Dem Lies, Memes, Bush and WMD to Fit Lack of ME Policy

Editor’s Note – As we see Obama spin and twist the story about Russia entering the war in Syria as a sign of Russian weakness, he deflects by calling his detractors’ ideas as “half-baked” and “mumbo jumbo”, and apparently he forgot about Hillary Clinton’s idea for a “no-fly” zone.

Major Garret posed that question to him yesterday and his answer called for a quick two-step and then referred to the fact that she being a candidate and being President were two different things.

“Hillary Clinton is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems,” Obama said carefully, reminding reporters she served in his administration as Secretary of State. But Obama pointed out that Clinton’s rhetoric on Syria is merely campaign rhetoric.

“I also think that there’s a difference between running for president and being president,” he said carefully, pointing out that he was having specific discussions with his military advisors about the right way forward in Syria. “If and when she’s president, then she’ll make those judgments and she’s been there enough that she knows that, you know, these are tough calls,” he said. (Read more here at Breitbart.)

Classic Obama deflection, or twist in the wind like he has done on almost everything Iraq related, including sticking to old lies and societal memes that have long since been disproved as bunk. But it is not just Obama dancing fast and loose with the facts, it seems every single Democrat is as well. Victor Davis Hanson shows us the proof below and reminds us of the stunning flips and flops, lies and half-truths, and stark regularity you can bank on at a Reno Casino in all likelihood.

The Left would rather forget its old slogan, “Bush lied, thousands died.”

By Victor Davis Hanson – National Review

The very mention of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Iraq was toxic for Republicans by 2005. They wanted to forget about the supposed absence of recently manufactured WMD in great quantities in Iraq; Democrats saw Republican defensiveness as key to their recovery in 2006.

george w

By the time Obama was elected, the issue had been demagogued to death, was no longer of any political utility, and so vanished.

So why all of a sudden is the New York Times strangely focused on old WMD stockpiles showing up in Iraq? Is the subtext perhaps that the rise of ISIS poses an existential threat in such a dangerous landscape (and by extension offers an explanation for the current bombing)?

Or are we to be reminded that Bush stirred up a WMD hornets’ nest that Obama was forced to deal with? Or is the sudden interest intended to preempt the story now before we learn that ISIS routinely employs WMD against the Kurds? How strange that Iraq, WMD, bombing, and preemption reappear in the news, but now without the hysteria of the Bush era.

Indeed, for the last two years, reports of WMD of some sort have popped up weekly in Kurds and Iraq. Bashar Assad has used them, apparently with strategic profit, both in deterring his enemies and in embarrassing the red lines of Barack Obama, who had threatened to bomb him if he dared use them.

ISIS is rumored to have attempted to use mustard gas against the Kurds. Iraqi depots are periodically found, even as they are often dismissed as ossified beyond the point of easy use, or as already calibrated and rendered inert by either U.N. inspectors or U.S. occupation forces. But where did all the WMD come from, and why the sudden fright now about these stockpiles’ being deployed?

For much of the Bush administration we heard from the Left the refrain, “Bush lied, thousands died,” as if the president had cooked intelligence reports to conjure up a nonexistent threat from Saddam Hussein’s stockpiles of WMD — stockpiles that Bill Clinton had insisted until his last days in office posed an existential threat to the United States.

Apparently if a horde of gas shells of 20th-century vintage was found, it was then deemed irrelevant — as if WMD in Iraq could only be defined as huge Iraqi plants turning out 21st-century stockpiles weeks before the invasion.

The smear of Bush was the bookend of another popular canard, the anti-Bush slogan “No blood for oil.” Once the fact that the U.S. did not want Iraqi oil was indisputable, that slander metamorphosed. Almost immediately the Left pivoted and charged that we were not so much oil sinister as oil stupid.

If the Iraqi oil ministry, for the first time in its history, was both acting transparently and selling oil concessions to almost anyone except American companies, it was now cast as typically ungracious in not appreciating the huge American expenditure of blood and treasure that had allowed it such latitude.

Was the Iraq War then a stupid war that helped Russia and the Chinese? Poor Bush ended up not so much sinister as a naïf.

Although we don’t hear much any more about “No blood for oil,” the lie about “Bush lied, thousands died” has never been put to rest.

What was odd about the untruth was not just that Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and the anti-war street crowd become popular icons through spreading such lies, but that the Democratic party — whose kingpins (Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, et al.) had all given fiery speeches in favor of invading Iraq — refined the slur into an effective 2006 talking point.

That Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid had looked at the same intelligence from CIA Director (and Clinton appointee) George “slam-dunk” Tenet (who authored a self-serving memoir ankle-biting George W. Bush while still in office), and had agreed with Tenet’s assessments, at least until the insurgency destroyed public support for the war, was conveniently forgotten.

The Bush administration did not help much. It never replied to its critics that fear of stockpiled WMD had originally been a Clinton-administration fear, a congressional fear, an international fear — and a legitimate fear.

I suppose that the Bush people wanted the issue of WMD to just go away, given the insurgency raging in Iraq and the effective Democratic campaign to reinvent fear of WMD as a sinister Bush conspiracy. (Do we remember Colin Powell’s U.N. testimony and the years that followed — cf. the Valerie Plame/Richard Armitage fiasco — in which he licked his wounds while harboring anger at his former associates for his own career-ending presentation?)

In sum, the Bush White House certainly did not remind the country that most of the Clinton-era liberal politicians in the 1990s had warned us about Iraqi WMD (do we even remember the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act?).

Nor were we reminded that foreign leaders like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak had predicted mass death for any invaders who challenged Saddam’s WMD arsenal. (“General Franks, you must be very, very careful.

We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has WMD — biologicals, actually — and he will use them on your troops.”) Was part of the Bush administration’s WMD conspiracy forcing tens of thousands of U.S. troops to lug about chemical suits and masks in the desert?

No one, of course, noted that the initial success in Iraq also helped shut down Moammar Qaddafi’s WMD program in Libya and pressured the Pakistanis to arrest (for a while) the father of their bomb, Dr. A. Q. Khan. The latter nations apparently feared that the U.S. was considering removing dictators who that they knew had stockpiled WMD.

The current The Iran-Iraq War by Williamson Murray and Kevin Woods is a frightening reminder of how Saddam massacred the Kurds (perhaps well over 150,000 killed), often with gas, and how habitual was Saddam’s use of WMD against the Iranians in that medieval war.

Nor do we remember that James Clapper, in one of his earlier careerist contortions as a Bush-era intelligence officer, along with top-ranking officials in both the Iraqi and Syrian air forces, all warned us that WMD were stealthily transferred to Syria on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.

The dutifully toadyish Clapper added the intensifier adverb “unquestionably” to emphasize his certainty. Clapper, remember, went on to become Obama’s director of national intelligence and a key adviser on much of the current Obama Middle East decision-making, including the near bombing of Syria.*

So there were stocks of at least older WMD throughout Iraq when we arrived in 2003, and it was plausible that many of the newer and more deployable versions somehow found their way into Syria.

So worried was Barack Obama about the likelihood of Syrian WMD that he almost started a preemptive war against Bashar Assad, but without authorization of Congress and with no attempt to go to the U.N., as Bush had done. (Indeed, we are now preemptively bombing Iraq on the basis of the 2002 authorizations that state legislator and memoirist Barack Obama derided at the time.)

There were all sorts of untold amnesias about Iraq. No one remembers the 23 writs that were part of the 2002 authorizations that apparently Obama believes are still in effect.

They included genocide, bounties for suicide bombers, an attempt to kill a former U.S. president, the harboring of terrorists (among them one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers), and a whole litany of charges that transcended WMD and were utterly unaffected by the latter controversy.

How surreal is it that Obama is preemptively bombing Iraq on twelve-year-old congressional authorizations that he opposed as trumped up and now may be relevant in relationship to dealing with Syrian and Iraqi stockpiles of WMD?

We forget too how Harry Reid declared the surge a failure and the war lost even as it was being won. Or how Barack Obama predicted that the surge would make things worse, before scrubbing such editorializing from his website when the surge worked.

Do we remember those days of General Betray Us (the ad hominem ad that the New York Times, which supposedly will not allow purchased ad hominem ads, granted at a huge discount), and the charges from Hillary Clinton that Petraeus was lying (“suspension of disbelief”)?

As Obama megaphones call for national unity in damning Leon Panetta’s critiques during the present bombing, do we remember the glee with which the Left greeted the tell-all revelations of Paul O’Neill, George Tenet, and Scott McClellan during the tenure of George W. Bush, or how they disparaged the surge when Americans were dying to implement it?

It is hard to recall now the fantasy climate that surrounded “Bush lied, thousands died.” Cindy Sheehan is now utterly forgotten. So mostly is the buffoonish propagandist Michael Moore, except for an occasion tidbit about a nasty divorce and cat fights over his man-of-the-people sizable portfolio — and occasional attacks on Barack Obama’s supposed racial tokenism.

Hillary’s shrill outbursts about Iraq evolved into “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Barack Obama rode his anti-war distortions to the presidency only to adopt his own anti-terrorism protocols and preemptive wars using the Bush-era justifications, but without the candor and congressional authorizations.

The media went from “No blood for oil” and “Bush lied, thousands died” to noting strange discoveries of WMD and trumpeting near energy independence.

The U.S. is now nonchalantly referred to as the world’s largest oil producer, but largely because the Bush administration green-lighted fracking and horizontal drilling, which the present administration opposes and yet cites as one of its singular achievements in terms of lowering gas prices — the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal economic record.

So we live in an era of lies about everything from Benghazi and Obamacare to the alphabet soup of scandal and incompetence at the IRS, ICE, VA, USSS (Secret Service), NSA, GSA, and even the CDC.

But before we can correct the present lies, we should first address the greatest untruth in this collection: “Bush lied, thousands died” was an abject lie.


NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.


* Here is an excerpt from the October 2003 New York Times story:

The director of a top American spy agency said Tuesday that he believed that material from Iraq’s illicit weapons program had been transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by the Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the recent war.

The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material “unquestionably” had been moved out of Iraq.

“I think people below the Saddam Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse,” General Clapper, who leads the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said at a breakfast with reporters.

13 Words Only? Abedin Under Sen. Judiciary Comm. Scrutiny

Editor’s Note – Hillary, Hillary, Hillary! At what point does America as a whole declare the Clinton era over – once and for all? Democrats, is this the best your party can offer?

Everything associated with the Clintons reeks, and yet, so many in America still support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for President. She cannot be trusted on anything, and now we have rules for the press on what we can say or print about her?

The same person who erased her entire email server, was fired from the Watergate investigation for lying, and the myriad other scandals is just plain “unethical” and is the epitome of the now infamous list of the 13-words her supporters say we cannot use:Untitled

Amy Chozick, political reporter for the NY Times, received an email warning from a group called HRC Super Volunteers, “You are on notice that we will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism.” To that end they gave Ms. Chozick a list of 13 word she cannot use to describe the former Secretary of State.

According to HRC Super Volunteers the 13 sexist words are “polarizing,” “calculating,” “disingenuous,” “insincere,” “ambitious,” “inevitable,” “entitled,” “over-confident,” “secretive,” “will do anything to win,” “represents the past,” “out of touch,” and “tone deaf.”

We would like to add a few more words these “Super Volunteers” missed like corrupt, conniving, devious, narcissistic, untrustworthy, shady, nefarious, unscrupulous… the list could be pages long; great assets for the Oval Office, yes?

Everyone associated with her also reeks of corruption, whether it is Sidney Blumenthal , and his ‘leaked’ emails on her spy network, her husband and ‘Orgy Island,’ their foundation collecting foreign money, Sandy Berger with his smarmy, sticky fingers, and now her one-time confidential aid and shadow, Huma Abedin is finally getting the scrutiny she deserves.

It appears that Abedin, the woman closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood was also a “special” employee, double-dipping as Senator Grassley is alleging.

Hillary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, Huma Abedin, worked on the editorial board of a Saudi-financed Islamic think tank alongside a Muslim extremist accused of financing al-Qaida fronts.

The extremist, Abdullah Omar Naseef, is deeply connected to the Abedin family. Naseef is secretary-general of the Muslim World League, an Islamic charity known to have spawned terrorist groups, including one declared by the U.S. government to be an official al-Qaida front.

Now that Harry Reid is ‘over,’ is there any person with a “D” after their name more loathsome and corrupt? Where is that Department of Justice? “Even Nixon didn’t destroy the tapes” – Reince Priebus.

Senate GOP asking new questions about emails for Clinton and Abedin, who had special employment status

From Fox News

Senate Republicans are renewing efforts to learn why Huma Abedin, a top assistant to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was allowed to keep working at the agency under a special, part-time status while also being employed at a politically-connected consulting firm.

The new requests are being made by Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, following revelations that both women used a private Internet server and email accounts for State Department correspondence.

Grassley says the earlier requests to the department have been largely ignored, so the new ones have gone to the department’s inspector general and to Secretary of State John Kerry, seeking their involvement.

Grassley’s probe started in 2013, when he requested all communications between Abedin, after she switched from a full-time deputy chief of staff for Clinton to a part-timer, then started working for Teneo, a consulting firm that says it “brings together the disciplines of government and public affairs.”

FILE: Feb. 22, 2008: Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., with chief of staff Huma Abedin in Fort Worth, Texas. (REUTERS)
FILE: Feb. 22, 2008: Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., with chief of staff Huma Abedin in Fort Worth, Texas. (REUTERS)

A July 2013 letter from the department to Grassley, provide by the senator’s office, states Abedin worked full-time from January 2009 to June 2012. It also states Abedin did not list outside employment upon ending her full-time employment and that the department retained her as an adviser-expert at the hourly rate of a SGA GS-15/10.

The most recent available federal documents show the rate as $74.51 with a maximum pay of $155,500 annually.

“A number of conflict-of-interest concerns arise when a government employee is simultaneously being paid by a private company, especially when that company (is) Teneo,” Grassley said in the March 19 letter to Kerry that also raised concerns about Abedin and other department employees appearing to have been “improperly categorized” as special government employees, or SGEs.

Grassley says he specifically wants to know “what steps the department took to ensure that … Abedin’s outside employment with a political-intelligence and corporate-advisory firm did not conflict with her simultaneous employment at the State Department.”

The letter to department Inspector General Steve Linick also questions whether the department’s “excessive” use of SGE designations undermines ethics standards and if Clinton and Abedin’s private emails have the potential to impede the department from fulfilling Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests, over which the upper chamber’s Judiciary Committee has legislative jurisdiction.

Grassley says the department’s answers have so far been “largely unresponsive” and points to a November 2014 response that in part states “an individual may receive an SGE designation if he or she is joining the department from the private sector or is coming from another government position.”

However, Abedin came neither from the private sector nor another government position, Grassley argues.

“She converted from a full-time employee … with seemingly little difference in her job description or responsibilities,” he wrote.

Grassley also argues that the purpose of the SGE program is to help the government get temporary services from people with special knowledge and skills whose principal employment is outside the government.

However, Abedin essentially kept the same job and was subsequently hired by Teneo and the Clinton Global Initiative.

“It is unclear what special knowledge or skills Ms. Abedin possessed that the government could not have easily obtained otherwise from regular government employees,” Grassley wrote.

The State Department says Abedin was an SGE until February 2013, essentially doing the same job that she did as a full-time employee, advising on Clinton’s schedule and travel. It also states she reviewed department ethics guidelines but was allows to work part-time without a new security clearance.

Grassley also says the department’s current use of the SGE designation “blurs the line between public and private sector employees” and that department employees getting full-time salaries for what appears to be part-time work is “especially troubling.”

“The taxpayer deserves to know,” Grassley wrote.

'Rule of Rulers' – Coburn: 2013, Most Unproductive, Damaging

Editor’s Note – The author of the following article in the Wall Street Journal, Tom Coburn, is a Republican Senator from Oklahoma and is most famous for his annual “Waste Book.” Along with his focus on government waste, fraud, and abuse, he highlights other major negative issues that happened in 2013 here.

SUA agrees with Coburn that 2013 is perhaps not only the least productive year in government in recent memory, but we add that it may also be the most damaging to America since 1913, the year of the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, and changing the method for choosing Senators by popular vote. (Amendments 16 and 17)

Of these, it is the opinion of SUA that besides the Obama administration’s ‘rule of rulers’ tactics that circumvent the Constitution and Congress, and the ObamaCare lies and fraud, the next worse issue was the complete failure of Congress and its abysmal approval rating in 2013. However, it is disingenuous of the media to constantly group all in Congress as a monolithic bloc upon which the low approval rating is discussed or polled. Why?, because Congress has been reduced to a one man show – the Harry Reid Show.

Harry Reid wields his "Iron Fist" control over America's legislative needs. The "Rule of Rulers"!
Harry Reid wields his “Iron Fist” control over America’s legislative needs. The “Rule of Rulers”!

No matter your political stripe, Harry Reid surpasses Obama in singularly ruling America with an iron fist. If a more scientific poll were performed, one conducted on each house of Congress separately, and by the individual in both, the picture would be stark. The left can talk about the Tea Party Caucus as if it were an alien being, and blame the Republicans for everything because of them, but the actual troll at the bridge has been, and continues to be, Harry Reid.

Painting all of Congress with a broad brush is a favorite talking point of Obama, and his willing minions do not care that he includes his supporters in his invective words. They will say and do anything for their ideological goals and control freak nature – all at the peril of “We the People” and our Republic. By lumping them as one, they achieve success with their misconception, misinformation, and demagogic tactics to confuse you the American citizen into believing their tripe.

Please read on and comment below:

Tom Coburn: The Year Washington Fled Reality

‘Message discipline’ can win elections but is not a healthy way to run a country.

By Tom Coburn –WSJ Online

The past year may go down not only as the least productive ever in Washington but as one of the worst for the republic.

While the Senate debates the bipartisan budget plan, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a longtime deficit hawk, outlines his annual “Wastebook,” which points a critical finger at billions of dollars in questionable government spending, Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2013, during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
While the Senate debates the bipartisan budget plan, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a longtime deficit hawk, outlines his annual “Wastebook,” which points a critical finger at billions of dollars in questionable government spending, Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2013, during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

In both the executive branch and Congress, Americans witnessed an unwinding of the country’s founding principles and of their government’s most basic responsibilities.

The rule of law gave way to the rule of rulers. And the rule of reality—in which politicians are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts, as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan liked to say—gave way to some politicians’ belief that they were entitled to both their own opinions and their own facts. It’s no wonder the institutions of government barely function.

On health care, President Obama oversaw a disastrous and, sadly, dishonest launch of his signature achievement. The president gave an exception to employers, but not to individuals, without any legal basis, and made other adjustments according to his whim. Even more troubling was his message over the past three years that if you like your plan, you can keep it, and that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. We now know that the administration was aware that these claims were false, yet Mr. Obama continued to make them, repeatedly.

In 2014, millions of Americans will likely discover that the president’s claim that the average family will save $2,500 on health insurance was equally disconnected from reality.

The president apologized in part for his statements, but his actions reveal the extent to which he has conformed to, rather than challenged, the political culture that as a presidential candidate he vowed to reform.

The culture that Mr. Obama campaigned against, the old kind of politics, teaches politicians that repetition and “message discipline”—never straying from using the same slogans and talking points—can create reality, regardless of the facts. Message discipline works if the goal is to win an election or achieve a short-term political goal. But saying that something is true doesn’t make it so. When a misleading message ultimately clashes with reality, the result is dissonance and conflict. In a republic, deception is destructive. Without truth there can be no trust. Without trust there can be no consent. And without consent we invite paralysis, if not chaos.

Taking unilateral, extralegal action—like delaying the employer mandate for a year when Mr. Obama realized the trouble it would cause for businesses—is part of a pattern for this administration. Immigration and border-security laws that might displease certain constituencies if enforced? Ignore the laws. Unhappy that a deep-water drilling moratorium was struck down in court? Reimpose it anyway. Internal Revenue Service agents using the power of the state to harass political enemies? Deny and then stonewall. Unhappy with the pace of Senate confirmations for nominees? Ignore the Constitution and appoint people anyway and claim that the Senate is not in session.

The Obama administration hardly has a monopoly on contributing to Washington’s dysfunction. Congress more than earned its 6% national approval rating, a historic low.

Congress’s most significant action this year was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to undo 200 years of precedent that requires a supermajority to change Senate rules. To speed the approval of executive appointments and judicial nominations, Sen. Reid resorted to raw political power, forcing a vote (52-48) that allows the Senate majority to change the rules whenever it wants. In a republic, if majorities can change laws or rules however they please, you’re on the road to life with no rules and no laws.

The supermajority safeguard that prevented senators from destroying the institution in which they serve is now largely gone. Gone also are members of the majority who understood the need to protect minority rights. There are no more Robert Byrds to quote Cicero, who said, “In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power.”

Instead, we have a majority leader who has appointed himself a Rules Committee of one. Referring to the right of the minority to offer changes to bills under consideration, Mr. Reid said: “The amendment days are over.” Like President Obama, Mr. Reid is great at message discipline but weak on the rule of law and reality. His narrative about Republican obstruction of appointees is a diversion from his own war against minority rights. Even before his wrecking of the supermajority tradition, Mr. Reid had already used Senate rules to cut off debate and prevent the minority from offering amendments 78 times—more than all other Senate majority leaders combined.

On the budget, Democrats and Republicans alike are celebrating the avoidance of another nihilistic government shutdown as a great victory. The choice to not commit mass political suicide may be a step toward sanity, but it isn’t reform. Solving the problem—fixing entitlements, reforming the tax code and consolidating the government’s $200 billion in duplicative spending—would be reform. Yet as my annual Wastebook report showed, even in this year of budget-sequestration anguish, the federal government still managed to fund the study of romance novels, provide military benefits to the Fort Hood shooter and even help the State Department buy itself Facebook FB +0.97% fans.

If Congress wants to get serious, and be taken seriously, it can start by doing its job. It can debate and pass individual appropriations bills—a task that Congress has not completed in eight years. And perhaps Congress can cut some of the stupidity in government spending. The House deserves some credit for trying—it passed four appropriations bills—but the Senate deserves none. Mr. Reid did not pass a single appropriations bill in 2013, thus shielding vulnerable members of his party from having to make tough votes.

How the nation’s leaders perform in Washington is a reflection of the country, and culture, they represent. Moral relativism and postmodern disregard of truth has been promoted by academia for decades; sometimes it seems that the best students of that thinking can be found in Washington. We live in a time when laws and rules are defined however the holders of power decree, and “messaging” is paramount, regardless how far the message is from reality.

The coming year presents an opportunity to Americans who hope for better. Despite Washington’s dysfunction, “We the People” still call the shots and can demand a course correction. In 2014, here’s a message worth considering: If you don’t like the rulers you have, you don’t have to keep them.

Mr. Coburn, a Republican, is a senator from Oklahoma.

The “Uber-Presidency” – Time for a ‘Vote of No Confidence’, Time for a ‘Recall’

By Paul E. Vallely (Major General, US Army, ret.)

Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history. 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’.

MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)
MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)

We are only surviving now, not thriving, and it is clear that the country is demanding new leadership; not the ones the media and the entrenched political machines force upon us.

America is seeking proven leaders, those who are experienced, trustworthy, and loyal; people like our retired military officers. These are the only ones unsullied by political debt or tainted by monied obligations. At this crucial moment, these are the only people who can do the job.

It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people. 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.

Vote+Of+No+Confidence+424127_226493830782362_1728183

Power likes to stay in power; we need to remove that power. The party in power under Obama has synchronized itself to one party rule, no other voice is permitted. It has also synchronized to a ‘single payer system.’

It is also time we reminded the Republican establishment that if not for the Tea Party, Nancy Pelosi would still be wielding the gavel in the House and Obama would be unrestrained beyond our wildest fears.

It has been just over one year since Obama was re-elected; do you think he would win if he had to face another election today with what we know now? Of course not! In less than a few months it is all unraveling and America has lost confidence in him.

Many who once supported him are now running for the hills. We were defrauded, America, and people are finally noticing and understanding what we have been telling you for five years.

Promise after promise, fraud after fraud, lie after lie, deception after deception, and then there are all those hidden items and the complete joke about being the most transparent administration ever. Even photographic journalists are now mad at how little access they get. Then there is the complete lack of accountability and stark ineptitude, home and abroad.

Let’s look at some of these examples

Excerpted from Obama’s Long List of Broken Promises. By Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine.

(This is obviously not all of the examples, but certainly it is a good sampling of the more outrageous ones. Some items were shortened for space.)

  • His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)boehner-pelosi-gavel-6390459ec62786beaa7e7ddb24240052a1d8c7d7-s6-c30
  • His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn’t.)
  • To be the most transparent presidency in history. (It’s not.)
  • To put an end to “phony accounting.” (It started almost on day one 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 insistence that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).
  • Obama’s pledge to stop the rise of the 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.)
  • gty_eric_holder_obama_thg_120620_wgAnd 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 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.)

In his latest treatise on these subjects, Impeachment Lessons, Andy C. McCarthy tells us:

“Just as there is no mystery in Obama’s disregard for the Constitution, there is no secret about the Constitution’s answer to executive imperialism.

The Framers recognized that presidential abuse of power carried the greatest potential to wreck the republic.

Adamant that the presidency they were creating must not become a monarchy, they carried on debates over the Constitution that were consumed with precluding this very real possibility.

In the end, the Framers armed Congress with two responsive weapons: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment.

As we have seen through the years, the power of the purse is not a practical check on Obama. In the main, this is because the Framers, notwithstanding their prescient alarm over the problem of factions, did not anticipate the modern Left.”

Obama-constitution-burningAndy further states:

While Democrats quite intentionally defy the Framers’ design, Republicans frustrate it by aggressive passivity. The Constitution divides power by subject matter, not percentage of governmental control.

Nevertheless, Republicans incessantly tell supporters that, since they control only the House (just one-half of one-third of the government,” as the tired refrain goes), they are impotent to rein in Obama’s excesses.

Republican leadership turns on those conservatives with a ferocity rarely evident in their dealings with the president.

Two things, however, are certain. 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. (Read the whole column here.)

This “ferocity” was never more revealing than in a statement John Boehner made yesterday (excerpt from Fox News):

Ahead of the vote, Boehner sparred with the right flank of his party over the bill, produced out of weeks-long bipartisan negotiations. He specifically criticized conservative advocacy groups trying to pressure the rank-and-file to block the budget.

quotes-about-motivational_16828-1“Frankly, I think they’re misleading their followers,”… “I think they’re pushing our members into places where they don’t want to be. And frankly, I just think that they’ve lost all credibility.”

To which Matt Kibbe at Freedom Works responded:

“Speaker Boehner may not care about what fiscally conservative groups do, but grassroots Americans still care about what he’s doing in Washington…

When it comes to ‘credibility,’ actions speak louder than words. And right now, it looks like the Speaker is leading the charge for spending increases and recruiting Democrat votes in the House to help get it done.”

Time for a vote of “NO CONFIDENCE,” time to “RECALL” such faux leadership

A prominent Washington, D.C. insider with whom Stand Up America is coordinating — and who prefers to remain under the radar for the moment while conferring with potential House co-sponsors on both the basic rationale and the detailed content of such a House Resolution of NO CONFIDENCE — offers the following justification for this novel course of action:

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.

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, while most of the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” cited in pending Resolutions of Impeachment (and perhaps in new resolutions seeking Judicial Relief) would also be included in this Resolution, many lesser and largely “non-impeachable” reasons for disappointment, doubt, distress, distrust and detestation would be entirely appropriate – and would not require the high levels of legal proofs for a formal Impeachment by the House or for a formal Trial and Conviction by the Senate.wpid-UFPnews-tea-party-patriot-american-conservative-freedom-liberty-research-revolution-speech-universal-free-press-people-Obamacare-1

In effect, it would be much easier to cosponsor, to report to the House, 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.

Third, the “no confidence” targets of the Resolution will be so numerous as to require a dozen or more categories – within each of which several particular offenses will be briefly described and become what lawyers call the “Bill of Particulars” – which might number an incredible 60-75 items in all.

The credibility of our current leadership is gone, and now we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies, and all manner of chicanery. 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.

We strangle those in power with our words loudly drowning out the tortured logic of their rhetoric and seize the day now. This includes the media.

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?

What are we to do now that Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, has abolished the filibuster through the use of the ‘nuclear option’, effectively allowing yet another power grab by the executive branch?

These are but a few points to ponder as our nation races headlong into tyrannical centralized rule if we do not act now.

disciplinary procedure guide-resized-600Our nation is being kidnapped and we effectively have only a few ways to stop it. But these ways have many road blocks, and they take way too long to affect change. The founders never envisioned career politicians running any government, let alone a complicit media openly favoring one ideology.

They also did not anticipate technological advancements that created a 24-hour news cycle and such ease of communication. Therefore they did not give the people enough ‘teeth’ in the Constitution. This effectively allows groups to monopolize the discourse and apply tactics to further weaken the people.

The current administration and the Democrat Party know this and manipulate the system to prevent the people from gaining recourse for grievances. Republicans, although less nefarious by orders of magnitude, engage in some of these tactics, but they do not have the will to fight, especially against such entrenched enemies of the state.

This prevents the people from ultimately recouping their power so eroded these past 100 years, and specifically these past five despite the success of 2010 that gave the House back to Republican control.

Though the actual voting booth is less than a year away, does anyone have any confidence that this time, their vote will actually matter? Even if the Republicans retake the Senate, Obama is still the President, and his cabinet and appointees still remain in power.

A veto proof majority is very likely not in the cards as well, so who knows what the Republicans would be able to do, let alone ridding America of the destruction the ObamaCare has wrought upon us. Obama vowed that it would never be overturned while he remains in the Oval Office.

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.

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

He will also further escalate the placement of his ideological kin into permanent positions within government, each able then to permanently run their operations ideologically as has been done in the IRS, DHS, DOJ, and more.

There are ways to rid America of these types but short of the vote we speak of, would they work?

Lie of the YearOn Tuesday, December 3rd, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the president’s duty to uphold the law. Why? Well the committee’s chairman, Bob Goodlatte, R-VA, said:

“President Obama has blatantly disregarded the Constitution’s mandate to faithfully execute the laws…

He has changed key provisions in Obamacare without congressional approval, failed to enforce our immigration and drug laws, and ignored his constitutional duties for the sake of politics.”

In that hearing, four witnesses testified and one in particular has spurred much talk of the word that shall not be spoken, the “I-word,” or impeachment. He was none other than Georgetown Law Professor, Nicholas Rosenkranz. He said:

“The ultimate check on presidential lawlessness is elections and, in extreme cases, impeachment.”

In his well crafted piece in the National Review Online, Jonathan Strong added the following:

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a frequent guest of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow during the Bush years, described the situation in severe terms.

“I really have great trepidation over where we are headed,” Turley said. “We are creating a new system here…The center of gravity is shifting, and that makes it unstable.

Within that system you have a rise of an uber-presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. And I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift.”

The situation, Turley later said, is the “most serious constitutional crisis, I believe, in my lifetime.”Jonathan-Turley

Impeachment however is not an option. Why, because Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton’s days, forget about a finding of guilt. 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. What else is available?

Some call for a set of Constitutional amendments, a process that can take place without Congress as the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon tells us:

“There is a procedure in the Constitution that allows the people to amend the Constitution without going through Congress. That is another method where the people can try to restrain the executive.”

Once again however, what confidence can we have in securing that device for use to correct Obama’s misdeeds and lies? Besides, it would take a very long time; a luxury we just do not have if 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.

This is an option we abhor and do not support in the least. Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route. So what do we do? We conduct a national “Vote of No Confidence.”

Like the parliamentary procedure that Great Britain uses, a vote of no confidence means a new election must take place there.

The Prime Minister is powerless after such a vote, and though our vote would not have that full effect, it would at least tell those who live behind the “Iron Curtain” that is the DC Beltway that ‘we are not pleased,’ as the Queen would say.

It 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!

Join us at Stand Up America US, it is time for a vote of “No Confidence!”

____________________

CONTACT Information:

For comment or request for interviews, please send an email to contact@standupamericaus.org.

The Big Default Lie – Obama Scare Tactics, Blame Game

Editor’s Note – With all the scare tactics being employed by the administration over the continuing resolution (CR) deadlock and the looming debt ceiling issue, it is apparent that the truth is in rare supply. Political ‘optics’ are clearly the driving force and its just abominable.

The White House continues to blame the Republican membership in the House, especially the Tea Party Caucus, and continually lambastes Senator Ted Cruz, but who really is at fault for the so-called shut down and impasse? What is for certain is that the those who constantly employ scare tactics and the blame game are the ones who are indeed to blame. Guilt transference for political game is the artifice of the coward and scoundrel.

Now the big talk is about America’s status on the global economic stage and what the true meaning of default really is; who cares if the Chinese are concerned. They see a political ploy as well and will use any leverage to make us look bad, so isn’t President Obama and Harry Reid actually shouting fire in a crowded theater? Read the facts below, stay informed and stop allowing America’s low-informed folks from being manipulated for political game.

Again, it is their stock in trade to scare and blame, because they know who is really to blame! It is time to hold the President, Harry Reid and John McCain responsible for their lies and personal attacks on our elected representatives in the House and Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, et al.

Obama’s Big Lie-There Won’t Be Default Unless HE Ignores Constitution (We’re Already Over Debt Limit)

From Yidwiththelid

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. US Constitution, Amendment 14 Section 4

 The President is doing his best to frighten Americans and our creditors by claiming if the GOP does not capitulate to his demands and “cleanly” raise the debt ceiling we will default on our debt, damaging forever the full faith and credit of the United States. Simply put, that is a lie!

debt-ceiling

In fact we are already over the debt limit and the sky hasn’t fallen. The present debt limit is $16.999 trillion. According to Treasury Direct, the Dept. of Treasury’s website the US has already surpassed the debt limit by over $47 trillion.

If the October 17th deadline is passed without an increase in the debt ceiling it simply means the government can’t borrow money and has to “live” on the tax revenue it takes in each month (about $250 billion). Interest on the federal debt runs about $20 billion each month leaving money left to run parts of the government.

Screen Shot 2013-10-09 at 8.22.07 AMForbes’ Jeffery Dorman describes one way for the remaining dollars to be spent

The federal government estimates it will collect almost $3 trillion in revenue for the fiscal year that runs from October 1, 2013 until September 30, 2014. Below I demonstrate one possible way the federal government could institute some priorities and spend only the amount it receives in revenue.

To begin with, the interest on the national debt must be paid. I will budget $240 billion for that. The White House is guessing a little lower, but interest rates have been rising, so I will play it safe. Next, social security payments should run about $860 billion. Place that as the second priority and we already have spent $1.1 trillion of the $3 trillion we have.

Holding Medicare spending to about its fiscal year 2013 total and making some small cuts to Medicaid and other health spending would keep health care spending by the government to $860 billion. This does not include additional spending for the Affordable Care Act, but we need to prioritize and I am making it a lower priority than the health spending we have already been incurring. Also, there is no need for extra spending for the Affordable Care Act before January 1 since the coverage does not start until then. So as long as the debt ceiling is raised before then, there is no problem.

Veteran’s benefits will cost another $140 billion if we leave it unchanged. Department of Justice programs and general government functions add another $83 billion if their spending levels are held roughly constant. We can save some money by cutting science funding to $10 billion and international affairs spending to $13 billion which is enough to operate the State Department and embassies, but not pay foreign aid. This takes total spending to $2.2 trillion.

If the debt ceiling deadline is missed the federal government will have to prioritize spending. And despite the scary verbiage, there will not be a default unless Obama himself decides to ignore the constitutional direction that interest on our debt comes first.

Obviously nobody believes deficit spending should be brought down to zero immediately that would be irresponsible and will eventually damage the economy. On the same hand if the debt assuming that a debt ceiling freeze is not a permanent fix and lasts just a short while, the government can operate and our debt can be serviced without a blow to the US economy.

The damage will come when, just as he did with the sequester and the shutdown, Obama acts like a spoiled angry child and prioritizes government spending in a way that will cause the most “hurt” to the American people.

UPDATE Moody’s Agrees

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.