Trump asks if Democrats ‘love our country’ amid ongoing impeachment hearing

Trump asks if Democrats ‘love our country’ amid ongoing impeachment hearing

By: Brett Samuels

President Trump on Wednesday questioned whether Democrats love the country in light of the ongoing impeachment inquiry in the House.

The president tore into Democrats during a meeting with the Italian prime minister at a NATO gathering in London. The House Judiciary Committee was simultaneously holding a hearing in Washington on impeachable offenses with constitutional law experts as Trump spoke.

“These people, you almost question whether or not they love our country and that’s a very, very serious thing: Do they, in fact, love our country?” Trump asked, criticizing the timing of the hearing.

The president and his allies have expressed frustration over Democrats holding the hearing on the same day he is meeting with world leaders, accusing them of doing so purposely. There is no evidence the overlap was intentional.

“To do it on a day like this where we’re in London with some of the most powerful countries in the world having a very important NATO meeting, and it just happened to be scheduled … on this day, it’s really, honestly it’s a disgrace,” Trump said.

Trump bashed Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) — three of the Democrats leading the impeachment proceedings — as “losers” and predicted that many Democrats would vote against impeachment because of political consequences.

He reiterated his belief that the impeachment proceedings will benefit Republicans in the 2020 election, particularly in swing districts. Polling has shown voters are split on whether they support impeaching Trump, though support has dipped slightly among independents.

The House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday issued a report alleging Trump abused his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his domestic political rivals. Democrats accused the president of conditioning a White House visit for the Ukrainian president on a public announcement of those investigations.

The report alleges Trump “placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.”

The document serves as a roadmap for the House Judiciary Committee, which could draw up articles of impeachment against Trump in the coming weeks.

“I saw it and it’s a joke,” Trump told reporters when asked about the report, noting that Fox News personalities and “legal scholars” have dismissed the report.

Trump has defended his conduct with Ukraine, insisting his actions did not meet the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors laid out in the Constitution.

“There was no crime whatsoever, not even a little tiny crime,” he said.


…”Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with A light from above”…

National Security Will Trump any Impeachment Endgame

 

National Security Will Trump any Impeachment Endgame

Impeachment and Its Effects on National Security of America

By: Paul E. Vallely MG US Army (Ret)

December 2, 2019

The House impeachment inquiry is set to move into a new, more public phase in the coming weeks. President Trump’s impeachment defense strategy will prevail. President will be charting an unbeatable offensive strategy and ensuring the impeachment Endgame will fail. Some say that President Trump is swimming in uncharted waters as he may become the first president to seek reelection after being impeached. Don’t hold your breath.

The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism and the militarization of our foreign policy, the CIA and DOJ. But these isolated cases have not provided a framework for understanding the extent of the shadow government, how it arose, the interactions of its various parts, and the extent to which it influences and controls the leaders whom we think we choose in elections.

If you don’t know what the Deep State is then, perhaps you are part of it. We know, of course, that the liberal Deep State that lurks within our government is and always has been hellbent on destroying President Trump and preventing him from making America great again. And we know for certain that Deep State weasels fabricated the whole Russia and Ukraine HOAX and myth.

There will be a reckoning- a reckoning of the Deep State and its operatives. A question has been proposed to me regarding the impact on US National Security as a result of the impeachment inquiry and proceedings. push by the Socialist Democrats and the media. Will foreign actors like China, Russia and Iran and the EU and others pursue actions detrimental to our National Security. How will US National Security be impacted and undermined by impeachment proceedings?

The President for weeks now has insisted there was nothing wrong with his July 25 call with Ukraine’s president and urged hesitant Republicans to defend him on the substance of the charges against him. The socialist Democrats (the likes of Schiff and Pelosi) are using the Ukraine issue as part of the rational to pursue impeachment. This will be unfounded in the weeks to come. These purveyors of impeachment really believe the Ukrainian issue threatens our national security and Constitution. Trump has signaled he is ready to dig in, even floating in an interview that he might read the transcript of his Ukraine call in a “fireside chat.” The President expressed confidence that the public aspect of the hearings would help his case.

First and foremost, National security is a corporate term covering both national defense and foreign relations of the U.S. It refers to the protection of a nation from attack or other danger by holding adequate armed forces and guarding state secrets. The most important role of the federal government is protecting our citizens from national security threats. This means creating a strong system for defense both at home and abroad. The United States should continue to act as a defender of freedom and a staunch supporter of our allies worldwide despite the internal, domestic infighting that is occurring. I assure you that President Trump will not falter in this battle and our national security will not be impacted.

Measures taken to ensure U.S. national security include:

Next Steps for U.S. Strategy

The President and his national security team are rightly focused on the essential issues, yet it is also clear that many of those challenges are far from resolved. There is a clear continued requirement for the application of all instruments of U.S. power. Further, the U.S. will continue to stretch itself in order to be actively and simultaneously engaged in all three core regions. In addition, many regional issues spill over into competition into other areas. For instance, the Arctic is a region of increasing competition with China and Russia. The U.S. is also concerned about destabilizing Chinese and Russian activity and interference in Africa and Latin America.

With these concerns in mind, the next iteration of U.S. strategy must address not only key regional initiatives but must ensure that critical instruments of American power are prepared to respond appropriately globally with sufficient scope and influence. Rebuild the “America First” US deterrence to preserve peace through strength must be our Nation’s top priority.

Stability of Key Regions. Addressing threats abroad helps the U.S. to avoid consequences at home. Promoting stability in critical regions prevents conflict there from cascading in ways that affect America. Stability abroad also provides for a free and secure global marketplace, which redounds to the benefit of Americans. Conversely, open warfare in areas where inter-state tensions are prominent—and the capability of adversaries the greatest—would have a major negative impact on the United States.

The U.S. must be present or have the capacity to project power to protect its interests worldwide. The U.S. is anything but the world’s policeman or a global babysitter. America must be prudent in the application of power. Three key regions link America to the world—Europe, the Middle East, Central and South America and the Indo–Pacific. These are also regions with a preponderance of U.S. friends, allies, and strategic partners with significant political, economic, and military power. Beyond

The Obama/Biden approach to handling world affairs and U.S. security during the eight years of their administration failed — with global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and human suffering rising and global freedom retreating. Additionally, communist China increased its activities against the United States, and according to the CIA World Factbook, emerged as a strong global power.ps that the. should take. The research presented focuses on high-pay-off, feasible, and suitable U.S.s that will further the objectives of the NSS and improve national

It’s rather remarkable that Biden, who was the architect and champion of many of these failed foreign policies, would deign to label the incumbent U.S. President as an existential security threat when so many foreign policy calamities happened on his watch. President Trump won a free and fair presidential election by offering American voters a stark change in direction from the Obama/Biden globalist policies and the established D.C. national security and crony capitalist order. He promised to avoid unnecessary future wars, curb illegal immigration, have recalcitrant international allies pay their fair share for common defense, redo trade deals that harm American businesses and consumers, and serve as Free World leader in protecting American interests and people. It is how a constitutional republic should operate. And if President Trump poses an existential threat to anyone or anything it’s to the Obama/Biden way of doing things, not to U.S. national security.

The United States is a global power with global interests and global responsibilities. America needs a strategy to match. In particular, the government must safeguard the nation’s three top vital interests—defense of the homeland, stability in critical regions, and preservation of the right of states to freely transit the global commons. All three goals are best served by effective U.S. actions in three crucially important parts of the world—the Indo–Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East.

In December 2017, the Trump Administration released its National Security Strategy (NSS).

The strategy is well suited to the task of protecting the nation’s vital interests. Further, rather than just a document for public consumption, the Administration has sought to follow the strategy like a blueprint for keeping the U.S. free, safe, and prosperous in a changing and challenging world. The United States cannot eliminate every bad actor, right every wrong, or correct every perceived injustice in the world. That is impossible. But the United States can contribute to building a world order in which the rule of law, the integrity of national borders, democratic capitalism, freedom of the seas, democratic self-government, human rights, and international trade prevail, not as guaranteed outcomes but as opportunities.

MG Vallely is the Chairman of the Stand Up America Foundation and a contributing member of the War Room

…”Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with A light from above”…

 

Get Ready to See The Show America!



Latka has a taxi problem.

Goodwin: Impeachment trial is the ace up President Trump’s sleeve

 

Here’s my slam-dunk choice for the Quote of the Year: “I want a trial.”

The President of the United States said that Friday morning, and his title alone would be reason enough to make it the most significant thing said in 2019. But there’s much more to it because Donald Trump’s demand highlights the historically unique set of circumstances he and the nation face in 2020.

As of now, the new year will feature an impeachment trial in the Senate followed by the presidential election. If Trump survives Democrats’ effort to remove him, he would be the first impeached president to face voters again.

Andrew Johnson, impeached in 1868, was later denied his party’s nomination for a second term. Bill Clinton won his second term before he was impeached.

While there’s some skepticism that Trump really wants to put everything on the line over allegations involving his dealings with Ukraine, I’m convinced he’s ­serious.

I’m also convinced he’s crazy like a fox. Given the flimsy allegations and the unfair, one-party nature of the House process, beating impeachment in the Senate seems close to a sure thing. And doing so would dramatically boost Trump’s chances of getting four more years.

Indeed, it’s probable that as impeachment goes, so goes the election.

Of course, there’s no question Trump would much prefer the House not brand him with the “I” word, but that’s a pipe dream.

If Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff can’t muster 218 votes on a set of articles after five long days of public testimony and hyperbolic assertions that the president is an existential threat to the world, Trump will claim he’s been exonerated. Who could blame him?

Pelosi can’t let that happen, having picked her poison by embracing the whistleblower complaint before she saw the transcript of Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine. Turning back now is not an option, so she’ll beg, bribe and twist the arms of any reluctant Dems to get to 218.

That vote will probably come in December, with a Senate trial starting in January.

There, the president will enjoy all the advantages Schiff denied him in the House’s kangaroo court. Most important, Trump starts with 53 GOP senators in the jury, and with a super-majority of 67 votes required for conviction, Dems need to flip 20 of them. That assumes they can hold all Democrats, which is not certain.

In addition to Trump having home-field advantage, a Senate trial, presided over by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, would be expected to follow federal rules on evidence and procedures.

One clear change from the House: no hearsay testimony. Thus, much of what passed for evidence there — and spurred the most sensational headlines — would not be permitted in the ­Senate.

For another, Trump’s lawyers would have wide latitude in a witness list and would use it to turn the tables on Democrats, the resistance and the Bidens. Trump likes nothing more than being on offense, and his aim would be to put his accusers on trial.

Already the president has named three people he wants grilled, starting with Hunter Biden and his lucrative gig on the board of Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian energy company, while his father was vice president.

Some sample questions Hunter Biden can expect:

  • Is it true you were discharged from the Navy for cocaine use months before being named to Burisma in 2014?
  • Do you speak Ukrainian?
  • What do you know about energy exploration and markets?
  • How many board meetings did you attend?
  •  Is it true you were paid more than $3 million over five years?
  • How much more?
  • Did you discuss the job with your father?
  • Did you ask your father to intercede in Ukrainian politics to help Burisma?

Joe Biden is already showing the strains, blasting Sen. Lindsey Graham for asking the State Department for documents relating to Joe Biden’s calls with Ukraine’s then-president and his own documented efforts to oust a prosecutor.

“Lindsey is about to go down in a way that I think he’s going to regret his whole life,” Joe Biden told reporters.

Actually, you would assume Biden might be filled with regret, given the shameful way his son profited from his father’s position.

Moreover, there are legitimate questions about the 2016 anti-Trump campaign waged by Ukrainian officials and oligarchs, which included millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Were the payments to Hunter Biden and the foundation aimed at buying Democrats’ silence over Ukrainian corruption? What does Joe Biden know about that effort?

Trump also wants to call Schiff, and GOP lawyers believe there is ample precedent. They note that Bill Clinton’s lawyers grilled independent prosecutor Ken Starr during Clinton’s Senate trial.

Schiff acted as chief prosecutor against Trump and his dealings with the whistleblower would make him a key witness to the initial allegations.

Trump also wants the whistleblower to be named and forced to testify because he had no first-hand knowledge of the president’s Ukraine call. Some of the initial allegations were proven false by the transcript and some of the whistleblower’s sources might have broken the law. His links to Dems could also undermine his assertions about Trump.A fourth possible witness would be Mark Zaid, one of the whistleblower’s attorneys. Zaid tweeted in January 2017 that a “coup has started” and that “impeachment will follow ultimately.” Trump has called Zaid a “disgrace” and suggested he should be sued for treason.Naturally, a trial poses risks to Trump as well. New evidence and witnesses could emerge, chief among them John Bolton, the former national security adviser Trump fired. Bolton is writing a book on his time in the White House and dropping hints he’s eager to air dirty laundry.There is also the danger that, even if Trump beats back the effort to remove him, a trial could dirty him enough that he loses at the ballot box next November.For now, though, the president has picked a path that appears to give him the upper hand. As he likes to say, we’ll see what happens.

Article

Latka has a taxi problem.

……”Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with A light from above”……

Time to Think – Suing the Executive Branch, a Primer

Editor’s Note – Of late, the ‘I-word’ has been thrown about liberally in relation to not only Obama, but also in relation to some of his cabinet, including AG Eric Holder. Great legal and political minds correctly determined that today, impeachment is a political solution to a legal problem. They are thinkers, not emotional, ideological reactionaries.

Additionally, it is likely impossible to proceed through to a successful conviction in the Senate due to politics anyway. But that does not leave much room left to alleviate a certain problem, an epic problem, – over-reach by the Executive Branch, usurping the power of the Legislative Branch.SCRAPBOOK.v18-47.Aug26.Ramirez.preview

There is a grave legal issue before us, a constitutional issue at crisis level and it is therefore up to the third branch to decide the issue between the other two branches, the Judiciary. Thomas Sowell asks, “has thinking become obsolete?” It has when politicians rely on people being ill-informed. It is time for thinkers, time to become informed.

The House therefore decided to bring suit, and passed a resolution to do so along party lines. This invites political grand-standing, but the question is why the left cheered when Obama spoke about his ‘pen and phone’ in his last State of the Union speech.

Why would sitting Congressman cheer about losing their own power, diluting their ability to represent their constituents of all stripes in their districts?

Therefore a ploy has been launched by the President’s supporters, the Democrat Party, and the White House itself to muddy the waters with talk of impeachment, to confuse America and diminish the real problem. “Sue me,” is the other childish retort to gin up his base, but there are very real reasons to sue, in a focused and detailed adult fashion.

It is time to think, not time to make more “Kool-Aid.” Time to think, just ask Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee R-TX, about impeachment and thinking. Some think and beat the drum that this is a frivolous lawsuit, we counter that it is time think, not run smear campaigns.

The left also loves to trot out the volume of Executive Orders each previous President has signed, but it has nothing to do with quantity. Rather, it is what the individual order covered, and what action each entailed. With this President, it is all about the details, which he always strives to keep hidden. Effectively, Obama has created a fourth branch – the “Pen and Phone” branch.

In order to help you understand what Speaker Bohner and the House are actually doing, we are posting two articles that we recommend you read thoroughly. The first is a question and answer session on the suit the House is bringing, and the second is a ten-point lesson on the details of the over reach:

Q&A: Ten Things You Need to Know About Boehner Suing Obama

By Elizabeth Slattery – Daily Signal

Last week, the House of Representatives voted to authorize Speaker John Boehner to file a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s failure to fully implement Obamacare. Specifically, the lawsuit will challenge the administration’s delay of the employer mandate—requiring many employers to provide health insurance or pay a fine—that was supposed to go into effect Jan. 1. It’s clear President Obama repeatedly has abused executive power to circumvent Congress and essentially rewrite the law, but this lawsuit still raises a host of questions.

Q1: Can you sue the president?CanCongressSue

Yes. Presidents enjoy immunity from lawsuits for civil damages resulting from their official acts, but they are not immune from all lawsuits. For example, the Supreme Court allowed Paula Jones’ suit for sexual harassment against President Clinton to proceed while he was in office. Further, members of Congress have filed dozens of lawsuits against presidents over the years. Most have been unsuccessful, usually because members fail to allege a sufficient injury. Since Boehner’s lawsuit will deal with implementing Obamacare, the suit likely will be brought against Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell and other executive branch officials charged with carrying out the law. It’s possible Obama won’t actually be named in the lawsuit.

Q2: Who will represent the House in court?

The House’s Office of General Counsel routinely represents the House in legal disputes, such as suits to enforce congressional subpoenas or the Speech and Debate Clause. In the past, the House also has hired outside counsel, such as when the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to handle the Defense of Marriage Act litigation.

Q3: How will this lawsuit be funded?

As with past lawsuits, the House will appropriate funds to pay for the litigation. The Committee on House Administration will make public quarterly statements in the Congressional Record detailing expenses.

Q4: Does the Senate have a role?

The Senate probably is not required to join in the lawsuit. Under the Supreme Court’s precedents, members of Congress have standing to assert personal injuries or direct and concrete institutional injuries. In Coleman v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court found a group of state senators demonstrated a sufficient institutional injury even though the suit was brought by 26 members of one chamber.

Q5: Why would the House sue when it has other remedies?

Boehner has determined filing a lawsuit will be the most effective way to rein in the executive branch. Other remedies do exist—mainly appropriations and impeachment—but they require the Senate’s involvement. The House could try to leverage appropriations to encourage the president to faithfully execute the law, but as Boehner has pointed out, the Democratic Senate could refuse to pass such an appropriations bill. Similarly, impeachment requires conviction by two-thirds of the Senate. Although Boehner’s lawsuit may face obstacles, it would not require Senate concurrence.

Q6: What happens if Obama loses?

Courts routinely enforce statutory mandates, such as the express deadlines in Obamacare that the executive branch has “relaxed.” Concerns the president would ignore the courts likely are unfounded. Even though Obama has complained about his losses, “There is no case in which he completely refused to follow a Supreme Court ruling he lost,” said Todd Gaziano, executive director of the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Washington, D.C., center.

Q7: What happens if Boehner loses?

Before a court considers the merits of Boehner’s lawsuit, it first must decide whether the House has standing to bring this suit. If a court determines Boehner failed to establish Article III standing (a constitutional requirement for all lawsuits), it would result in dismissal of the case, but it would not mean the court agrees the president acted properly. If the suit is dismissed, it’s possible a private party may file suit, although the lack of private parties is one reason Boehner says his lawsuit is necessary. After members of Congress failed in their challenge to the Line Item Veto Act in Raines v. Byrd in 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the law when the City of New York and a group of private parties challenged it the next year.

Smear campaigns abound!
Smear campaigns abound!

Q8: Didn’t Bush issue more executive orders than Obama?

Yes, but that is irrelevant to Boehner’s lawsuit. Executive orders are directives issued by the president to run the various parts of the executive branch—ranging from George Washington’s proclamation calling on the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion to Harry Truman’s order desegregating the armed forces. Most executive orders throughout our nation’s history are perfectly appropriate and non-controversial. Boehner’s lawsuit does not address Obama’s use of executive orders per se. Instead, the suit will challenge his failure to faithfully execute the law. The American Presidency Project, which has cataloged every executive order, says Bush issued 291 executive orders, Obama has issued 183 to date, and Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the most with more than 3,500.

Q9: Will this open the floodgates for Congress and the Executive Branch to turn to the courts to resolve their disputes?

No. There have been plenty of lawsuits brought by members of Congress against presidents and other executive branch officials in the past. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear that courts should not entertain “sore loser” suits where members of Congress sue over a vote they lost. This suit will not change the judiciary’s reluctance to get involved in political disputes between the other branches of government.

Q10: Now that the House has authorized the suit, what happens next?

The Wall Street Journal reports the House “isn’t expected to bring the suit for at least another month.” The House Office of General Counsel and any outside lawyers that will be involved in the case likely are deciding which court would be most advantageous and drafting the complaint which will lay out specific allegations as well as the relief the House will seek in its lawsuit.

Peter Bigelow contributed to preparing this Q&A.

President Obama’s Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

By Ilya Shapiro – Forbes

One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”wecantwait

And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation.Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

ElectKingObama

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department ofEducation’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Happy New Year!

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

This is why it is all about politics on the left as conservatives try to save the balance of power through thought and a law suit.
This is why it is all about politics on the left as conservatives try to save the balance of power through thought and a law suit.

Resolution of “No Confidence” –Obama Must Go Now

Editor’s Note – MG Vallely is following up on his most recent article to further help the reader understand his point of view. Here is the link to that article or click on the title in his article below.

By MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army-Ret.

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

As the President vacations in Hawaii for the holidays, we finally gain a moment or two here at year’s end to examine what just happened. What level of confidence or trust do we have in him now? This is now a time to digest the overwhelming flurry of events, words, speeches, and activities that have occurred in recent months, and then we must apply these lessons learned to the past five years. Having done so, you may very well arrive at the same simple conclusion I have, sans his voice and messaging schemes drowning out our own thoughts on these issues?

As most of you know, I have already achieved a level of ‘no confidence’ in Obama as a leader, but now I urge you to examine this concept while you come up for air during this short respite. 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.

In my recent article The “Uber-Presidency” – Time for a ‘Vote of No Confidence’, Time for a ‘Recall’, I laid out the argument in as short a manner as possible but with enough reference, expert opinion, facts and more to drive the point home and I hope you take the time to read it in full if you have not done so already.

In short, 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. 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. We cannot possibly believe that impeachment is attainable, and we know he will never resign, but at least we can show other leaders the way; show our collective voices that we have no confidence in him, or the system.no-confidence

I want to defuse the “nuclear options”, and take the ‘personal’ aspect out of the equation where all sides attack and defend their stances. What I urge you to do is to examine it all on a level of confidence that is yours, one you own. You are not calling anyone names, or labeling others. You are not trying to encapsulate each and every event; 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.

Think about this as you read the full transcript of his year-end press conference where he closed by saying:

“…the team I have now is tireless and shares my values, and believes the thing that I think I have repeated probably four or five times in this press conference, which is we get this incredible privilege for a pretty short period of time to do as much as we can for as many people as we can to help them live better lives.”

If you believe he and his team has been doing that, believe it, but not for what he says, rather, for what he has ruinously done. Please ask yourself this: “Am I better off because of his efforts?” When you add it all up, do you have confidence that 2014 is going to be a year of action you will benefit from as he stated? More from the Press Conference:

“…and I firmly believe that 2014 can be a breakthrough year for America.”

“…let me repeat: I think 2014 needs to be a year of action.”

“We’ve got to build on the process we’ve painstakingly made over these last five years with respect to our economy and offer the middle class and all those who are looking to join the middle class a better opportunity.”

“And let me conclude by saying just as we’re strengthening our position here at home, we’re also standing up for our interests around the world.”

If you honestly search your thoughts, it is clear that he has likely lost your confidence in him; he has lost our trust, and he has lost our respect. Can we believe anything he says anymore? Can we rely on a system that changes almost daily and prevents families and industry from planning anything? Can we rest easy all the while hoping some new fiat or Executive Order doesn’t befall us tomorrow at his whim? Can our allies trust him? The answer is clearly NO.

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.

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 as well as its very first act in 2014.