Will Obama Close Congress?

Could Obama close Congress and convene a Constitutional Convention in which a new constitution is formulated, but also a new Congress with new (unelected) representatives and a new more powerful executive?

Far out?

It already happened in Venezuela and Ecuador.

It seems to be the modus operandi for the Marxist takeover of Latin America and Africa as one nation after another follows this same pattern.

And here is how it works:

A new leftist leader takes power (like Obama).

A ‘referendum’ is held to have ‘the people’ decide for the need of a new Constitutional Convention in order to modify the existing constitution.

The referendum is approved by ‘popular’ vote.

The Constitutional Convention happens.

Instead of the local constitution being simply modified…a totally new constitution is created and approved.

The Constitutional Convention then instead of disbanding, turns around and declares the seated Congressmen as null and void under the new Constitution and seat new representatives in their place.

The capital police is then called to encircle the congressional building and keep the legitimate congressmen out in the street as the new ‘congressmen’ seat themselves.

New ‘elections’ are rapidly held to seat the new Congress under the new Constitution.

These ‘elections’ are crooked and illegitimate and facilitated by electronic voting and tallying machines.

The new Congress then opens its doors the following day beaming at the newly empowered President and giving him full support.

The whole operation is nothing but a glorified coup enforced by the capital police and tolerated by a military that is either bought out, infiltrated or clueless.

It’s also an act that could easily result in civil war – local authorities and armed forces might not see the new government as illegitimate.

So far no civil war has erupted in countries where it has taken place.

But think about it.

Could it happen here?

Talk is already in the air about OUR Constitution being obsolete - about America needing a new Constitution for modern times.

Bush called the Constitution ‘a piece of paper.’

Obama seems to have no regard for it.

The American People have no idea what’s in it.

The states regularly toss their 9^th and 10^th Amendment rights at the feet of the federal government.

We already have a Marxist President - just like Ecuador and Venezuela do.

So why not?

The key event here is ‘constitutional convention.’

And the truth is the workings of an upcoming Constitutional Convention are well underway…

…by the treacherous states themselves.

Did you know that 32 of the 34 states required to launch a constitutional convention have already signed up to request one?

This has been happening in a very low key fashion between the 1975 and 1982.

Did you know all those ‘requests’ have no expiration date, but are cumulative until the ¾ majority is reached?

Did you know that only New York and California’s refusal to apply is keeping the ‘convention’ from happening?

Well now you know.

I always considered a new Constitutional Convention in this country a joke until I started noticing Marxist governments using the method time after time to gain absolute power in countries within Africa and Latin America.

All without much fanfare from the American or European media.

Good examples of the method are illustrated  by the fall of Ecuadorian and Venezuelan democracies to Marxist dictatorship via what they called “constitutional assemblies” – their word for a constitutional convention.

Let’s look at the standard methodology of swiping away representative government.


We really must look closely at the examples of Venezuela and Ecuador BECAUSE THE EXACT SAME THING COULD HAPPEN HERE.


The people running the show here now are the same people running the show in those two defunct democracies (closet Marxists).

President Chavez coups the Venezuelan Government and Constitution in 1999:

Complaining that the original constitution lacked enough protections for ‘the people’ Chávez called for a referendum to approve the call for a new constitutional convention .

During the referendum an amazing 90% of participating voters approved the need for a constitutional convention [results were supplied by crooked Diebold electronic voting machines owned by Chavista allies].

Following this approval, a special election was held in which the members of the constitutional convention were elected.

Of the candidates standing for election to the constitutional convention, half were opponents of Chávez. In spite of this, Chavez supporters got 95% of the seats to the convention [through the use of Diebold electronic voting machines owned by Chavez cronies].

With this crookedly elected majority of ‘Chavistas’ making up the constitutional convention, the convention voted to give themselves the power to abolish government institutions (because a new constitution might require this) and dismiss government officials (which inhabited said abolished government institutions).

So basically what you had was a convention filled with closet Marxists with the power to abolish the Venezuelan Government.

The constitutional convention put together a new constitution which concentrated government in and gave unprecedented powers to the president.

A second referendum was then held on whether to adopt the new constitution or not.

Disillusioned with the canned voting results, half of the voting population did not even bother to vote in this second referendum.

Of those voting, 72% approved the new constitution [again through the use of fraudulent Diebold electronic voting machines].

The new constitution increased the presidential term to six years and converted the bicameral legislature into a communistic unicameral ‘National Assembly’ – and eliminating all competing ‘branches of government.’

The new constitution increased the powers of the presidency by extending its term and empowering the president with the power of issuing executive orders on civil rights, economic affairs and financial matters –  in effect it empowered a government based on executive mandate.

It also charged the Army with maintaining public order as a tool of the president.

The new constitution basically transformed Venezuela into a military dictatorship under Chavez.

[paragraph transcribed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez]

The country of Ecuador suffered its own constitutional crisis and resolution in 2007 which seemed to have been drawn from the same game plan as Venezuela.

President Correa Abolishes the Constitution and Closes Congress in 2007:

Following several criticisms of Ecuador’s Constitution, President Correa proposed a referendum on whether to hold a constitutional convention in order to effect changes.

Congress approved the idea for a referendum.

As the referendum was taking place, President Correa modified the "statutes" of the referendum (illegally) to giving much more power to the constitutional convention than originally stated.

One of these powers was the ability to dismiss Congress.

The referendum passed (once more through the use of Diebold electronic voting machines).

The newer version of the referendum’s only call to legitimacy was its approval by the newly appointed seven-seat Electoral Tribunal which was to rule on all matters related to the referendum and convention.

Congress reacted by trying to impeach the President of the Electoral Tribunal.

The electoral tribunal then removed the 57 members of Congress responsible for the attempted impeachment.

The situation escalated to a feud between the opposition in Congress and the President and his supporting Electoral Tribunal, ending with police intervention to prevent the Congressmen from entering the legislative building.

Congressmen and women trying to reenter the Congress were literally beat into the ground by capital police.

Alternate deputies were sworn in to replace the expelled congressmen.

The new majority pledged to support the referendum on the Constitutional Assembly.

Ecuador’s Supreme Court made a move to reinstate 51 of the 57 Congressmen who had been removed by the Electoral Tribunal’s mandate, but before the congressmen had the chance to reenter the legislature, the new Congress removed all nine judges of the Supreme Court.

Correas ascendancy to power had been dominated by masses of ‘demonstrators’ who surrounded, threatened and even beat up judges, congressmen and bureaucrats without any police interference.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Correa)

Please note how in all the above cases it is the newly created ‘assemblies,’ ‘tribunals’ and and ‘conventions’ which usurp the power of the duly constituted congress.

It is the newly appointed or elected institutions designed to  carry out and uphold the convention that end up getting rid of the government.

A Constitutional Convention is an institution that is a lot more powerful than the name originally suggests.

It HAS to be powerful because it is charged with two duties:

1)    write a new constitution

2)    enforce the adoption of the new constitution by carrying out the necessary changes in the structure of government.

Without the second power, a Constitutional Convention is basically just a think tank.

You can bet that when the new Constitution was ratified in 1789, the existing unicameral 13 member National Congress that existed under the Articles of Confederation was shut down – probably by a polite ARMED guard.

It is this POWER of the Constitutional Convention that is never taken into serious consideration.

A Constitutional Convention is given the power not only to write a new constitution, but to enforce its adoption.

Frequently this means an abolition of existing government institutions.

This is a necessary part of the convention process.

Let me put it another way.

What would happen if a constitutional convention creates a new constitution which does not include a supreme court…and the supreme court refuses to step down.

What happens now? Nothing? Does a stand off develop?

No.

Under these circumstances, the supreme court is vacated by FORCE under the order of the Convention.

Now let me refer you to another very erudite gentlemen.

Vincent Gioia is an astute and informed observer of the Constitutional scene.

Below is an edited version of what he has written in his blog at

http://vincentgioiasblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/constitutional-convention-there-are-no.html

I highly recommend you visit this site and see what this author has to say about an upcoming Constitutional Crisis.

For now here is an edited version of what he talks about in his website:

Vincent Gioia writes on the dangers of a Constitutional Convention:

The point is that at a Constitutional Convention anything can happen and any prior agreements agreed upon by states or limitations imposed by states as a condition for approval have no meaning.

In other words, if there is a Constitutional Convention the one we have lived with for over two hundred years and which guarantees our individual rights can be scrapped and replaced by the people gathered at the convention with no recourse by the states or the people.

Article V of the Constitution is the basis for a Constitutional Convention:

“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 State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Pay special attention to the second method of ratification: "by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress."

This seems to allow the congress by a simple majority vote to propose either form of ratification: either by 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 3/4 of "conventions" in the states.

Although Amendments to the Constitution until now originated in Congress and were circulated to the states for ratification…

…Article V says that an alternative to this procedure is for two thirds of the states to call for a Constitutional Convention at which the constitution may be amended or rewritten.

A call for a Constitutional Convention requires only 34 states.

At present 32 states have issued a call by their legislators.

So if two more states approve,  our individual rights and freedom from government control of our lives could be ended.

A careful reading of Article V shows there is no provision for selecting attendees to the Convention.

Do the states choose who will represent them, or does congress?

Who picks the members of the "state conventions?"

How are delegates selected? How are the rules governing these state conventions determined?

Are the "state conventions" held in the individual states, or by delegates sent to the Constitutional Convention?

Will the U.S. Supreme Court be the final arbiter of these questions?

Although Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana, have rescinded their applications, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must still call a Constitutional Convention whenever 2/3 (or 34) of the states apply.

The Constitution makes no provision for rescission.

Furthermore, with the precedents of disallowing of the rescinding of votes for ratification, and the extending of deadlines, it seems like almost any outcome could be attained, including an entirely new Constitution.

Some are of the belief that advocates of the convention are waiting to capture just two more states.

They can challenge the other states’ rescissions in the courts while going ahead with the Convention.

Congress alone then decides whether state legislatures or state conventions ratify proposed amendments (see Article V above).

If there is no expiration date, all of the calls for a Constitutional Convention regarding a Balanced Budget that were initiated in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s are still valid.

There is legal precedent for this.

For example, the Twenty-seventh Amendment was proposed in 1789 and ratified more than 200 years later in 1992.

On May 20, 1992, both houses of Congress adopted concurrent resolutions accepting the 27th Amendment’s unorthodox ratification process as having been successful and valid.

Certainly many of us want government constrained by a balanced budget. But attempting to accomplish this by means of a Constitutional Convention risks a revolutionary change in our form of government.

Despite the fact that these states premised their call for a Constitutional Convention on the desire to have an Amendment requiring a balanced budget, it should be clear by now that once a Constitutional Convention is in session any and all changes to the Constitution may be proposed an offered for passage, thereby revising the constitution in ways not anticipated by states calling for a convention.

What may be at risk if socialists and liberals dominate the Convention; very likely the Second Amendment, revision of the First Amendment; and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WorldNet Daily the possibilities [of a Constitutional Convention] stunned him. "In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention!

Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen.

Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself."

Remember too that Barack Obama believes the Constitution is flawed and says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago.

It must be kept in mind that the best way to shut down Congress and keep it closed is through a Constitutional Convention.

Many justifications are being put forth in Washington’s inner circles about the need for a new or modified Constitution.

Many Congressmen like Arizona “Republican” “Conservative” Paul Gosar have already given up on the Constitution (see video below).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U46MkU_-_wE&feature=player_embedded

A new Constitution is needed to address important issues like….

…a constitutionally mandated balanced budget

…more equitable wealth redistribution

…a guaranteed minimum standard of living

…minority rights

…elimination of the 15^th Amendment (which provides citizenship to anyone born here)

…direct election of the presidency (versus the present electoral college system)

The thing about a new Constitutional Convention is that it is a ‘insider’ topic – there is a lot of talk about it in Washington…but hardly any of it reaches the American public…which is kept in the dark by the Illuminati media.

All in all, talk of a Constitutional Convention is taboo – most everybody is clueless when it comes to this topic…including most supposed conspiracy pundits.

So will Obama close Congress?

If he is a Marxist agent, just like President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, why shouldn’t he?

If there is one thing that distinguishes the Illuminati it is a robotic march with tradition.

Basically the same ideology and methodology born in the French Revolution, carried through the Russian Revolution and reaching the Venezuelan and Ecuadorian ‘revolutions’ is probably the same modus operandi planned for us.

Please note that the French and Russian Revolutions both grew out of a ‘constitutional’ change within their respective governments – new governments that basically turned over those countries to the Illuminati.

Again, the modus operandi has not changed.

When you seek what to expect of the Illuminati, the answer in many cases seems to be more of the same.

Expect Obama’s second term to be one of attempted Constitutional change and the abolishment of Congress as we know it.