Obama's poll numbers are amazing!

From: Fox News

By Wayne Allyn Root -March 07, 2014

Have you seen Obama’s poll numbers? They are among the lowest in history. As of today, Obama’s approval rating is at 38%. That’s just barely above Richard Nixon.

Keep in mind Obama has the support of about 35% to 40% of the American population that will NEVER abandon him, no matter what he does, no matter how bad the jobs numbers look, no matter how low the economy goes, no matter how much scandal and corruption is exposed, no matter how strong the facts are against him. 

Nothing will ever change their minds. These are the “low information voters” of the Democratic Party.

So just think about that for a moment. Let those numbers sink in. If 35% to 40% of the population would support a Democrat for president if he ran from a prison cell … if 35% to 40% would support Obama no matter what he does, no matter how far America sinks under his leadership, how could Obama’s approval rating be at only 38%?

That means that among the rest of America, outside of loyal, lifelong, Kool-Aid drinking Democrats, Obama's ratings are nil. Among non-partisan voters, he is the lowest-rated president in history. No numbers like this have ever been recorded, if you filter out the crazies. 

Obama's approval among “the Heartland of America” (non-partisan middle class Americans) is lower than Nixon. 

Lower than George W. Bush. 

Lower than Lyndon Johnson at the height of the Vietnam war. 

Lower than Jimmy Carter at the height of the Iranian hostage crisis, with the added burden of an economy in misery and malaise.

I’m betting that outside of lifelong Democrats, Obama's ratings are in the unimaginable range of single digits.
Among the white middle class, I’m betting Obama’s ratings are in the single digits. Or lower.

Keep in mind many of the white middle class originally voted for Obama.

Among those that actually own small businesses, pay most of the taxes and create most of the jobs, I'm betting Obama's ratings are in the vicinity of ZERO.

Actually if you take the white middle class and subtract out a few Ivy League intellectuals, Hollywood liberals, and pathetic Upper West Side Democratic zombies, there isn’t an Obama supporter left in America.

Remember that about 47% of Americans get entitlement checks from government. Obama is PAYING for their support and he still only has 38% approval. You know you're unpopular when even bribes don't work anymore!

This man has managed to pull off something remarkable and historical -- he has alienated almost every single American who actually works for a living and pays taxes. 

He has virtually zero support among the 53% who aren't getting a check from government. You can't find another instance of that in the history of American politics.

Obama is amazing!


God bless,
JohnnyD

Is the biggest Obama scandal yet about to hit?

Major new development in eligibility case promised by investigators

From: World Net Daily


Every day brings a new shocking headline:

• Is Obama misleading U.S. on NSA surveillance?

• The Obama administration states it can launch a strike on Syria without congressional approval.

• The Obama administration provided U.S. firearms to the drug cartels in Mexico, resulting in the deaths of two U.S. law enforcement agents and countless American and Mexican citizens, apparently in an effort to make a political case for gun control.

• The Obama administration covered up a debacle in Benghazi that cost the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans.

• The Obama administration used the Internal Revenue Service as an attack dog against its political adversaries, including, but not limited to, the tea party movement.

• The Obama administration even targeted its friends in the media by spying on journalists at the largest news-gathering operation in the world, the Associated Press, along with a reporter from Fox News.

Could this be just the tip of the iceberg?

Have the media begun to turn?

Why are even some of Barack Obama's most loyal supporters beginning to have their doubts?

Why did the first post-scandal poll show some 50 percent of Americans supporting impeachment of Obama?

What would happen, in this climate, if Obama's biggest secret ever were blown wide open for the public to see?

What is that biggest secret? It's that Obama's Hawaii "birth certificate" is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a forgery – a fraud.

That scandal, too, is about to break wide open, according to investigators working within Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse. They say some new earth-shattering developments will soon be announced.

"To the public, it may appear that we dropped off the radar screen – that we went silent," said Zullo. "It's true that we did. But we did this out of strategic necessity. We went silent because the investigation needed silence to continue its work."

Zullo says that work has progressed to the point that the investigation believes it can prove to any unbiased authority that Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent – which suggests he may not even be constitutionally eligible to serve in the White House.

Would that be the ultimate shocker?

Would that not send a shockwave through Washington and the rest of the country?

The Zullo and the Cold Case Posse have prepared an exhaustive affidavit that will be introduced for the consideration of the Alabama Supreme Court in a case brought by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are seeking to force Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state's 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

The case, dismissed at a lower level, is now before the Alabama Supreme Court, where strict constitutionalist Roy Moore was elected chief justice last November. The case becomes all the more intriguing because Moore is on record previously questioning Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

Last year, Arpaio held a press conference at which he and Zullo outlined their initial findings.

"At that time, we announced that we had concluded that there was probable cause that forgery and fraud had been committed in respect of two documents: 1) the long-form or original birth certificate computer image presented by Mr. Obama, which contained multiple errors and anomalies, many of them serious and: 2) the selective-service document for Mr. Obama, which contained a two-digit year-stamp. This was contrary to specifications issued by federal regulations to the effect that the year of issue should be expressed as four digits on the stamp, and also contrary to any other selective-service registration document that we had been able to examine," Zullo wrote in his affidavit to the Alabama court.

The result of the evidence, he said, is one conclusion.   "Accordingly, Sheriff Arpaio continues to recommend that the Congress of the United States open an immediate investigation, including the appointment of a select committee, as regards to the authenticity of Mr. Obama's documentation, whether any crimes have been committed, and to determine Mr. Obama's eligibility for the office of president of the United States," he said.

Zullo continues: "Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event."

At issue is the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," something a foreigner likely would not be able to qualify as, he said.

"One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources," Zullo wrote.

Millions of Americans think Obama has so far gotten away with defying the constitutional requirements of his office.

This matter needs to be adjudicated once and for all.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Obummer - by Christina Houston

TURN ON YOUR SPEAKERS AND ENJOY!

God bless,

JohnnyD

Seven Minimum Wage Facts That Have Democrats Worried

From: Breitbart.com

by Wynton Hall - 5 Jan 2014


With the midterm elections just over 300 days away, nervous Democrats reeling from the Obamacare debacle are hoping a big push to raise the minimum wage will be the silver bullet that will spare them from the historic losses they suffered in 2010.

Democrats and unions are busy working to get minimum wage initiatives on state ballots in the hopes of creating an electoral “minimum wage magnet” to attract low-income, minority, and union voters to the polls.

Seven minimum wage facts, however, may diminish Democrats' high hopes.

1. Just 2.8% of American workers earn at or below the minimum wage.

The U.S. Department of Labor says 1.6 million people make the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Another 2 million earn below that rate, such as restaurant servers who make tips in addition to a lower base hourly wage which, according to U.S. News and World Report, "in many cases actually puts them significantly above the minimum wage in reality, if not officially." That means in a nation of 317 million people, just 3.6 million (1.1%) make at or below the minimum wage. As a share of the U.S. workforce, just 2.8% of people working make minimum wage.

2. Half of all minimum wage workers are 16 to 24 years old.

According to the Department of Labor, "minimum wage workers tend to be young," and "about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less" are below age 25. Many of these are students working while in school or teenagers with part-time or summer jobs. That means half of the people most affected by a minimum wage hike are among those least likely to show up at the polls to vote, especially in a midterm election year. Indeed, minimum wage workers who are 16 and 17 years old are not even legally eligible to vote.

3. Labor workers already make well above the minimum wage.

Democrats and unions hoping labor workers will be energized by a minimum wage bump will be sad to know that laborers in every single sector of what the government calls "production and nonsupervisory employees"—like manufacturing, construction, mining, retail, transportation, etc.—already earn well above the minimum wage. In fact, in November 2013, the government reported that the average hourly labor wage across all industries was $20.31—a figure nearly three times the federal minimum wage. And as the unions themselves boast, a union member's annual salary is already $10,400 higher than a non-union worker.

4. Even those who support minimum wage hikes concede it could kill jobs.

Many economists and conservatives point to the body of economic literature that shows minimum wage increases kill jobs and simply encourage companies to pass along the added cost in the form of higher prices. But even ardent supporters like socialist Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant, who recently helped pass a $15 minimum wage in the SeaTac, Washington, concede the move could spawn job losses. "There may be a few jobs lost here and there, but the fact is, if we don't fight for this, then the race to the bottom will continue," said Sawant.

5. Minorities and the poor are hit hardest by the minimum wage. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton

Friedman famously noted that "the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law." Higher wages mean employers seek higher, more skilled workers. That, said Friedman, puts those with disproportionately less education and experience at a significant disadvantage when looking to put their foot on the first rung of the employment ladder.

6. Even progressives concede the minimum wage is no panacea for America's economic woes.

President Barack Obama's former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Economic Advisers Christina Romer says, "economic analysis raises questions about whether a higher minimum wage will achieve better outcomes for the economy and reduce poverty." As a result, says Romer, "most economists prefer other ways to help low-income families." Similarly, progressive Daily Beast writer Jamelle Bouie says while he supporters the move, "the minimum wage is a Band-Aid for wage stagnation and income inequality" and "doesn't make up for our sluggish economy and weak labor market."

7. 21 states already have minimum wages that are higher than the federal $7.25/hr rate.

Just last week, 13 states boosted their minimum wage rates above the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25/hr. That means 21 states now already have minimum wages that exceed the federal rate.

For these reasons and more, Republicans see Democrats' minimum wage tactic as a desperate attempt to run from the Obama record.

"If I had a dollar for every time Democrats thought their issue of the week was going to be their pathway to victory, I would have enough money to pay taxpayers back all the money that was wasted on the broken Obamacare website," said Republican Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Andrea Bozek.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Here comes the ObamaCare tax avalanche

From: Human Events

By: John Hayward - 12/27/2013


At its core, ObamaCare is three things: a massive expansion of Medicaid; a set of complex mandates to control both insurance providers and customers; and the largest tax increase in a generation, much of it levied against the middle class. Because it is politically vital to hide tax increases from the Sainted Middle Class, much of this burden is hidden as pass-through taxation – you think your premiums are increasing, but it’s really an income redistribution scheme with the tax burden laid on insurance providers, who pass it along to you. This has the enormous political benefit of diverting public anger over increased premiums against the insurance providers, rather than the government, which is something the former should have considered more carefully before hopping into bed with the latter, visions of mandatory commerce dancing in their heads.

ObamaCare also includes quite a few explicit tax increases, which were delayed until they would not jeopardize Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. The most obvious of these taxes is the individual mandate – certified as a 100 percent bona fide tax by the Supreme Court, in the decision that allowed ObamaCare to exist at all. President Obama has seized the extraordinary new power to selectively delay this tax for certain people – a precedent that will prove interesting if the next President also wishes to waive taxes by executive fiat. Perhaps we should add a fourth core component of ObamaCare: it rewrote the Constitution, in the manner of a computer virus corrupting an operating system.

But some people certainly are going to pay that individual mandate tax next year, and it’s far from the only tax hike coming our way in 2014. The New York Post runs them down, and reports that at least one insurance provider has decided not to keep them safely hidden:

Most insurers aren’t advertising the ObamaCare taxes that are added on to premiums, opting instead to discretely pass them on to customers while quietly lobbying lawmakers for a break.

But one insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, laid bare the taxes on its bills with a separate line item for “Affordable Care Act Fees and Taxes.”

The new taxes on one customer’s bill added up to $23.14 a month, or $277.68 annually, according to Kaiser Health News. It boosted the monthly premium from $322.26 to $345.40 for that individual.

You remember Obama telling you that your tax bill would shoot up by over $275 a year under his plan, don’t you? No? You remember the exact opposite - passionate, repeated vows that taxes on the Sainted Middle Class wouldn’t be raised by a dime? Call it Obama’s Third Big Lie, after “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” and “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

What’s in that hearty salad of new taxes, New York Post?

The new taxes and fees include a 2 percent levy on every health plan, which is expected to net about $8 billion for the government in 2014 and increase to $14.3 billion in 2018.

There’s also a $2 fee per policy that goes into a new medical-research trust fund called the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Insurers pay a 3.5 percent user fee to sell medical plans on the HealthCare.gov Web site.

But wait, there’s more!

Americans also will pay hidden taxes, such as the 2.3 percent medical-device tax that will inflate the cost of items such as pacemakers, stents and prosthetic limbs.

Those with high out-of-pocket medical expenses also will get smaller income-tax deductions.

Americans are currently allowed to deduct expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their annual income. The threshold jumps to 10 percent under ObamaCare, costing taxpayers about $15 billion over 10 years.

High out-of-pocket expenses, you say? Hey, wait a second… don’t those newfangled “Affordable” Care Act plans feature enormous deductibles? Why, I’ll bet a whole lot of Sainted Middle Class folks are going to get stuck with a bigger tax bill next year because of that. Shucks, you’d almost think it was a deliberate deception to hide yet another tax increase from them.

And of course, ObamaCare includes a tax leveled specifically at “millionaires,” a term redefined by the Democrat Party to mean people who earn $200,000 a year or more:

Under ObamaCare, individual tax filers earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 will pay an added 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on top of the existing 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax. They’ll also pay an extra 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, such as investment dividends, rental income and capital gains.

A new tax on capital gains smuggled into the “health care” bill… that’s just what a weak economy struggling to emerge from the endless Obama non-recovery needed.

Instead of ruining so many people’s lives with poorly written mandates and blowing billions of dollars on bug-riddled federal and state exchange websites, Obama could have been honest in 2009 and simply proposed a huge Medicaid expansion, plus the tax increases needed to fund it. But that level of honesty is anathema to socialists. Their schemes always have to be dressed up as technocratic masterworks, brilliant plans that will not only fix the problems they love to exaggerate – in this case, the number of Americans who were involuntarily uninsured – but restructure and improve everyone’s life, at no cost to the Sainted Middle Class.

Obama’s Big Lies were designed to fool voters into thinking ObamaCare would be essentially voluntary – you’d be able to keep everything the way it was if you wanted to. You probably wouldn’t want to, because ObamaCare would be so super-awesome that its plans would go flying off the virtual shelves, but if you weren’t sold on entering the system, you could keep your old plan and your preferred health care providers.

In reality, none of that is true, and you wont’ be able to escape the ObamaCare tax avalanche, either. This is just the beginning, too. Wait until insurance companies caught in the death spiral of expensive, older, sicker customers buying Affordable Care Act policies, while the young and healthy take a pass on their planned shakedown, causes the industry to come looking for a bailout… which will probably be financed with deficit dollars… which will turn into irresistible demands for tax increases in a couple of years. Wait until the federal government pulls the Medicaid rug out from beneath your state, obliging the state government to soak you for more tax revenue. Wait until an army of desperate low-income ObamaCare policy holders begins crying out for relief from their huge deductibles, shaken at last from the delusion that Obama was going to give them “free medicine.”

Every fountain of government benefits is also a siphon into taxpayer wallets. In 2014, the ObamaCare siphon will begin rumbling to life. In the years to follow, you’ll be amazed at how hard it can suck.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Confront Obama’s Tyranny: General Calls for Massive March on Washington

The retired American military commander who earlier said in a statement released to WND that Americans need to confront Barack Obama’s tyranny now is recommending the Egyptian model through which to do that.

The Egyptian model, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely explained on a podcast of an Internet radio show, was that 33 million people stood up to their government and told officials no.

The result was that the Egyptian Muslim Brother was removed from power and then-President Mohammed Morsi was removed from office, Vallely explained.

His call for a massive march on Washington came recently on the WBTM (We Become The Media) show.

He was asked whether America can be restored as the shining light on the hill for freedom when the electoral process, which resulted in two presidencies for Obama in 2008 and 2012, “are known to be corrupt.”

Vallely said the absence of leadership in the White House and Congress makes it difficult, and he said, “I’m not even sure our traditional process will straighten our government out in time to save us.”

And he said processes like impeachment simply won’t happen.

Then he suggested the Egyptian model, and he said millions of Americans need to “stand up” to Washington “within the next 12 months.”

He said doing nothing is not an option, because Washington won’t fix itself and “hope is not a strategy.”

“We need something … a no confidence vote,” he suggested. And perhaps legislation that could create a national recall process.

“We need to get off our derrieres, march at the state capitol, march in Washington,” he said. “Make citizens arrests.”

He said when there are those who are “conducting treason … violating the Constitution, violating our laws,” it should not be overlooked.

“When you have a president and his team who don’t care about the Constitution, they will do anything they can to win,” he said.

Vallely has been immensely popular among tea party organizations that are seeking a way to restore the rule of law to Washington.

Among other things, they cite the Obamacare law, and the 15 or more times Obama has changed the law – without consulting Congress.

In a statement earlier to WND, Vallely said a vote of no confidence could be used.

The founder of Stand Up America, an organization that provides education resources for leaders and activists based on the values of the Founding Fathers, said:

“Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history,” Vallely said. “It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence. It’s time for a ‘recall.’”

Vallely believes the “credibility of our current leadership is gone.”

Now, he said, “we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies and all manner of chicanery.”

He admitted there is no legal authority in a vote of no confidence, but he argued it will “take back the power of discourse.”

“What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?” he asked.

Vallely believes impeachment likely wouldn’t lead to conviction and doesn’t solve the problem, anyway.

“Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton’s day, forget about a finding of guilty,” he wrote. “Incidentally, if Obama was found guilty and removed from office, Joe Biden would step in, Valerie Jarrett still wields all the power, and likely we get more of the same.”

The Constitution can be amended without going through Congress, he pointed out, but it would take too much time, “a luxury we just do not have it we are going to save our republic.”

“That brings us to the other word no one wants to utter, revolution. In our opinion, this is the least palatable option. … Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route,” he said.

Vallely listed a sampling of Obama’s broken promises and lies, crediting Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine:

- His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)
- His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn’t.)
- To be the most transparent presidency in history. (He’s not.)
- To put an end to “phony accounting.” (It started almost on Day 1 and continues.)
- And to restore trust in government. (Trust in government is at near-historic lows.)
- His pledge to seek public financing in the general election. (He didn’t.)
- To treat super-PACS as a “threat to democracy.” (He embraced them.)
- His pledge to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. (It remained above 8 percent  for the longest stretch since the Great Depression.)
- To create five million new energy jobs alone. (The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)
- To identify all those “shovel-ready’ jobs. (Mr. Obama later chuckled that his much-hyped “shovel-ready projects” were “not as shovel-ready as we expected.”)
- To lift two million Americans from poverty. (A record 46 million Americans are living in poverty during the Obama era.)
- His promise to bring down health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family (they went up) … allow Americans to keep the health care coverage they currently have (many can’t) … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act (it did) … to respect religious liberties (he has violated them) … and the insistent that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).
- Obama’s pledge to stop the rise of oceans. (It hasn’t.)
- To “remake the world” and to “heal the planet.” (Hardly.)
- To usher in a “new beginning” based on “mutual respect” with the Arab and Islamic world and “help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.” (Come again?)
- To punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons. (The “red line” was crossed earlier this year – and nothing of consequence happened.)
- That as president “I don’t bluff.” (See the previous sentence on Syria.)
- And of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)
- And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup polling.)
- Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.)
- And his counsel to us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker’s wife.)

“It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people,” Vallely said. “We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder. … Then on to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – the architects who shoved Obamacare down our throats. We also cannot forget John Boehner and company who openly castigate the tea-party caucus which are only doing that which they campaigned upon.”

Vallely quoted commentator Andrew C. McCarthy, who said that “absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up. … and absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed.”

Vallely noted that while the U.S. Constitution lacks a provision for a “recall” at the federal level, “there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for contempt of Congress, violations of oath of office and of the Constitution itself – for all the reasons stated in such a resolution.”

He warned of growing “tyrannical centralized rule” without action.

There may be advances in the 2014 elections, but will that be a solution?

“Obama is still the president, and his Cabinet and appointees still remain in power. … Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record shows us that no matter what the make-up of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator,” Vallely said.

“When that does not work, he will manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run by fiat, choosing winners and losers.”

Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.

WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.

“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”

Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.

Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”

“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.

A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.

“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”

Gowdy noted that a liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, agrees.

WND reported Turley’s concerns earlier this month.

Turley has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “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 act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “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.”

Turley explained that the “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,” he said. “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.”

Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.

Vallely explained that a “no confidence” vote now “would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!”

Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Vallely explained that a “no confidence” vote now “would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!”
Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/u-s-general-calls-for-massive-march-on-congress-white-house/#5WOHJH9cmZbjYkrY.99

Grinch Still Trying to Steal Christmas

From: Creators.com

by - Phyllis Schlafly


  The Grinch was a bitter, grumpy hermit who tried to steal Christmas from kids in a famous 1950s children's story. Unfortunately, the Grinch has reemerged to try to take Christmas away from schoolchildren.

The Grinch is so nasty today that his actions could be prosecuted under our hate crime laws. The law defines hate crimes as those characterized by hate, or even bias, committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of religion and ... you know the other protected categories.

All over the country, Grinches masquerading as school superintendents have been banning the traditional singing of Christmas carols and nativity displays, and insisting the word "winter" be substituted every time the word Christmas is used (e.g., "winter vacation").

The Grinch ignores the fact that federal law makes Christmas a national holiday. There are no laws or even court decisions that prohibit schoolchildren from singing Christmas carols.

The superintendent at Bordentown Regional School District in New Jersey ordered that "religious music should not be part of the elementary programs." So songs about Frosty, Rudolph and mommy kissing Santa Claus can be sung at the school's "winter" concert, but not songs about the Infant Jesus or even "Silent Night."

Grinches at Osgood Intermediate School in Kings Park, N.Y., used a different tactic of censoring words out of "Silent Night" before fifth-graders were allow to sing it. Edited out were "holy infant," "Christ the Savior is born" and "'round yon virgin, mother and child." The school's principal has since apologized for this travesty.

The Grinch has even imposed his anti-Christian extremism on U.S. judges. A federal judge in San Diego just ordered the famous 43-foot-tall Mount Soledad Cross to be dug up and removed from a veterans' memorial, where it has been honored since 1913.

Although the cross is certainly a Christian symbol, the memorial is surrounded by symbols of other faiths, such as 18 Stars of David. The cross is also surrounded by 3,000 granite plaques honoring individual heroes from all our wars.

In 2004, Congress passed a law dedicating this cross as a national memorial honoring veterans of the United States Armed Forces "who sacrificed their lives in the defense of the United States." In 2006, the federal government took title to the property.

Government support of the cross diminished after Barack Obama became president.

Obama has given repeated examples of his aggressive campaign to make us a scrupulously secular nation, such as omitting the words "under God" from his recitation last month of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address for a PBS documentary.

The military is getting the message that it must be in harmony with the secularist bias of the commander-in-chief. The Grinch, under the name Military Religious Freedom Foundation, showed up at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to complain about a nativity display set up by a group of volunteers in the base's chapel.

The Air Force took the nativity scene down within two hours and 15 minutes of being contacted. Who knew the Air Force would so promptly obey orders from protestors?

Extraordinarily fast action also resulted when the U.S. Navy announced this week that it will remove two nativity displays from dining halls at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base because 18 service members sent an email to alert the Grinch at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

The commanding officer said, "No one's ever complained to me about it. We've been doing it for 19 years," but he promptly removed the nativity displays and moved them to the chapel.

Two Baptist chaplains said they were forced out of a Veterans Affairs chaplain training program after they refused orders to stop praying in the name of Jesus and quoting the Bible. They were subjected to ridicule and harassment that led to one of the chaplains leaving the program and the other being ejected. They are now suing.

The one-year training program is required for anyone wanting to work as a VA hospital chaplain. The San Diego trainer is openly hostile to Christianity; the lawsuit accuses her of instructing chaplains to not pray in the name of Jesus or quote from the Bible. It tells you all you need to know about the trainer's bias when the lawsuit reports that she told the class she believes God could be either man or woman.

Ho! Ho! Ho! The Grinch is getting nowhere in Texas. Its legislature almost unanimously passed the "Merry Christmas Law" requiring schools to allow traditional Christmas festivities, including songs, trees, nativity scenes, the colors red and green and the now-controversial words "Merry Christmas."


God bless,
and Merry Christmas,
JohnnyD