‘The world is on fire’ – Boehner Interview in Israel

Editor’s Note – Lost in the anticipation of the “Iran Deal” completion which came today, John Boehner was interviewed in a wide ranging manner about his visit to Israel published yesterday and we recommend it highly for perspective.

John Boehner in Israel: ‘The world is on fire’

In an exclusive interview, the House speaker offers a blistering critique of U.S. policy in the Mideast.

JERUSALEM — John Boehner thinks the “world is on fire.” And America isn’t doing nearly enough to stamp it out.

The House speaker’s decision to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress last month sparked criticism that Boehner was inappropriately injecting himself into foreign affairs and antagonizing President Barack Obama. But just hours after a friendly return visit with Netanyahu on Wednesday, Boehner made clear in an interview with POLITICO here he’s not backing down and will remain firmly engaged in the nation’s foreign policy.150401_john_boehner_israel_gty_1160_1160x629

“I wouldn’t have believed that I would be involved in as much foreign policy as I am today,” Boehner said in his hotel near Jerusalem’s Old City. “And it certainly isn’t by choice. It’s just that the world is on fire. And I don’t think enough Americans or enough people in the administration understand how serious the problems that we’re facing in the world are.”

Indeed, with the Middle East in a constant state of upheaval, and the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu at a low point, Boehner has emerged as an unlikely power center in U.S. foreign policy.

Sitting in his hotel suite on a chilly, gray day — after a lunch with Netanyahu in the prime minister’s office complex — the Republican leader said a six-country journey mostly across the Middle East has left him more worried than before. He said his theory that the U.S. doesn’t have a coherent foreign policy has been borne out. He’s concerned about the U.S.-led talks with Iran and has been most surprised by “the boldness of the Iranians” in exerting their influence throughout the region. The “trouble they’re causing,” he said, “raised my eyebrows.”

It’s quite a shift for Boehner, the nation’s top elected Republican, who is second in line to the presidency. He came to power envisioning shrinking government and slashing budgets, but foreign policy has emerged as a central element of his legacy. Boehner hasn’t opposed the White House at every turn on foreign policy — in several instances, he publicly aligned himself with Obama, but at other times he’s vocally challenged the president.

01firstdraft-boehner-israel-master675Indeed, instead of shying from the criticism he received after inviting Netanyahu to address Congress, Boehner offered a blistering critique of how the U.S. is dealing with growing uncertainty in the Middle East.

“We’ve got some big, serious problems, and there’s no overarching strategy to deal with it. You’ve heard me say this for two years. I am even more convinced of it today,” Boehner said. He added, “Here’s the essence of what I’ve learned on this trip: The problem is growing faster than what we and our allies are doing to try to stop it.”

Boehner did say that, one way or another, Congress will move to change U.S. policy toward Iran. If there’s no deal, he said, Congress would pass a bill imposing new sanctions. If there is a deal, he said he would have to review it, but he is “sure we’ll have a reaction.” As he watches the talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, Boehner said he thinks the Obama administration is too eager to cut a deal.

“What bothers me is it looks like the administration is so hungry for a deal just to have a deal so they can say they have a deal,” Boehner said. “The rest of the world wants something real out of this.”

Boehner said he expects to meet with Obama when he returns to America to discuss, among other topics, foreign policy.

“When you look at what we’re doing, we’re involved with some allies trying to hold Iraq together,” he said, describing the message he plans to deliver to the White House. “We’re involved with some of our allies in trying to deal with ISIL. And we’re in these talks with the people who describe us as Satan, like we’re going to come to some agreement with the Iranians, while they’re spreading terror all over the Middle East.

“We’ve got allies who are doing a little of this and a little of that. But when I talk about overarching strategy, what I’m talking about is a large plan that involves intelligence, it involves the military, it ought to involve Islamic leaders, there ought to be a communications operation — there are lots of components of this that need to happen and be coordinated with our allies if we’re going to tackle this problem.”

Boehner’s allies think he’s underappreciated when it comes to his savvy on foreign policy and his support of many of Obama’s initiatives on the global stage. People close to him say that despite the criticism from Democrats that he’s undermining the president, he still adheres to the belief that there is one commander in chief and he should be the one to set the nation’s foreign policy.

Indeed, they say, he stood up for the White House’s use of certain controversial surveillance techniques when they came under fire. He worked behind the scenes to ensure congressional approval of Obama’s plan to train and arm Syrian rebels. He supported some of Obama’s policies in Afghanistan and sent a memo to his colleagues laying out — with caveats — why he thought it was a good idea. He has, however, rejected Obama’s timeline for withdrawal. And he said Wednesday that he was pleased to hear that the Obama administration would lift the arms ban in Egypt — he said he has been “pushing” the administration to reconsider that policy.

But Boehner said he believes that Congress has a robust role in foreign policy that needs to be respected. When he is briefed, he wants to hear from Obama himself — not an aide. He has pressed the administration to provide detailed briefings — not just perfunctory phone calls — prior to a change in policy. He said in the interview that the White House’s outreach has been “adequate,” without elaborating, adding that he hasn’t heard much about the Iran talks.

While Boehner’s prime interest in Congress has been in cutting the budget and reducing taxes, he has long harbored a willingness to take action on foreign policy. On Obama’s inauguration day in 2009, White House adviser Greg Craig told a group of congressional leaders that the president planned to close Guantánamo Bay without the consent of Congress. With Democrats in control of the House, Boehner used the appropriations process to ensure that never happened. (Craig did not reply to an email seeking comment.)

In 2011, he gave what turned out to be a prescient speech about emerging problems in Russia. He had his staffers watch the movie “Miracle” at a staff retreat to remind them of the country’s spirit when the U.S. men’s hockey toppled the Russians in the 1980 Olympics.

Now, over the next few months, Boehner will have an opportunity to continue to have an outsized impact on foreign policy. The Obama administration is seeking a resolution explicitly authorizing military force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In meetings and conversations, Boehner personally pushed Obama to send a proposal to Capitol Hill, but he is now skeptical it will come together.

“If I see a strategy that I think can work, then you can write an [Authorization for Use of Military Force] that supports it,” he said. “But when the president asks for less authority than he has today, you begin to scratch your head. And, secondly, I think they’re looking at this entire problem with blinders on. They need to take a broader view of a bigger strategy to deal with these growing problems.”

With parts of Iraq falling to ISIL, Boehner said he told Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi that allowing Iranian soldiers to help patrol Tikrit was an “embarrassment to our country.” He said the U.S. should consider repurposing troops to help the Iraqi army fight more efficiently.

“We have nearly 4,000 troops there today,” Boehner said. “And they are mostly advising and training. But I think, frankly, if we had some of those people out in the field helping to direct, it would help the Iraqi forces in a big way. So those are boots on the ground, but we’re not talking about sending 100,000 people in there.”

While most people are fixated on a rift between America and Israel, Boehner used his time here to downplay it. He strode to a podium with Netanyahu here, and, in brief remarks, Boehner said “while we may have political disagreements from time to time,” the two nations share a strong bond.

During his visit, Boehner traveled with the Israeli Defense Forces to see the “terror tunnels” near Gaza. He ate lunch with Netanyahu and met with the U.S. Ambassador Daniel Shapiro and the staff at the American consulate in Jerusalem. He also spent time with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon in the brand new Waldorf Astoria, located around the corner from the U.S. Consulate.

Boehner dismissed tensions between Obama and Netanyahu as a “little political spat.” The speaker said he doesn’t expect Netanyahu’s relationship with Obama “to get any worse.” Instead, “I do expect it will get better,” the Ohio Republican said.

“No one should look at big problems between Israel and America. There are big problems between Bibi and our president,” Boehner said. He did say Obama’s administration was trying to “impose a peace process on the prime minister of Israel when he has no partner to sit down and talk to.”

“At the end of the day, we need them and they need us,” Boehner said of Israel. “And OK, so you got two people who may not be in love with each other, but the fact is we’re great allies and there’s a lot going on in the world and we need each other.”

McCarthy – "Knives Come Out for Senators Cruz and Lee"

The Knives Come Out for Senators Cruz and Lee

Republican leaders don’t want them to derail Obama’s amnesty.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE

Letter to Boehner on "Select Committee on Benghazi"

Editor’s Note – Today, the following letter was sent to John Boehner regarding the Benghazi investigation and the need for a “Select Committee on Benghazi.” Among the 77 signatories of the letter is MG Paul E. Vallely, Chairman and CEO of Stand Up America US.

It has been almost 500 days since the attack…

“To the living we owe respect. To the dead we owe the truth.” –Voltaire

The Honorable John Boehner
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
The Capitol, H-232
Washington, D.C., 20515

January 6, 2014

Dear Speaker Boehner,obama-benghazi_s640x427

We write to express our grave concern over the failure of your House of Representatives to extract the truth from the Obama administration concerning the attack on our diplomatic and intelligence facilities in Benghazi, Libya; and, the brutal deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stephens, U.S. Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and security officers Ty Woods and Glen Doherty.

To date, five (5) different committees of the House have conducted separate hearings, uncovering information in a piecemeal fashion lacking professional investigators. The five committees’ efforts are disjointed and uncoordinated. The Obama administration has benefited from that dysfunctional process to hide the truth. Hardly any Obama administration witnesses have testified – publicly or privately. You have resisted repeated calls for the creation of a select investigative committee with subpoena authority. It appears that you are satisfied to allow that state of investigative incoherence and ambiguity to continue. The last public hearing by any of the five committees was held in September – four (4) months ago. The families of the dead who fought valiantly to protect the mission and their families, the survivors, and the American people deserve better from you and your Members of Congress. They deserve the absolute truth from their government. Your failure to get the truth and hold public officials accountable increases the possibility of other repeat attacks and additional failures to defend Americans abroad.

On Sunday, December 29, 2013, the New York Times published a story concerning the Benghazi attacks that directly contradicts the sworn testimony of witnesses who appeared before various committees. Besides the obvious New York Times editorial and political objectives of inoculating Hillary Clinton and her 2016 presidential campaign from further criticism of her failures as Secretary of State, the story contradicts objective truth and established facts in a way that confuses the public. Your inaction and failure to lead on the Benghazi investigation directly contributes to the repetition of lies; a lack of accountability from responsible government officials; and the political advancement of persons who seek to continue to “fundamentally transform” the Constitution and our country. The New York Times recent publication proves the Benghazi story is not “going away.”

Your oversight of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation has been without any meaningful effect or result. Not a single terrorist in this well-planned and executed military attack by radical Islamists has been apprehended. Ahmed Abu Khattala, a ringleader of the attack, granted long interviews to reporters in Benghazi cafes, while the Obama administration – and you – have done nothing. Nearly 16 months after the terrorist attack, the American public has no accountability and no plan of action from House leadership. The public is subjected to undisputed disinformation from a White House who calls the terror attack a “phony scandal.” While the White House repeats false and misleading information, you continue to ignore claims, documented by Rep. Frank Wolf, of intelligence officers being intimidated with multiple, punitive polygraph examinations and harassing non-disclosure agreement demands. If Benghazi is “phony” why are intelligence officers being threatened not to speak and subjected to polygraph exams? Why do you stand by passively?

Some analysts believe your inaction and passivity towards getting to the truth concerning Benghazi is because you were briefed on the intelligence and special operations activities in Libya as a member of the “Super 8.” You may possess “guilty knowledge.” We recall how then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi developed a form of “amnesia” concerning a documented briefing she received on so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” – later termed “torture” for political purposes. Are you in the same position as your predecessor? Are you dodging a legitimate, thorough, coordinated investigation of Benghazi because it will damage your political position as Speaker?

You should be embarrassed that members of Congress, and your own party, are forced to file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with Obama administration agencies to get basic information about the Benghazi issue. What a sad and pathetic statement about the operations of House standing committees looking into this tragedy that FOIA has become the last resort of even Republican Members seeking the truth! Are you concerned that the scattershot and untimely efforts of the various committees may actually be doing more harm than good at documenting facts? These are all examples of Republican leadership failures. How are you accountable?

Rep. Mike Rogers and the Intelligence Committee seem to act as defense counsel for the Obama administration. A recent Intelligence Committee weekly update note stated as fact that no arms shipments were being run from Libya, and that no intelligence officers were being coerced not to speak. There is substantial evidence to the contrary on both counts. Why does Rep. Rogers parrot the discredited falsehoods of the so-called “Accountability Review Board” (ARB)? Conflicting accounts, testimony and evidence need to be investigated – not dismissed or ignored. Don’t those contradictions and questions compel you, on behalf of the American people, to take any action to resolve the matter and get to the truth?

Aren’t you concerned that General Carter Ham was suddenly and prematurely recalled from AFRICOM, and then made statements at the Aspen Institute that directly contradicted the Obama administration’s position on the nature of the attack in Benghazi? Why has General Ham not testified publicly before one of the House committees?

The New York Times story reports that the CIA was, in fact, collecting weapons in Benghazi. If true, why was the CIA running a separate, parallel weapons program from the State Department’s $40 million collection effort? Where did the CIA-purchased weapons go? Is the Obama administration arming al Qaeda affiliated jihadists in Syria?

If you wished, you could have publicly engaged Rep. Devin Nunes concerning his November 6, 2013 letter to you, addressing the nine unanswered questions about Benghazi. Instead, there was thundering silence from your office. You have an opportunity to show strong leadership and resolve a national disgrace perpetrated by specific public officials. You are failing.

Your reluctance to lead and resistance to create a Select Committee on Benghazi must end. More than 75% of all House Republicans – with the conspicuous absence of those in leadership or committee chairmen – have cosponsored Rep. Wolf’s Select Committee bill. Few bills in this Congress demonstrate such overwhelming support from Republicans. Additionally, the bill enjoys the support of national security advocacy groups, and the Wall Street Journal editorial board, among many others.

We urge you to bring the bill to the floor for a vote immediately to start effective oversight on this critical national security matter immediately. We have waited long enough. Your approach is not working.

Mr. Speaker, we call upon you to act now and create a Select Committee on Benghazi to investigate all aspects of the United States involvement in Libya, to include, but not be limited to the attacks of September 11, 2012. It must now also include the protracted cover-up the American people, the families of the fallen and those with loved ones serving overseas have endured. The new committee must have subpoena power, capable staff and Members from both parties who are committed to finding the truth, not playing politics. The Committee must be staffed with new, professional, qualified and experienced investigators. It must have resources to conduct a thorough, comprehensive investigation and issue an exhaustive report before this Congress adjourns.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned:

(Titles for identification purposes only)

  1. Charles Woods, Father of Ty Woods
  2. Pat Smith, Mother of Sean Smith
  3. Michael Ingmire, Musician/Writer, Uncle to Sean Smith
  4. Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, USN Ret., former Vice Chief of Naval Operations
  5. Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF, (Ret)
  6. Lt. Gen. Richard D. Lawrence, USA (Ret)
  7. LTG William G. Boykin, USA (Ret)
  8. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, USA Ret, Chairman, Stand Up America
  9. Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers, USA (Ret), Ranger
  10. Maj. Gen. Thomas F. Cole, USA (Ret)
  11. Maj. Gen. Richard M. Cooke, USMC (Ret)
  12. Amb. Henry F. Cooper, Former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative
  13. LTC Allen B. West (US Army, Ret) former Congressman, FL
  14. Capt Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62, USN (Ret), Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
  15. Debra Burlingame, Co-founder, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America
  16. Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
  17. Dick Brauer, Col, USAF (Ret), Special Operation Speaks
  18. Tom Fitton, President, Judicial Watch
  19. Allen Roth, Secure America Now
  20. Joel A. Arends, Veterans for a Strong America
  21. Ginni Thomas, President, Liberty Consulting
  22. Catherine Engelbrecht, President, True the Vote
  23. Anita MonCrief, Black Voters Alliance
  24. David Wallace, Restore America’s Mission
  25. Dr. James Pollock, Maj., USAF (Ret), OIF VETx2, SOCOM, Wounded Warrior Congressional Advocate
  26. John J. Molloy, Chairman, National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
  27. James C. Harding, Col USAF (Ret) National Spokesman for Veteran Defenders of America
  28. Diane M. Sendlenski, Veteran US Air Force, Special Operations Speaks Coordinator
  29. John G. B. Howland, Publisher, USNA-At-Large
  30. Katherine Cornell Gorka, Executive Director, The Westminster Institute
  31. Paul Caprio, Executive Director, Family Pac Federal
  32. William L. Walton, Chairman, Rappahannock Ventures LLC
  33. Sandy Rios, Director of Governmental Affairs, American Family Association
  34. David Horowitz, President, Freedom Center
  35. Peter Thomas, Chairman, The Conservative Caucus
  36. Rear Adm. Hugh P. Scott, MC, USN (Ret)
  37. Rear Adm. Bill McDaniel, USN (Ret)
  38. Rear Adm. John A. Moriarty, USN, (Ret)
  39. Rear Adm. Robert B. McClinton, USN (Ret)
  40. Rear Adm. Don G. Primeau, USN (Ret)
  41. Brig. Gen. Michael Neil, USMCR (Ret)
  42. Brig. Gen. Francis Hughes, USA (Ret)
  43. Brig. Gen. John Zierdt, Jr., USA (Ret)
  44. Brig. Gen. Michael T. Byrnes, USA (Ret)
  45. Brig. Gen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret)
  46. Captain Kenneth Rauch, USN (Ret)
  47. Captain Peter A. Hewett, JAGC, U.S. Navy (Ret)
  48. Captain James Knight, USN (Ret)
  49. Captain Roger W. Barnett, USN (Ret)
  50. Captain Gregory Streeter, USN (Ret) USNA ’58
  51. Col. G. Huntington Banister, USA (Ret), and former Acting Director, Selective Service System, 1994
  52. Col. S. Badiner, USMC (Ret)
  53. Col. Gregory G. Raths, USMC (Ret)
  54. Col. Joseph V. Potter, USAF (Ret)
  55. Col. Rob Maness, USAF (Ret), U.S. Senate Candidate 2014, R-Louisiana
  56. Dan Bongino, 2012 Republican Nominee for US Senate, MD
  57. Lt. Col. Ken Benway, USA (Ret)
  58. Lt. Col. Dennis B. Haney, USAF (Ret)
  59. CDR Randolph J. Horhutz, USNA ’61, SC, USN (Ret)
  60. Everett Woolum, CMSGT, USAF (Ret)
  61. Gregory J. Rose, USNA ’73
  62. Thomas Corboy, USNA, ‘61
  63. Anthony R. Papandrea, USNA ‘61
  64. Raymond H. Clary, Jr., USNA ‘65
  65. John W. Slagle, U.S. Navy Aviation veteran (Ret) Special Agent U.S.B.P. Anti-Smuggling Unit
  66. Sarah Folger White, Former Presidential Commissioner
  67. Dick and Patricia Schermerhorn, Appleton, WI
  68. Lee Boyland, Author, former military officer, entrepreneur, nuclear engineer
  69. Susan Creed Percy, Advocate for Military Families
  70. Dave Hollenbeck, retired CA Highway Patrol
  71. Paul F. Wirtz, Military family, OH resident
  72. John Lillywhite, U.S. Citizen
  73. Gene Andrews, U. S. Citizen
  74. Mrs. Nancy Olbert, Supervisor Criminal Advocates, Daytona, FL State Attorney Office
  75. Dr. Frank Ingels, Military Defense Consultant, MSIC/TETRA Office
  76. Robert M. Trent, Senior Special Agent, USINS and former Marine and Vietnam combat veteran
  77. Kelly Monroe Kullberg, Christians for a Sustainable Economy; OH resident

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.

'Sequester' used as excuse to blame Reps and release illegals

Editor’s Note – As the ‘sequester’ deadline approaches, the public is exposed to just how our government works – that is, if they are paying attention. The measly amount that is set to be cut is being blown out of proportion by the President – this by the man who was for the ‘sequester’ before he was against it, even though his administration invented this version.

He blames the House of Representatives for the lack of negotiation because the Republicans control that body, but at last look, they were the only ones ever doing anything as is demonstrated by Speaker Boehner’s remarks today. But that still has not prevented the President, through his DHS Secretary to release illegal immigrants from prison using the ‘sequester’ as the excuse. From Business Insider:

House Speaker John Boehner got a bit unplugged during his weekly press conference today, pointedly telling the Senate to “get off their ass and do something” to find a way to avert the sequester. Boehner pushed a familiar refrain during a nearly 10-minute press conference: The House has twice passed legislation to replace the sequester’s spending cuts. Now, the Senate must act. “We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something,” Boehner said.  “The House has done its job,” Boehner added.

The across-the-board cuts of the sequester are set to begin kicking in at the end of this week. Boehner and other Republicans are locked in a battle with President Barack Obama and Democrats over how to avert those cuts. Obama is set to take his message to Newport News, Va., today to warn about the cutsThe bills passed by the House expired with the end of last Congress. But Boehner said that wasn’t an excuse for the Senate. “It’s time for the Senate to act. We’ve acted,” Boehner said, in a pointed tone. He said that if the Senate acts, the House would be prepared to act “quickly.”

Remember, the ‘sequester’ only reduces the rate of growth on the non-existent budget that was ballooned by TARP and ‘stimulus packages’ – next up – the ‘continuing resolution’ in place of any budget. As the right is demagogued incessantly, and the ‘optics’ focus on them by the MSM, ‘we the people’ get poorer by the second.

Why is the Senate not held accountable? Four plus years – no budgets, wonderful leadership. Scared now?

Illegal immigrants set free from detention centers as sequester approaches

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times

The sequester is officially still three days away, but the Obama administration already is making the first cuts, with officials confirming that the Homeland Security Department has begun to release what it deems low-priority illegal immigrants from detention.

The move is proving controversial. Immigrant-rights groups say it shows the administration was detaining folks it never should have gone after in the first place, while Republicans questioned the decision-making.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that runs the detention facilities, said in a statement that the “current fiscal climate” has forced it to do a review of spending, and part of that is taking a look at who is being detained.

“As a result of this review, a number of detained aliens have been released around the country and placed on an appropriate, more cost-effective form of supervised release,” ICE said in a statement.

While being released from detention, the illegal immigrants are usually still subject to supervision — either by electronic device or by being required to check in with ICE by phone or in person.

The move first was reported by The Huffington Post on Monday.

The sequesters are $85 billion in spending cuts this year, followed by equivalent cuts for the rest of this decade. They were set in motion by the 2011 debt deal and will require across-the-board cuts to all government spending save for entitlements such as Social Security.

The cuts take effect on Friday, and all sides on Capitol Hill say they want to avert them — though they cannot agree on how to do so.

The Obama administration, which wants to see the cuts replaced in large part by new tax increases, has warned that the sequesters will hurt national security.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday told reporters at the White House that she would be forced to furlough Border Patrol agents, pulling them from their rounds along the U.S.-Mexico border.

She also hinted at the decision to release illegal immigrants, saying she would not be able to maintain the full slate of 34,000 detention beds mandated by Congress.

“How am I supposed to pay for those? There’s only so much I can do,” she said.

United We Dream, an immigrant-rights group, said the releases show the administration has been keeping folks detained who never should have been there.

“Low-priority individuals — people who pose absolutely no risk or danger to society, but rather are upstanding members of their communities and families — should not have been locked up to begin with,” said Carolina Canizales, coordinator of United We Dream’s End Our Pain program.