Blessings,

Laurie

Having trouble reading this email? Click here to view in your browser.
Worldview Weekend News Logo

You are subscribed as hislambb@hotmail.com

audience2.jpg

Branson 2012 Big Success!

Mark Your Calendar Now for Branson Worldview Weekend 2013, April 26, 27, 28.

This Week’s Worldview Weekend
Situation Room Sample.
carl and bran[button].jpg

Brannon Howse & Carl Teichrib on How Social Justice and Interfaithism is Building a One World Religion

Click here to view 20 minutes of this 50 minute interview

This Week’s Worldview Weekend Articles:

The Fastest Growing Religion In America Is Islam

Do you know what the fastest growing religion in America is? It isn’t Christianity. According to the latest U.S. Religion Census that was just released on May 1, 2012, the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The data for the census was compiled by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, and the results were released by the Association of Religion Data Archives. From the year 2000 to the year 2010, the census found that the number of Muslims living inside the United States increased from 1 million to 2.6 million – a stunning increase of 66.7 percent. That is an astounding rate of growth. Meanwhile, most Christian denominations had rates of growth that were far below the overall rate of population growth in the United States, and some Christian denominations actually lost members. Sadly, when Barack Obama once said that “we are no longer a Christian nation” he wasn’t too far off the mark. Christianity is rapidly losing influence and other religions such as Islam are rapidly gaining members and building new places of worship. As other major religions such as Islam continue to grow in the United States, it is inevitable that this will reshape America in many different ways in the years ahead.
Click here for complete article

The Dangers of Contemplative Prayer
I grew up in a very liberal church (i.e., a church devoid of the true gospel), in which Contemplative Prayer practices were recommended routinely for those who came seeking help with “a stale prayer life.” After I left the church as a young woman and went into the New Age, these mystical practices were also an enormous part of my newfound spirituality. When God saved me at 35, I repented of these practices and recognized them for what they were: a Satanic counterfeit designed to tricks non-believers through whipped up mystical experiences into thinking they were experiencing God. But sadly, it wasn’t long before these practices began flowing into what had once been solid, evangelical churches (including my own precious church, where I was saved). So in a way, I feel I have been surrounded by these wicked mystical practices all of my life. I know them from the inside out, and I know how deceptive they are. They can deceive unregenerated people into thinking for years – in many cases, a lifetime – that they have a real, active, ongoing relationship with the God of the universe.
Click here for complete article

The UN Plan For Running The World: Global Carbon Taxes, Global Safety Nets And A One World Green Economy

Did you know that the UN has a plan for running the world and it is right out in the open? It is called “sustainable development”, but it is far more comprehensive than it sounds. The truth is that the UN plan for running the world would dramatically alter nearly all forms of human activity. A 204 page report on “sustainable development” entitled “Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy, A United Nations System-Wide Perspective” has been published in advance of the upcoming Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro. You can read the full report right here. It envisions a vast system of global carbon taxes, massive global safety nets and the implementation of a one world green economy. Many of those that are pushing “sustainable development” on a global level believe that they are doing it for the good of the planet. In fact, the 204 page report mentioned above even says that the transition “to a green economy requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and act” but that it will be worth it in the end. What people need to understand is that throughout modern history tyranny has almost always been initially introduced by people that believed that they had “good intentions”. No matter how much friendly language the UN uses in their reports, the truth is that what they are promoting is an insidious agenda of absolute tyranny on a global scale.
Click here for complete article

Pastors and Tithing

The word tithing means giving ten-percent of income to the church. I do not teach or practice that approach to money. I think that is based on a faulty understanding of the Old Testament practice, and creates and propagates a wrong understanding of God’s relationship to our money.
Click here for complete article

Nine Men at Panera:

Why is it Important That We Study The Word of God?

These men, members of my congregation, met at 6 a.m. at Panera Bread, rain or shine, and discussed Scripture until about 7:30 a.m. on Tuesdays.So, why was this important? Let me give you eight reasons.
Click here for complete article

Jerusalem Police Block a Group of Religious Jews Who
Wanted to March to the Temple Mount Leading Sheep Sacrifice
on the Holy Site

A group of several hundred religious Jews in Jerusalem were told they could not take sheep onto the Temple Mount to be sacrificed because such a march could disturb the peace and cause public disruption and Jerusalem police said they would stop even the entrance into the old city of Jerusalem.
Click here for complete article

The Worldview Weekend Situation Room

The World’s Premier Biblical Worldview, Web-Based, Radio, and Television Network.
As a Member You Have Access to Over $8,000 in Worldview Weekend Resources for Only $59.95

Gains Access to Over $8,000 in Worldview Weekend Resources for Just $59.95

Nearly 200 mp3 Recordings of Worldview Weekend Keynote Presentations by Nationally Known Speakers

Over 1,200 mp3 Recordings of Worldview Weekend Radio with Brannon Howse (Every program since September 11, 2007).

The Worldview Weekend Hour TV Program on Demand

125 Worldview Weekend DVDs presentations on Demand and More Being Added as New DVDs Are Produced each month

Brannon’s Six Books in E-Book Format

Transcripts of Some of the Best Worldview Weekend Radio Programs

Gain Access to the Audio Book Recording of Grave Influence As Read by the Author Brannon Howse

Gain Access to the Worldview Weekend Second Hour that is posted several times each month for members only

Join the Situation Room

Worldview Weekend Radio.
microphone_1.png
Click here to listen now
Brannon’s guest is Dr. John Whitcomb. Topic: Should a grown daughter refuse to drop her mother off at church that is not Biblical? Topic: Is God finished with Israel? Topic: Do animals have a soul? Topic: Do the Palestinians have as much right to the land as the Jews? Topic: When on the cross why did Jesus cry “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?” Topic: Why does the Bible forbid women from wearing men’s clothes and men from wearing the clothes of women? Topic: Why is it wrong for women to be on the frontline of combat? Topic: Some verses in the Bible seem to support every person having an opportunity for salvation and other verses seem to support only God’s chosen elect can be saved. Dr. Whitcomb explains this common question Worldview Weekend receives.
Click here to listen to these
Worldview Weekend Radio Programs:
Noise of Thunder with Chris Pinto Crosstalk Worldview Weekend Radio A Word for the World with Pastor Randy White
android_logo_main.png Click here to get our updated Worldview Weekend Radio App for Android iphoneicon.jpg Click here to get our updated Worldview Weekend Radio App for iPhone

Worldview Times.com
(We Search Hundreds of Websites Each Day So You Don’t Have To)

There’s Always Free Cheese in a Mousetrap
Food inflation seen back on the table as prices rise
Pastors Call a Truce on ‘Sheep-Stealing’
Romney Tied with Obama in Florida, Ohio
Mitt Romney’s team sees a path to winning the presidency
Eurocrats are secretly plotting to create a super-powerful EU president to realize their dream of abolishing -Britain,
Credit Cards, An Endangered Species
Massive money-laundering lapses alleged at HSBC
Al Mohler On Troubling Sermon by Andy Stanley
Click here for these news stories and more

I have seen our group grow smaller and smaller over the past year and now is not the time to slow down. 2012 is the most important year, probably in our lifetime. Take a few minutes, show up for a short meeting and lets regroup for the November elections.

May God bless the USA and our troops that keep us safe and free.

We need to meet our local candidates and hear what they have to say about issues that affect our daily lives. Come tonight, April 23rd and get to know these candidates.

Wake Forest – 4/12/12 7pm @ Wake Forest Town Hall 301 S. Brooks St 27587

Knightdale – 4/30/12 7pm @ Knightdale Town Hall 950 Steeple Square Ct 27545

Wake Up Wake County will be putting on this event….it is to spur public opinion to be in favor of light rail…do your best to attend these events and ask serious questions.

I will attend both events.
Paul Fitts
Candidate for Wake County Commissioner

By Jessica Zuckerman , Colonel Martin Hershkowitz , Brigadier General Frederic N. Smalkin and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.

On July 27, 2011, Arizona’s Senate Bill 1495 (S.B. 1495) went into effect, authorizing Arizona’s governor to establish a state guard unit. These units, formally known as state defense forces (SDFs), are today’s modern state militias. Authorized under the Constitution and by state and federal law, and built on a strong U.S. militia tradition, today’s volunteer state defense forces offer a vital, low-cost force multiplier and homeland security resource.

It now stands with Arizona’s governor to establish the force. If established, Arizona’s state defense force would become the 24th active SDF of the United States (22 in other states, one in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico). Obtaining statutory authorization to stand up the force, however, is only the first step. Arizona’s state leaders must now organize and train their newly authorized SDF and assign to it those missions most critical to the state.

Historically, state defense forces were organized along traditional unit lines, usually as light infantry and military police forces. This model, however, is largely a relic of past homeland security and homeland defense needs. Today’s threats require a different mission. Modern SDFs now serve as auxiliaries to the National Guard units of their states, as well as force multipliers for state homeland security missions in disaster preparation, response, and recovery. This mission portfolio requires a different model than has been seen in the past, one that centers on building professional units capable of contributing substantial value added to the states and augmenting the National Guard’s capabilities.

Once Arizona’s governor formally authorizes the establishment of the state defense force, determining how to design and build the force will be the next challenge. In building a professional SDF, Arizona could learn from the experiences of other SDFs, and, in turn, serve as a model for other states. SDFs are not necessarily required in states with low risk of natural disasters or terror attacks. But several states that are at high risk for catastrophes have yet to create a modern state defense force, despite the SDFs’ role as cost-effective force multipliers and resources, especially when a state’s National Guard units are depleted by combat deployment, peacekeeping, or homeland defense missions. Such states can no longer afford to place the valuable national security asset that an SDF embodies on the sidelines.

The Heritage Foundation

The President ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.

I’m so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2,000 a month on groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc., but it’s time to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back.

I’m going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio, 1/35,000 of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2,000 a month; I’m going to have to cut that number by six cents. Yes, I’m going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that’s what sacrifice is all about.

I’ll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries – six cents worth.

Did this President actually think no one would do the math? Please send this to everyone on your list so people understand how idiotic a $100 million cut is in a $3,500,000,000,000.00 budget – ludicrous.

Amending the State Constitution: What Voters Need to Know about the Ballot Question

January 20, 2012

The North Carolina Constitution provides two ways in which it can be amended: by convention of the people or by legislative initiative. Historically, North Carolina’s constitutional amendments have come by legislative initiative, i.e., a proposal from the General Assembly. The State Constitution sets forth the procedure by which the General Assembly may initiate and the people may ratify or reject an amendment:

A proposal of a new or revised Constitution or an amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be initiated by the General Assembly, but only if three-fifths of all the members of each house shall adopt an act submitting the proposal to the qualified voters of the State for their ratification or rejection. The proposal shall be submitted at the time and in the manner prescribed by the General Assembly. If a majority of the votes cast thereon are in favor of the proposed new or revised Constitution or constitutional amendment or amendments, it or they shall become effective January first next after ratification by the voters unless a different effective date is prescribed in the act submitting the proposal or proposals to the qualified voters.

N.C. CONST. art. XIII, § 4 (emphasis added). The General Assembly prescribes the time and manner the proposed amendment is submitted to voters by setting out such particulars in the session law adopting the proposed amendment. The General Assembly picks the date for the vote on the amendment. Most recently, the General Assembly decided to submit the so-called Marriage Amendment to voters at the May 2012 primary elections. The proposed amendment states in full: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

The General Assembly, as part of its constitutional duty to prescribe the manner in which a proposed amendment will be submitted to voters, also drafts the ballot question. The ballot question is exactly what one might assume from the name; it is the question which appears on the ballot and in response to which voters cast their voters to ratify or reject the proposed amendment. The ballot question is not the actual amendment. The language of the proposed amendment appears nowhere on the ballot unless the General Assembly decides to use the amendment as the ballot question—a move seldom done. Consider the 2004 amendment creating Article V, § 14, an amendment known at the time as Amendment One because of its place on the ballot. Amendment One was ratified by voters in response to the following 132-word ballot question:

The question to be used in the voting systems and ballots shall be:

“[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST

Constitutional amendment to promote local economic and community development projects by (i) permitting the General Assembly to enact general laws giving counties, cities, and towns the power to finance public improvements associated with qualified private economic and community improvements within development districts, as long as the financing is secured by the additional tax revenues resulting from the enhanced property value within the development district and is not secured by a pledge of the local government’s faith and credit or general taxing authority, which financing is not subject to a referendum; and (ii) permitting the owners of property in the development district to agree to a minimum tax value for their property, which is binding on future owners as long as the development district is in existence.”

The text of the 432 words-long amendment which is now Article V § 14 states:

Sec. 14. Project development financing.

Notwithstanding Section 4 of this Article, the General Assembly may enact general laws authorizing any county, city, or town to define territorial areas in the county, city, or town and borrow money to be used to finance public improvements associated with private development projects within the territorial areas, as provided in this section. The General Assembly shall set forth by statute the method for determining the size of the territorial area and the issuing unit. This method is conclusive. When a territorial area is defined pursuant to this section, the county shall determine the current assessed value of taxable real and personal property in the territorial area. Thereafter, property in the territorial area continues to be subject to taxation to the same extent and in like manner as property not in the territorial area, but the net proceeds of taxes levied on the excess, if any, of the assessed value of taxable real and personal property in the territorial area at the time the taxes are levied over the assessed value of taxable real and personal property in the territorial area at the time the territorial area was defined may be set aside. The instruments of indebtedness authorized by this section shall be secured by these set-aside proceeds. The General Assembly may authorize a county, city, or town issuing these instruments of indebtedness to pledge, as additional security, revenues available to the issuing unit from sources other than the issuing unit’s exercise of its taxing power. As long as no revenues are pledged other than the set-aside proceeds authorized by this section and the revenues authorized in the preceding sentence, these instruments of indebtedness may be issued without approval by referendum. The county, city, or town may not pledge as security for these instruments of indebtedness any property tax revenues other than the set-aside proceeds authorized in this section, or in any other manner pledge its full faith and credit as security for these instruments of indebtedness unless a vote of the people is held as required by and in compliance with the requirements of Section 4 of this Article.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2 of this Article, the General Assembly may enact general laws authorizing a county, city, or town that has defined a territorial area pursuant to this section to assess property within the territorial area at a minimum value if agreed to by the owner of the property, which agreed minimum value shall be binding on the current owner and any future owners as long as the defined territorial area is in effect.

The sheer length of the ballot question relative to the text of the amendment underscores the difference between the two. The ballot question summarizes the amendment. Like any summary, a ballot question leaves some things out. A ballot question which merely summarizes a proposed amendment is unable to capture the full import of the proposed amendment. In 2004, the ballot question used just 132 words to describe the 432-word amendment. It is logical to wonder, even worry, about what was omitted in the 300-word difference.

“Constitutional and statutory provisions customarily require that a description of a proposed law or measure be printed upon the ballot, and any such requirement is mandatory. As a general rule, however, it is not essential to print the full text of the proposed law or amendment on the ballot; it is sufficient if enough is printed to identify the matter and show its character and purpose.” 26 Am. Jur. 2d Elections § 295. See also Fla. Ass’n of Realtors v. Smith, 825 So. 2d 532, 536 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (“A court may declare a ballot summary invalid only if it appears that the summary is clearly and conclusively defective.”); Smith v. Calhoun Community Unit School Dist., 16 Ill. 2d 328, 335, 157 N.E.2d 59, 63 (1959) (“The substance of a public measure is adequately set forth if the ballot gives a fair portrayal of the chief features of the proposition in words of plain meaning, so that it can be understood by persons entitled to vote. In our view, this does not require that the complete proposition be set forth in the official ballot . . . .”) (citations omitted). Indeed, as the Supreme Court of South Carolina has stated:

The Courts are slow to strike down either the legislative proceedings or the election incident to the adoption of a constitutional amendment, and will indulge every reasonable presumption in favor of their validity. As was said in State ex rel. Corry v. Cooney, 70 Mont. 355, 225 P. 1007, 1009: “The question is not whether it is possible to condemn the amendment, but whether it is possible to uphold it, and we shall not condemn it unless in our judgment its nullity is manifest beyond a reasonable doubt”.

It is not necessary that the question on the ballot include the full text of the proposed amendment; it is sufficient that it describe the amendment plainly, fairly, and in such words that the average voter may understand its character and purpose… .

The question is sufficiently propounded to the voters by printing on the ballot the title of the proposing resolution, if such title fairly shows the purpose of the amendment… .

Where the ballot is challenged because of the form of the question proposed, rather than its substance, evidence that the voters were in fact misled may be required to overcome the presumption to which we have referred.

Ex parte Tipton, 229 S.C. 471, 476-77, 93 S.E.2d 640, 643 (1956).

Indeed, in a challenge to the ratification of Article V, § 14, based largely on an allegedly misleading ballot question discussed above, the courts ruled that the plaintiffs could not sustain their lawsuit because, in part, they did not claim they themselves were mislead, only that other voters might have been mislead.

This well-established principle that the full text of a proposed constitutional amendment need not be printed on the ballot is grounded, at least in part, in the presumption already noted supra: people are presumed to know the law.

Voters are presumed to be familiar with the content of the actual proposed amendment summarized on a ballot. A ballot adequately describes a proposed amendment if it gives fair notice to the voter of average intelligence by directing him to the amendment so that he can discern its identity and distinguish it from other propositions on the ballot. The ballot language must show the character and purpose of the amendment, but it need not show all the relevant details. Exactitude is not required, since it would often be impracticable to print an entire amendment on the ballot.

Hardy v. Hannah, 849 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Tex. App. Austin1992)(citations omitted).

In conclusion, it must be emphasized that constitutional minimums are not best practices. Just because the text of an amendment does not necessarily have to appear on the ballot does not mean that it should not. Quite the opposite, the best solution to concerns about the potential for a ballot question to mislead voters is also the obvious and easiest solution: print the text of the proposed amendment on the ballot instead of a summary ballot question.