Operation launched in DC to implement radical solution
(Tea Party) – It has been an on-going question: what can Americans do about the unconstitutional and illegal actions allegedly committed by Obama.
A multitude of solutions have been put forth including calling for the president’s resignation and impeachment as well as marches and hearings.
One look at the polls and it is clear that Americans, no matter what party they belong to, are upset with the direction of the country. The question is: what can they do to make a difference?
Ret. Maj. Gen Paul Vallely, chairman of Stand Up America has been the forerunner in encouraging Americans to take action. But now, Vallely has a battle plan that could be the silver bullet. The former deputy commanding general of the US Army in the Pacific, Vallely is calling for a House-led, parliamentary type of vote of “no confidence” in Obama’s administration.
In an email to supporters, Vallely wrote: “I have already achieved a level of ‘no confidence’ in Obama as a leader, but now I urge you to examine this concept,” “If you agree with me that all confidence is lost, I urge you to then ask yourself what is in the realm of the possible. I implore you to push aside the urge to try and fix everything in one fell swoop.
“Now is the time for something a dear friend calls ‘conviction without eviction,’ an end that can be brought on through a vote of no confidence, locally, statewide and nationally,” said Vallely. “This is just a first step in what can only be repaired over time, but it is achievable in the short term and starts to remove Obama’s ability to continue his ruinous ways now.”
Vallely’s battle plan was posted in a Dec. 15 blog where he explained he already has a key figure on the ground in Washington working to make it happen.
The general quoted a “prominent DC insider” with whom Vallely’s organization is working with but who prefers to remain anonymous for now as he confers with potential House co-sponsors on rationale and logistics for the “no confidence” vote for which he offers the following justification:
“First, in most of the world’s so-called ‘democracies’ – actually, multi-party constitutional republics – a formal vote of ‘no confidence’ by the Lower House suspends or greatly limits the governing authority of the party in power and, in a ‘recall’ of sorts, mandates new elections within 30-60 days,” the insider reportedly reasons. “Although we have no such instrument in our Constitution or in existing law, 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 of the reasons stated in such a resolution.
“Second, it would be much easier to cosponsor [than impeachment articles], to be formally adopted by the House and to achieve what might be called Obama’s ‘conviction without eviction’ – in which wholesale repudiation by the House, loss of control of the Senate and a substantial diminution of power and influence during his remaining time in office would be the penalties.
“We know there is no legal standing in a vote of ‘no confidence’ that would come of this act, but at least one thing will certainly occur: We take back the power of discourse,” says the insider. “What do we do? We conduct a national ‘vote of no confidence.’”
“We cannot possibly believe that impeachment is attainable, and we know he will never resign,” Vallely adds, “but at least we can show other leaders the way; show our collective voices that we have no confidence in [Obama].”
In addition, Vallely believes that such a move would defuse some of the partisan finger-pointing that has infiltrated DC and infectiously spread throughout the country.
“You are not calling anyone names, or labeling others. You are not trying to encapsulate each and every event,” he explains. “Rather, what you are doing is telling the world that ‘I have no confidence in him or his team anymore.’ They cannot take that away from you or attack you for it.
“A vote of ‘no confidence,’ albeit symbolic, at least focuses the discussion on something you can own as I own. This ownership is in your opinion; one based in fact and close analysis, not in emotion, ‘talking points’ or ulterior motives,” Vallely continued. “If asked or challenged tomorrow by his supporters that my lack of confidence is a political ploy, I will say, ‘No, I own my conclusions, I own my opinions and I have a deep sense of no confidence in Obama.’
“The House of Representatives must follow our lead and take up a resolution of no confidence,” contends the general.
Tea party organizations, in particular, have been major proponents of Vallely’s calls to action as they’ve been seeking ways to restore rule of law to our nation’s capital.
Among some of Obama’s actions cited as disregard for law and Constitution are Obamacare and the changing of the law at least 15 or more times by Obama without consulting Congress.
“What else is our nation to do now that the rule of law has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration?” inquires Vallely. “How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?”
Vallely cites a list of Obama’s broken promises and lies per Peter Wehner, Commentary Magazine. Obama promised or committed to:
- Refuse to allow lobbyists to work in his administration
- Slash earmarks
- Be the most transparent presidency in history
- End “phony accounting
- Restore trust in our government
- Seek public financing in the general election
- Treat super-PACS as a “threat to democracy”
- Prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent
- Create 5 million new energy jobs alone
- Identify “shovel-ready’ jobs—which he later laughed at
- Lift 2 million Americans out of poverty
- Drop health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family … let people keep their health coverage if they liked it … not fund abortion via Obamacare … respect religious liberties … and insisted the mandate to buy insurance with financial penalties for those who don’t was not a tax
- Stop the rise of oceans
- “Remake the world”; “heal the planet”
- 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.” (We ask “WHY?”)
- Draw a red line and punish Syria if it crossed the chemical weapons “red line”
- Proclaimed he would not “bluff” (See Syria red line)
- Promulgated with pomp and circumstance a Russian reset
- Ensured he would bring the country together
- Put an end to politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism”
Obama has broken every one of these promises or has lied about them.
Americans will not forget he instructed them to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” Yet, it was Obama’s campaign allies who 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 continued, “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.”
Charges that Obama is violating the Constitution are being addressed by some members of Congress.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-SC., has reported that 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?” Gowdy said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”
Among the offenses Gowdy cited are Obama’s deliberate decisions to ignore immigration laws despite Congress not approving the changes. In addition, Gowdy also cited the arbitrary, at-whim changes to the Obamacare law and “recess appointments” of judges even when the Senate was clearly not in recess.
Gowdy is proposing that Congress take the White House to court over President Obama’s actions. This would be done through a resolution that Rep. Tom Rice, R-GA., proposed authorizing the House to sue the Obama administration. The resolution has 30 co-sponsors.
Rice explained that it is 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,” said Rice.
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 also referenced liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley who agrees that Obama has overstepped his authority saying that Obama is a danger to the Constitution. Turley was recently asked during a House Judiciary Committee hearing how Obama’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty of the American people. His response was “The danger is quite severe. He is becoming the very danger Congress was designed to avoid. That is a concentration of power.” He added that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”
Turley further expanded on his comments saying, “There are two trends going which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of powers under 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 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown in 1998. He has handled many high-profile, precedent-setting cases, including successfully defending Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. He has consulted for homeland security and his articles have appeared in the New York Times and USA Today.
At that same House Judiciary Committee hearing, Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute suggested, “There is one last thing people can resort to if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places on government.” He is referring to our revolutionary right to overthrow it as Abraham Lincoln talked about. “That is certainly something 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 acknowledged that it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try and impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”
By all measures a “no confidence” vote would send a powerful message around the world: America recognizes the mess Obama and this administration have created, the destruction and havoc they have wreaked upon America and its allies, and we unequivocally do not support his actions. Without that action, Vallely says, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”