it is NOT a Birth Certificate. An immigrant that has obtained full citizenship can obtain a Certificate of Live Birth. They won't be able to obtain a U.S. issued Birth Certificate though.

Now, did an investigation on this whole conspiracy. They took photos of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, and they got statements from the officials of Hawaii stating that they have his birth records. But, if they were seriously serious about proving that Obama is in fact an actual U.S. born citizen, then why not just get proof that his actual Birth Certificate is real? Instead of his Certificate of Live Birth. (which, btw, they were only able to obtain photos of a Certification of Live Birth. So it's not even a Certificate. It's just a document that says he was born)
If they wanted to disprove all the allegations against him, they should have obtained photos of his Birth Certificate, and demanded it be shown and not locked up. Having his Birth Certificate locked up raises suspicion and why. And that is what is biting him in the ass right now. Why is he hiding them? Because he is afraid of what we will find out. That is why.

Here is a video about Obama's Birth Certificate, and how it is a forgery.

He goes into detail on how the document is a forgery. But regardless if this is true or not, I really don't care. All I care about if his Birth Certificate. If Obama can obtain and supply his Certificate of Live Birth, he can obtain and supply his Birth Certificate to the American people. That is all this is about. Show it to us and we will drop this issue.

Doesn't mean we will recognize you as our next president, respect you as our next president, or support you as our next president. But we will recognize you as an actual U.S. born citizen, instead of a con artist that is lying to his country.