VIDEO: Mark Levin: Obama's Imperial Presidency Needs to Be Challenged

The "Great One" has some words for both Obama and Republicans.  Hear what Mark Levin has to say about there not being any deterrence to Obama's abuse of the Constitution of the United States.

Post by Johnny2k's America.

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

It's not too late to save America! ~ By Henry Lamb

The rise of Marxism in the mid 19th century that evolved into progressivism in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, found that competing political powers were an obstacle to progressive objectives. The Senate, chosen by state legislatures, could block any measure proposed by the House or by the president. Of course, this is precisely what the founders had in mind.

Randolph Hearst unleashed his media empire to publish stories bashing the Senate as a den of thieves chosen by corrupt politicians in cahoots with big industry. Today, George Soros funds Media Matters to publish stories in hopes of destroying all things inconsistent with progressive objectives.

The progressives in Hearst's day won the battle. Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1912; and his band of progressive politicians gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax and the 17th Amendment, which removed the states from any representation in the federal government. The 17th Amendment required senators to be elected by the public, rather than by state legislatures.

The competition between political powers was gone. There was no competing political power to check or balance the power of the Washington government. From the day the 17th Amendment was declared to be ratified, the government in Washington has continued to expand its power, its size and its budget with no voice or power of opposition from the states.

I hope that Henry Lamb is right! It was the fact that Henry included "it's not too late" in the title that should get your attention. It got mine.

Being that I only write one of these posts daily, and I have many great columns to choose from, it isn't easy to decide which columns that I want to discuss. But, this is one of those great commentaries that jumped out at me. I was going to get to this one posted last Sunday night, but that turned out to be the day that Osama bin Laden allegedly went to room temperature. (Just a quick thought: Had the President been a Republican, it would have changed the very BOLD headlines to:  "OSAMA DIED, OR OBAMA LIED!!") The fact that I even have any doubts about the version(s) we have been told since last Sunday night, it is beginning to cast a very dark shadow over how I feel about Henry's "it's not too late" statement.

Just the notion that the Progressives have had a century to drill their propaganda into the minds of the youths, and Henry says that we can turn that around.... how? I tried to do my part by posting educational and uplifting videos... up until I was silenced! I hit the proverbial brick wall. (You may want to consider not getting this blog to go viral, or we may find it go the way of my former video venue.)

But, then again... There could be hope. There might be a way. Maybe it is not too late! You only need to know one thing: IT IS ABOUT SAVING AMERICA! What other motivation do you need, other than wanting to preserve freedom for our grandchildren? I'm just sayin'........

*   *   *

It's not too late to save America!

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

April 30, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

On April 18, Standard & Poor's issued the following notice:

Because the U.S. has, relative to its "AAA" peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable.

On April 26, Market Watch reported:

According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China's economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 – just five years from now.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says that unless Congress raises the debt limit:

" ... the United States would be forced into a position of defaulting on its debt. And the implications of that on our financial system, our fiscal policy and our economy would be catastrophic."

It certainly sounds as if the United States of America needs to be saved from certain bankruptcy resulting from crushing debt, from an economically aggressive China that has taken all our jobs and from a world that no longer believes the United States is the leader of nations.

It's not too late to save America, but it will take a massive revival and rededication to the principles that made America great in the first place. America is on the brink of oblivion because those principles have been replaced by a modified form of Marxism, popularly known as "progressivism." Progressivism is the philosophy advanced by the Democratic Party – which routinely ignores first principles in its quest to seize control of political power.

READ MORE at WND.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

No, no Con-Con ~ By Henry Lamb

Proponents of a Con-Con say that the requirement that three-fourths of the states must ratify whatever comes out as a constitutional amendment is a safeguard to prevent radicals on either side from imposing radical provisions. These folks forget that the convention can specify what it takes to ratify whatever they produce. They could produce a new Constitution with an entirely new form of government and specify that ratification would occur upon a simple majority vote in national referendum. They could specify that the new document would be ratified when approved by state legislatures in any combination of states that represent more than 50 percent of the population. Under this scenario, a handful of blue states could transform the government of the United States.

Scary? You bet. Scenarios such as this should instill fear and force people to reject the idea of a Constitutional Convention for any reason. Here is a thorough explanation of the dangers:

Video provided by capousa ~ Feb 2, 2008

Henry Lamb contends that we should not desire to amend the Constitution of the United States by using the Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) mode as specified in Article V, seen below:

ARTICLE V of the Constitution of the United States

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

And why the discussion on how to amend the Constitution? Henry has a thorough understanding that the founders had a good reason for having the States elect the Senators, and the 17th Amendment destroyed the balance between the States and the federal government.  He concludes by saying this: "The time has come to restrain the powers of the federal government, and the best way to do it is to return to the design created by our founders. Repeal the 17th Amendment!"


No, no Con-Con

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

February 26, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

The U.S. Constitution provides two ways to offer amendments: by resolution of the Congress; and by a Constitutional Convention requested by two-thirds of the states. In either case, the proposed amendment(s) must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

There is a very good reason why all 27 amendments to the Constitution were offered by congressional resolution: a Constitutional Convention is an invitation to disaster.

Proponents of a Constitutional Convention claim that opponents of a Con-Con use "half-truths, myths and outright falsehoods" to instill fear of the process. They do not, however, provide any examples of the alleged "half-truths, myths and outright falsehoods."

Here is the whole truth, which is neither a myth nor a falsehood.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows states to apply to the Congress for a Constitutional Convention. Should two-thirds of the states issue such an application, Congress is compelled to call a Constitutional Convention. Note, however, that the Constitution provides the states only with the authority to call for a convention for the purpose of "proposing amendments." There is no authority for the states to specify what those amendments might be, or to set or limit the agenda of a convention.

When 34 states have applied for a Constitutional Convention, Congress is compelled to call one. Here's where the scary begins. Congress sets the time and location for the Con-Con. Congress determines how the delegates are chosen and how many delegates will be chosen. Congress could designate the existing Senate to be the delegates. Congress could designate the Electoral College from the last presidential election to be the delegates. Or, Congress could allow the states to choose their own delegates in whatever manner Congress might contrive. But this is not the scariest part.

Should a Constitutional Convention ever be assembled, neither Congress nor any state would have any authority or control over what the convention might do. There is no way for Congress to set or limit the agenda of a Constitutional Convention, regardless of what proponents might say. As evidence, consider the only Constitutional Convention that was ever assembled. It was assembled expressly to amend the existing Articles of Confederation, with explicit instructions from some states for their delegates to walk out should the convention stray beyond this specific purpose.

History demonstrates that the convention ignored its instructions and abolished the Articles of Confederations while creating an entirely new Constitution. There is nothing to prohibit another Constitutional Convention from doing precisely the same thing.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Who controls your state? ~ By Henry Lamb

The federal government is beginning to feel the heat, as more and more local organizations and state and local officials are getting educated and encouraged to stand and no longer be steamrolled by an out-of-control bureaucracy. Still, the best way to put a collar around the neck of this runaway federal government is to repeal the 17th Amendment and return real governing power to a state-elected Senate in Washington.

You can always count on Henry Lamb to inform you of the things our federal government is doing which is marginally legal, if not totally illegal! Once again, this latest column by Henry will possibly shock you, as he explains how the federal government is taking property that should belong to the states and their citizens or business entities. And why is that a bad thing? Just read the excerpt below:

Free-market capitalism demands that private owners be left alone to use their land as they choose. Only in a socialist, communist or dictatorship form of government can the authorities arbitrarily take control of the use of private property.

Who controls your state?

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

February 19, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Why should the federal government dictate how land is used in Florida, or in Utah, or any other state? In the first place, land should be managed by the owner. In a free society, property – especially land – is an extension of the person who owns it. To acquire the property, the owner had to invest his time and effort or receive the property as a gift from another. In any event, property is a part of the owner. Just as a person determines how he will use his time and effort, he should also be able to determine how he will use his property. Should a person use time and effort – or his property – to inflict damage upon another person, the damaged person can rely on government to hold the guilty party accountable. This is government's only legitimate role in property owned by others.

Aside from the 10 square miles set aside by the Constitution for the capital, and land purchased with the approval of state legislatures, the federal government should own no land within any state. The Constitution does authorize the federal government to "… make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States. …"

The evolution of the equal footing doctrine aside – logic, reason and common sense should demand that land within a state should belong to the state, or to the individual citizens of the state who have acquired it. Land in territories that are not states is subject to regulation by the federal government. There is zero justification for the federal government to own, claim to own, or control by decree or regulation the land within the borders of any state.

But it does.

In Florida, the federal government continues to dictate how land is used. The Fish and Wildlife Service has now identified several counties it feels the need to control. There are folks in Florida who don't feel the need to have the federal government control the use of their land. Stop Federal Sprawl is more than 21,000 local people who have the right idea about the role of the federal government. This news clip explains the government's claim and the people's concern:



The federal government wants to control the use of 150,000 acres of private property north of Lake Okeechobee, by designating the area as a "Wildlife Refuge." The plan is to appropriate 700 million tax dollars to buy 50,000 acres and to secure conservation easements on the remaining 100,000 acres. The justification is that this area is the headwaters for the Everglades and has the potential of polluting the Everglades if the land is misused.

Currently, if a private landowner in the area pollutes the Everglades he can – and will – be held responsible and be required to restore any damages he has caused. This is current law, and it is enforced every day. There is no need for the federal government to waste $700 million in taxpayer funds and whatever else it takes to secure 100,000 acres of conservation easement.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The goal is control ~ By Henry Lamb

It is not just a coincidence that the Communist Manifesto calls for the abolition of private property.

Henry's statement above explains everything about the U.N., and why the control of land is so important to the U.N. and the globalists:

Until 1976, private ownership of land was the desired goal of government in the United States. The policy changed officially when William K. Reilly, Carla A. Hills and others endorsed the policy statement of the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements. The preamble to this statement says:

Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land is therefore indispensable.

I hope that when you hear the buzz words and phrases such as social justice, environmental protection, global warming, and energy conservation, you will remember this column. Henry ties all of the reasons for the control of land use together, and you will see that the United Nation's ultimate goal is global governance based on a Communist economic structure. In order to accomplish that goal, it appears that there would be a need to neuter the United States by reducing our ability to harness the vast energy resources that the U.S. economy needs for the country to prosper.

This is why we need to get patriotic people into Congress and state legislatures to stop the assault on the sovereignty of the United States, and ultimately, our freedom.


The goal is control

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

February 12, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Which is more important: reduce America's dependence on foreign energy sources, or add 2.85 million acres to the existing 200 million acres of protected areas? According to the United Nations, 27 percent of the total land area in the United States is already locked up in some kind of protected area, along with 67 percent of the total marine area. This means, of course, that there can be no development of energy or other natural resources in 27 percent of the nation's land and 67 percent of the nation's marine resources.

Only the most avid preservationist, or the most anti-American, could possibly choose to lock up the nation's natural resources rather than develop them. Nevertheless, the federal government continues to block readily available and affordable energy development while subsidizing, at great public expense, the development of exotic energy sources such as wind and solar. There is much more than the discredited global-warming scare driving this ongoing obsession to lock up natural resources.

The goal is control.  In order to control people, the government must control the use of land. Control of the use of land includes control of the use of natural resources. Energy is the fuel that produces prosperity, and the government bureaucracy has decided that it will control access to energy by controlling the use of land and marine resources.

Since the Carter administration, the land management agencies of the federal government have been taken over by environmental-extremist organizations. Footnote 30 in this document identifies many such characters added to the administration by President Clinton. In an effort to appease the green crowd, both Bush 41 and 43 continued the practice. The Obama administration is replete with environmental extremists and individuals whose public statements strongly suggest an anti-American bent. Consequently, the lock-up of land and its resources continues.

Video provided by evmazu ~ August 26, 2009

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

How to stop a runaway federal government ~ By Henry Lamb

A coalition of organizations has now formed and is now spreading across the nation with the single goal of repealing the 17th Amendment. Tea party and 9/12 groups as well as property-rights and fair-tax groups, gun-rights groups and many others are joining forces to repeal the 17th Amendment in order to once again give states a seat at the federal table.

Only by restoring the states to the federal government process can there be any hope of stopping a runaway federal government.

What Henry is saying here makes perfect sense. He discusses various initiatives to get America back to the way the nation was founded, but emphasizes the necessity of repealing the 17th Amendment in order to "stop a runaway federal government." (I'm hoping that you are aware of what the 17th Amendment to the Constitution is and how it affected our government structure. But if you don't know, Henry is going to explain it here!)

How to stop a runaway federal government

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

January 22, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

For the benefit of the Department of Homeland Security, Southern Poverty Law Center, MSNBC, all progressives, socialists and outright communists – this article is not about anti-government organizations. It is about organizations filled with members who love the United States of America and are sick and tired of watching its leaders ignore the Constitution, trample individual freedom and impose near-despotic rule.

The emergence of tea party and 9/12 groups across the country are just the first bubbles in a pot that has begun to boil. Thousands of groups have formed and are now monitoring local governments, conducting regular education sessions for their members, locating, grooming and funding candidates, and preparing to rid the nation's leadership of all officials who display anti-Constitution tendencies.

In Maine, for example, a group has formed called The Fourth Awakening, which says:

Our purpose is to restore the Republic gifted to us in 1776 by our Founding Fathers whose vision we cherish and whose vision we intend to reclaim in full. In essence we reject the ideology of the Marxist progressives, we reject big government; we reject the subversion of our Constitution, our religious and personal rights. …

This group hopes to create a national movement among the states through which each state will create what they call an "Electoral Assembly" which will provide greater participation by citizens in the oversight of candidate selection, elections, lawmaking, rulemaking and the implementation of government.

While many of the ideas expressed by this group may be unrealistic, their passion for a return to the original Republic designed by the founders is quite clear.

Another group in Wyoming is trying to launch a campaign calling on states to initiate nullification legislation. Nullification is the constitutional theory that since states created the federal union, states have the last word in determining whether they will honor laws created by the federal union.

This theory has been tested several times in U.S. history. Current efforts are likely to meet the same fate as previous efforts, but the effort is another bubble in the boiling pot of dissatisfaction with the direction of the federal government.

The nullification initiative hit the nail on the head in its explanation for the campaign:

The sovereign states lost congressional representation of states' interests in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which removed the constitutional right of each state legislature to choose two representatives of state interests, to be seated in the U.S. Senate.

The 17th Amendment is the problem. The solution is to repeal the 17th Amendment. There is no need for states to create "Electoral Assemblies." There is no need to reinvent the "nullification" wheel. There is a great need to repeal the 17th Amendment, which is likely to be the only realistic way to stop a runaway federal government.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The key to restoring lost freedoms ~ By Henry Lamb

Not until the 17th Amendment is repealed, and the states are given back their seat at the federal table, can we begin to return to the republic our founders created, and begin to restore the freedoms that have been lost.

In Henry Lamb's column last week,"A great New Year's resolution," the 17th Amendment was discussed, and hopefully helped you understand the significance of what it did to move America away from being a Republic. In this column, he tells us a little more to help us see why the Senators being elected by popular vote is destroying our freedom.


The key to restoring lost freedoms

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

January 08, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

The states created the federal government; they designed it carefully to be sure that the federal government could never gain unlimited power to govern as a tyrant. Today, however, the federal government recognizes no limitations on its power; it issues edicts to states and individuals alike, with no fear of retribution. It has gained the power to rule as a tyrant – and does.



The creators of our government knew well that should the new federal government go unchecked, in time it would become as tyrannical as King George III. This is precisely why the founders gave the Senate to the state legislatures. The people elected representatives; the state legislatures chose their own senators. With the states in control of the Senate, the founders gave the Senate the responsibility of approving all executive appointments to the Cabinet and to the federal bench. The Senate alone was given the responsibility of approving all international treaties. The Senate – chosen by state legislatures – was given the responsibility to approve all laws enacted by the House of Representatives.

These extraordinary men who created the United States of America insisted that the states have a decisive voice in the federal government. The Senate – chosen by state legislatures – was the balance that restrained the federal government from becoming the tyrant the founders feared.

The Progressive movement saw this restraint on federal power as an impediment to their goals and convinced the electorate that it would be more democratic to allow the people to elect senators. In 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, the states were kicked out of the federal government they created.

The first argument against repealing the 17th Amendment is often the same argument used to get the amendment ratified in the first place: Progressives said it is more democratic for the people to elect their senators than to have state legislatures choose the senators.

Two questions must be confronted: Exactly how is democracy diminished if the people elect the state legislatures that choose the senators? The second question requires some deep soul searching by anyone who opposes repealing the 17th Amendment. Opponents must ask: Am I better qualified to determine how government should be structured than George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Roger Sherman and the other great men who wrote the Constitution?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

A great New Year's resolution ~ By Henry Lamb

The subject of this column by Henry Lamb may not be easily understood by the average American citizen. For the most part, none of us were around before the 17th Amendment was ratified. And I doubt that the importance of the 17th Amendment was discussed in your high school civics or history classes. We have only known that U.S. Senators are elected by popular vote. But it wasn't always that way:

The idea of people-powered government control of society offered by Marx ran head-on into the unregulated activities of laissez-faire capitalism. This produced a new system of political thought dubbed "Progressivism" by Theodore Roosevelt and others, in the late 19th century. This new hybrid political system pursued government policies that regulated economic and social activity without the government actually owning the sources of production – as Marx advocated.

Woodrow Wilson, a champion of Progressivism, ushered in the Federal Reserve, the income tax and the 17th Amendment – which destroyed the carefully balanced, unique structure of the American government. The 17th Amendment removed the states from the federal government altogether by allowing senators to be elected directly by the people rather than by the state legislatures.

Henry goes on to explain, "Since the Progressives sent Wilson to the White House, the states have had no voice in the approval of federal law to which states must conform."

In all honesty, I can't say that I was aware of the critical significance of what the 17th Amendment did until recently, and I'm still learning about it, with the help of the following two videos:

Restore the Republic - Part 1 ~ 26:04
Restore the Republic - Part 2 ~ 17:06

If you could spare the 43 minutes to watch the two videos above, along with reading Henry's entire column, you will probably understand much more about why the Constitution was written as it was, and why the 17th Amendment is leading the United States of America away from being a Republic as it was founded, and is being transformed into a Democracy, a "tyranny of the majority."

A great New Year's resolution

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

January 01, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

In hopes of returning to a previous, "better" condition, millions of Americans will resolve to: quit smoking, lose weight, or engage in some other activity to make their life better in some way. Suppose there were an activity in which Americans could engage that would make the entire world better, especially that portion of the world we call the United States of America. There is!

We can resolve to restore the original, unique republic created by our founders.

George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison and the handful of other great Americans who assembled in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 used nearly half of the Convention time debating the single issue of representation in the new government. Shall the new government be a government of the states, or a government of the people?

The Articles of Confederation created a government of the states, and any amendment to the Articles required unanimous approval. This arrangement was inadequate; no state could be compelled to comply with any directive from the government. James Madison's Virginia Plan proposed a new government of the people; Andrew Hamilton wanted a strong central government, with the president to be elected for life.

Small states argued that the Virginia Plan would essentially erase the small states because the large states would always have more delegates to the new government and could always outvote the small states. Delaware delegate John Dickenson nearly ended the Constitutional Convention by declaring that Madison's plan would exchange the tyranny of the king for the tyranny of the large states – tyranny to which small states would never submit.

Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman, of whom Thomas Jefferson once said: "… here is a man who never said a foolish thing in his life," suggested a compromise. His compromise would make the lower legislative chamber consist of representatives elected by the people based on population; the upper chamber, the Senate, would consist of two representatives from each state, chosen by the state legislature.

Madison compared such a government to a centaur – half man and half horse. Sherman's compromise government would be empowered half by the people and half by the states. This new form of government – unique in the world – would allow competition between the two sources of power, which would serve as a check and balance on each other to ensure that neither became domineering or tyrannical.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!