Globalists 'salivating' over collapse of U.S.

Chuck Baldwin

Globalists are "salivating" over the possibility of a Constitutional Convention at which issues such as the 2nd Amendment could handily be dismissed, according to a leader who warns Virginia likely is the next target for the drive.

"There is no question in my mind that, should a new Constitutional Convention
be called, it would be the end of the United States of America as we know
it, and our current Constitution and Bill of Rights would be forever altered
beyond recognition," Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin wrote in his latest commentary.

"The globalists who currently control Washington, D.C.,
and Wall Street are, no doubt, salivating over the opportunity to officially
dismantle America's independence and national sovereignty, and establish a
globalist North American Union – in much the same way that globalists created
the European Union. A new Constitutional Convention is exactly the tool they
need to cement their sinister scheme into law."

WND reported when the American Policy Center issued an alert that the plan was under consideration in the Ohio legislature.

The proposal was put aside, at least temporarily, because of publicity generated by the organization run by Tom DeWeese. WND later reported some Wyoming lawmakers, alarmed by the prospects, announced they were working to ensure that if a convention is held, it would convene in the face of their opposition.

Wyoming previously called for a Constitutional Convention but rescinded the votes in 1999. However, it is unclear whether even a formal vote to withdraw a request for a convention would have an impact or whether any limits could be imposed, according to constitutional expert John Eidsmoe, author of the book, "Christianity & the Constitution.

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

Baldwin, the founder of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Fla., and a radio talk show host, now is urging citizens to contact their state representatives on the issue, especially residents of Virginia.

"As I noted in this column a few weeks ago, proponents of assembling a new
Constitutional Convention are a scant two states away from achieving that
monstrous reality," he wrote. "At that time, the state of Ohio was in the crosshairs.

"Fortunately, enough
people from that good state inundated their state representatives with
objections, and the matter was tabled (for how long, no one knows). Now it
appears that the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to be the next
battleground state," he wrote.

"In all likelihood, the Virginia legislature will be the next state
government to take up the Con Con issue. It is imperative, therefore, that
the citizens of Virginia begin contacting their various representatives,
demanding that they not authorize the call for a new Constitutional
Convention."

WND's earlier report noted 32 states already have approved demands for the convention, and only two more states are needed to complete the list.

"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,'" Baldwin wrote.

He said in Virginia, lawmakers previously had asked for the convention but rescinded the call in 2004, so this year's debate apparently will be over the rescission.

Baldwin said residents of California, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin have not yet voted for a new convention.

Since WND's earlier report, two columnists for the news site have renewed statements opposing such a convention. Judge Roy Moore wrote that James Madison himself, "the acknowledged 'Father of the Constitution,'" once warned, "Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second. …"

Moore wrote:
"A new convention raises all sorts of frightening possibilities. Would valuable rights like the right to keep and bear arms or the right to worship God be kept intact? … What would stop powerful special-interest groups from influencing the outcome?"

Likewise, Phyllis Schlafly, was worried.

"It is not credible that politically active groups would pass up the chance to force a Con Con to vote for their special interests. It's not believable that the powerful forces working to take away our right to own guns would overlook a golden opportunity to rescind the Second Amendment," she wrote.

Further, she wrote, "There is no public support across America for a Constitutional Convention. A flurry of pro-Con Con activity during the Jimmy Carter administration died out. No state has passed a Con Con resolution in the last 25 years. During the 1980s, five states voted down a call for a Con Con, and three states repealed their earlier Con Con resolutions."

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who will be inaugurated as the next president Jan. 20, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, has told Fox News, Obama's "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."

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 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:

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 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 under the U.S. Constitution's requirements that presidents be "natural born" citizens is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases, including several 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."