Congressional Hearing: Obama has “become the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid”

This clip is from a Congressional hearing on President Obama’s abuse of power.  It begins with Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte’s question to Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who is a frequent guest on leftist news shows.  In spite of voting for Obama, Turley says Obama “has become the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid”.  The following three paragraphs are from the clip.

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): Professor Turley, the constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of an act of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches, and the liberty interests of the American people?

JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.  This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.

There are two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own, or interpret their own jurisdiction. (House hearing, December 3, 2013)

Judge Andrew Napolitano had a popular show on Fox News, until he started getting too close to the truth, i.e., both political parties are sabotaging the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Judge Napolitano recently appeared on The World Over, a television show that airs on the Catholic network EWTN.  During the interview, he talked about his new book titled Suicide Pact, which documents the radical expansion of presidential power in America.

The first half of Suicide Pact covers presidential abuse of power from George Washington to Bill Clinton, and the last half of the book covers the rapid move toward an imperial presidency under George W. Bush and Barak Obama.  Judge Napolitano’s interview is a must see for those concerned about unchecked violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  For more info check out the Judge’s website at judgenap.com.

January 28, 2014, Senator Ted Cruz was on Bill Bennett’s show talking about Obama’s “imperial presidency”.  Bennett asked what can be done and Cruz suggested three options: 1) Congress must exercise its Constitutional prerogative, i.e., use oversight authority to restore checks and balances.  2) The media must return to its role as an objective reporter of the news.  3) The people must stand up and demand accountability.  The rest of this post will address these three options, and being a conservative, I will focus on what I consider failures of “conservative” media.

When asked what Congress can do, Senator Cruz referenced the select committee appointed to investigate Watergate and explained that select committees have broad investigative powers, whereas regular hearings only give members five minutes to ask questions.

Cruz said the the House of Representatives should immediately appoint two select committees.  One to investigate the IRS targeting Obama’s political opponents and a second to investigate Benghazi.  He said “Speaker Boehner has the power today to appoint a select committee and I have no idea why he doesn’t”.

Select committees won’t be created without pubic pressure, so contact your representatives and demand the creation of select committees to investigate Obama’s abuse of power.  Listen to Congressman Gowdy’s statement during a hearing on the IRS.  He exposes Obama’s lie that there’s not a “smidgen of corruption” at the IRS.

This is a link to the hearing on Obama’s abuse of power.  If you believe President Obama should be held accountable for abuse of power, the hearing will give you ammunition to educate others.  Make clips of the hearing and send them to your attorney, local Sheriff, District Attorney, State Attorney General, and U.S. Attorney.  Concerned citizens must get organized and demand a return to Constitutional checks and balances.
 
The Constitution guarantees our right to representation when being taxed.  But the 2014 budget is an example of taxation without representation. The following text and next paragraph are excerpts from a USA TODAY articleThe nearly 1,600-page spending bill includes all 12 of the individual annual spending bills packaged into a $1.012 trillion “omnibus” spending bill.  The bill will have gone from unveiling to law in just six days, while the normal appropriations process is structured to take months and allow for more lawmaker input.
 
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., holding up the thick bill on the House floor, criticized the House for voting on a bill “that nobody has read.”  McGovern cited a concern held by lawmakers in both parties that the details of the omnibus are likely to trickle out after the bill has become law.  ”I’m willing to bet in a week or so we’re going to read an article about something being in the bill that nobody knew about,”.  Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, characterized the bill as a “monstrosity.”  She said “while Americans suffer the consequences of Obamacare, Congress is trying to rush through another massive bill before reading it,”  

 

The hearing on Obama’s abuse of power, the IRS hearing, and the 2014 budget, received little attention from allegedly conservative media hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.  They play meaningless clips that dumb down listeners but ignore hearings that present facts regarding Obama’s abuse of power.  Do they think Constitutional principles have been achieved when the people’s representatives don’t read budget bills?  If representatives aren’t reading spending bills, it’s taxation without representation.

Why would “conservatives” like Levin and Limbaugh, sweep an official inquiry into Obama’s abuse of power under the rug?  Maybe they fear people like Shane Harger, Police Chief of Jemez Springs, NM.  He was ordered to disband his Police Department because he attended the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) Convention.  The CSPOA provides information and defends the Constitution, so check out their website to inform yourself and support their work.

Obama has committed many potentially impeachable offenses.  Lying about citizens keeping insurance policies and doctors under Obamacare, arbitrarily changing the healthcare law, using the IRS to target political opponents, letting Americans die in Benghazi, arbitrarily granting amnesty to illegal immigrants under the guise of “prosecutorial discretion”, and arming drug cartels with his Fast and Furious gun running program.  Obamacare probably would not have passed if Obama had not intentionally deceived the American people.  Unfortunately, Levin and Limbaugh do not make impeachment a priority.

The House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans and the impeachment process starts in the House.  If the House voted to impeach Obama, the Democrat controlled Senate would not convict him, but a special prosecutor would be appointed to investigate all the aforementioned crimes.  The investigations could be used to educate and inform the American people.

At some point, we have to defend Constitutional principles, irregardless of the political costs.   Homeland Security has said veterans and conservatives who support Constitutional government are a threat to national security. How far down the road to tyranny do we have to go before Rush and Levin call for impeachment?

Like Ted Cruz, Mark Levin is a Constitutional scholar, but he never mentions select committees as an option to check Obama’s abuse of power.  If Levin used his legal foundation and radio show to develop legal arguments for impeachment, many conservatives would offer financial support.  Michael Connelly is doing what Levin should be doing.  Connelly is a veteran and Constitutional lawyer who uses media to build a case for impeaching Obama.  He also does pro bono work for veterans losing their second amendment rights due to medical issues.

Go to Michael Connelly’s website and find out what a real conservative is doing to protect and defend the Constitution.  I think Levin and Limbaugh’s weak support for impeachment is a betrayal of the men and women fighting and dying to uphold the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence was a criminal indictment of King George III, and it provided the legal and moral justification for Revolution.  If you read the list of grievances, most of them apply to today’s bipartisan tyrants.  The Declaration ends with these words: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”.

Against all odds, they defeated the British empire and drafted the U.S. Constitution, but the States refused to ratify the Constitution without a promise to include a Bill of Rights.  The States were willing to dissolve the Union if the Constitution didn’t include amendments protecting their unalienable rights from a tyrannical central government. 

The founders, framers, and States understood the price of freedom, and they knew how to protect their unalienable rights from tyranny.  If we’re going to preserve the Republic they fought and died for, we must take a stand against the current assault on our founding principles.  Our founders and troops put everything on the line in defense of our Constitution, so putting some time and resources into educating ourselves and others is the least we (civilians) can do.

Thomas Paine’s distribution of “Common Sense” was instrumental in building the ground swell of support necessary for the Revolution, and in the age of the internet, we have we have no excuse for not following Paine’s example.   

Rush Revere is a character in Rush’s new children’s book.  Rush is obviously comparing himself to Paul Revere.  But Paul Revere was willing to fight the British tyrants to the death, and Rush has repeatedly said if things get too bad in America, he’s going to haul his cowardly carcass on a plane and go to “Costa Rica” or “New Zealand”.  Rush’s cut and run attitude is the same as British loyalists who opposed the American Revolution, i.e., when things got tough, they went back to England and sucked up to the king.

Rush’s cut and run attitude makes a mockery of the sacrifice made by our founders and troops.  Rush and Levin support “free” trade that is selling America off to Communist China.  And let’s not forget that Rush was a big supporter of the Dubai Ports World deal, which would’ve allowed an Arab government to control U.S. ports.  And Dubai is one of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that were funding the Sunni insurgents killing our troops in Iraq.

In my opinion, Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a prostitute who bends over for wannabe kings and queens in exchange for a bit of glitter.  Violating the oath of office is a felony.  And trade policies that make America dependent on Communist China are a clear violation of the oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Mark Levin puts out good information about the Constitution, but like Rush, he’s a big supporter of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and indefinite detention of Americans without due process, all of which have the potential to eviscerate the Bill of Rights in exchange for alleged security.  I think Levin’s idea to amend the Constitution via Article 5 is an exercise in futility.  Why?  Because corrupt bipartisan leaders violate current amendments at will, with no consequences.  So why would more amendments be effective without first enforcing existing law?

More amendments won’t be effective, that’s why I’ve concluded Levin’s proposal is an attempt to keep Tea Party Indians on the establishment reservation.  This will be accomplished via an endless focus on the political process, and not enforcement of the rule of law.  The founders created a nation based on equality before the law, not equality of income or outcome, and bipartisan leaders who’ve placed themselves above the law have created a Constitutional crisis.  But I rarely hear Levin or Limbaugh advocate for equality before the law.

Another example of a legal double standard is the government’s relaxation of mark to market rules.  These rules were put in place after Enron’s collapse and require large companies to mark balance sheet assets to current market value.  But now, the relaxed rules allow government and banks to falsify the value of toxic assets on their balance sheet.  Small business owners would be convicted of fraud for engaging in similar accounting practices.

Desmond Lachman is a former Deputy Director of the International Monetary Fund.  He said, ”if the Federal Reserve balance sheet is marked to market, the Fed would have an enormous negative position”.  Systemic fraud is the new accounting standard for government and Wall Street.

Political leaders say cutting spending is a priority for restoring fiscal soundness.  But if my accountant is cooking the books and embezzling from my business, I can cut spending to zero and still go bankrupt.  And that ‘s what will happen to America if we focus on amending, not enforcing the Constitution and market principles.

Many are calling for a balanced budget amendment, but it wouldn’t do any good because Congress cooks the books with impunity.  For example, Fannie and Freddie’s 6.3 Trillion of toxic assets and liabilities were placed off budget when they were dumped on taxpayers.    And Too Big To Fail banks, which are Government Sponsored Entities (GSE’s) like Fannie and Freddie, will cost taxpayers 8.6 Trillion.  So a balanced budget amendment will not prevent the debt from exploding when politicians cook the books during the next financial crisis.

By law, the public airwaves must be used to serve the public interest. But left and right media deliberately use our public airwaves to misinform and divide citizens.  It’s a classic divide and conquer strategy.  I’m a conservative, so I’m going to illustrate how phony conservatives like Limbaugh spread divisive misinformation.

For example, when talking about the socialist agenda, he spends 99% of his time talking about food stamps, unemployment benefits and the minimum wage.  But that’s only half the story.  The other half is the Fed’s Quantitative Easing (QE), which is subsidizing the stock market and big banks with Trillions of dollars at near zero percent interest.  And there is no free lunch, QE devlaues the dollar so we pay more for goods and services, economists define this inflation as a tax.

While Republicans work on legislation to cut foods stamps by 40 Billion over the next ten years, the Fed is buying 40 Billion per month of toxic mortgage backed securities from Wall Street.  Some people call this crony capitalism, but cronyism has nothing to do with capitalism.  Cronyism is socialism trending toward fascism, and it’s a threat equal to or greater than welfare for the poor.

Using crony capitalism to describe socialism only supports the arguments of those like Obama and the Pope, who seek to discredit capitalism.  Words matter, so when discussing the failures of socialism, we must make it clear that cronyism is an example of socialist redistribution that causes wealth inequality.

Dodd-Frank, Obama’s finance reform, is an example of crony socialism.  It gives Obama authority to spend Trillions on future bailouts of Too Big To Fail banks, without Congressional authority.  This is not capitalism.  An interesting source is the book Godonomics, which illustrates the Biblical principles behind private property rights and market economies based on moral principles.

The left criticizes corporate welfare, and the right criticizes welfare for the poor.  They both tell half truths as a means to support socialism for their respective constituents, divide citizens, and eliminate accountability for bipartisan leaders.  It’s a criminal bipartisan scheme to create a culture of dependence, usurp our unalienable rights, bankrupt America, and create a dictatorship.

If citizens take back their public airwaves and force broadcasters to serve the public interest, it would be possible to unite this country based on the facts and restore Constitutional government.  For some possible solutions, check out my post on the Boston Tea Party.

Levin recently mentioned a Drudge Report story about the 55 million children aborted in America.  But he’s a big support of US free trade policies that subsidize Communist China’s forced abortions a torture of Christians.  Cheap labor has always existed in third world countries, and the U.S. economy thrived without outsourcing our industrial base to communist countries.  There aren’t enough wives for young Chinese men because the communist government has murdered 100 million girls via forced abortion.

Levin opposes US government ownership of industry, but a company owned by the Chinese government recently bought Smithfield Foods, America’s largest pork processor.  While Levin yaps about a “free” market, he says nothing about foreign governments buying up U.S. industry.   Ronald Reagan didn’t allow the Soviet Union or Communist China to buy up U.S. assets. 

Republicans like Limbaugh and Levin say they support free markets.  But based on the “free” market, Aramco, a Saudi State owned company owns half of America’s largest refinery, and the governments of China and Qatar are acquiring U.S. Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) facilities.  Apparently, foreign government ownership of U.S. industry is their definition of a free market.  The Saudis use their stake in the Motiva refinery as a market for their crude.  Is it more efficient to ship crude from Saudi Arabia to the U.S. instead of using the glut of North American oil reserves?

The point is, free markets have nothing to do with market efficiency or freedom from government intervention.  The term “free market” is a euphemism for managed global markets that serve the strategic interests of monopolistic multinationals and their political cronies, who despise the notion of sovereign representative governments and unalienable rights.  That ‘s why State owned companies, which are fronts for totalitarian regimes, are given free reign in the imaginary free market.

The framers of the Constitution wanted a market economy, not a free market, i.e., a market free from legal and moral Constitutional constraints.  By putting the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, they made market principles subordinate to the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  But the ability of the Commerce Clause to interfere in economic activity is limited.

In his ruling on Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts said the “individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” but he betrayed the intent of the framers and ruled it a Constitutional tax.  Likewise, Levin and Limbaugh betray the intent of the framers by supporting the sale of U.S. industry to Communist and Islamo-fascist governments, a.k.a. globalization.

Some say the electronic trinkets produced in China would be too expensive if manufactured in America.  But virtual slave labor has always existed in foreign countries, and before free trade, America’s economy thrived without exploiting cheap labor abroad.  Many leaders say government should be run more like a business.  Well, multinational corporations spend billions implementing policies that PROTECT their market share and global competitiveness.  They even engage in corporate espionage to gain competitive advantages that US leaders give away via free trade.

Businesses don’t engage in anything remotely resembling free trade.  Why?   Because providing the competition with capital and technology guarantees failure.   Doing so would cause shareholders to demand criminal prosecution of the Board of Directors and top officers, which is what should be done to politicians who have intentionally traded away America’s economic future.  

Manufacturing is the engine of economic growth, so outsourcing manufacturing in exchange for cheap trinkets is like the Native Americans selling their sovereignty for beads and blankets.

American history teaches the concept of manifest destiny.  But how many fur traders, homesteaders and gold miners were thinking about manifest destiny when they moved West?   Few if any, they didn’t even know what the phrase meant.  Manifest destiny is the language of ruling class elites, i.e. merchant bankers and industrialists.  They moved common folk across the American West like pawns on a chess board.  Ruling class elites wanted conflict with the Indians so they could call in the cavalry and manifest their destiny.

The new frontiers for today’s ruling class are Communist China and emerging markets.  Free trade is preparing the way for the global cavalry and final phase of manifest destiny.  For all intents and purposes, US financial elites, industrialists, and their political cronies have seceded from the Union.  They’ve allied themselves with China’s totalitarian regime and are engaged in economic terrorism against the United States.

Media and politicians support this treasonous alliance and they exploit class and race divisions as part of a divide and conquer agenda.  They want divided Americans to blame each other and fight over the economic crumbs left behind by free trade and the financial crisis.  We’re all Indians now.

BOMBSHELL: ISRAEL’S TEMPLE MOUNT MAY NOT BE UNDER MUSLIM CONTROL

Bob Cornuke is a former policeman, S.W.A.T. team member, and F.B.I. investigator.  He also has decades of archaeological experience and has authored ten books.  His latest book titled “Temple”, presents compelling evidence that the Temple Mount, currently under Muslim control is NOT the site of Solomon’s temple.  Mr. Cornuke’s evidence demonstrates that the alleged temple mount is actually the site ancient Rome used to govern the nation of Israel.  And the Wailing Wall a.k.a., Western Wall, is actually part of the protective wall Rome built to defend its administrative site.

The Temple Mount may be the most contested and potentially explosive piece on land on earth.  But if Mr. Cornuke’s evidence is correct, the temples of Solomon and Herod were in the ancient City of David, which means the site is currently under Israeli control.  So the potentially catastrophic dispute over the alleged temple mount may be for nothing, and Israel could begin rebuilding its temple at any time.

Bob Cornuke is well respected among Biblical scholars, and some of the world’s leading scholars believe his scriptural research and conclusions are correct.  Check out Mr. Cornuke’s interview on the television show “Praise the Lord”, which airs on the Trinity Broadcasting Network.  The interview begins at 1:02:15 into the program.  For more info, check out Bob Cornuke’s website.

During another interview with Prophecy in the News, Cornuke went into detail about his research on the site of Israel’s ancient temples.  His archaeological and biblical evidence is compelling and should be of interest to all Christians, especially Americans.  Why?  Islamic leaders say Israel’s attempt to build on the Temple Mount could spark World War III, and US troops may be sent to defend Israel’s prophetic destiny regarding the Temple Mount.

If Mr. Cornuke’s research is correct, it demonstrates the serious consequences resulting from man’s worship of creation over the Creator.  In this case, Palestinian and Jewish obsession with traditional holy sites.  We should remember the apostle John’s vision of the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.  During his interview on Prophecy in the News, Mr. Cornuke presents scriptural references to support his conclusions.