General calls for massive march on Washington
'We need to get off our derrieres. ... Hope is not a strategy'
Read
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.”
Sign the petition urging Congress to pursue impeachment right away!
“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.)
Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.
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.
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.
See the Hannity segment:
Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/12/u-s-general-calls-for-massive-march-on-congress-white-house/#JA37DTflgEE9C4Oj.99
General calls for massive march on Washington
'We need to get off our derrieres. ... Hope is not a strategy'
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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment