WND.COM7 Hours Ago 'It is time to hold a vote of no confidence' by Bob Unruh Text smaller Text bigger Impeachment isn't really an option to solve America's woes under President Obama, as Vice President Joe Biden and Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett are waiting in the shadows, according to a prominent critic of Washington. No one really wants to consider a revolution, either. So what is the nation to do to save itself from the "tyrannical centralized rule" being developed under Obama? A vote of no confidence, according to the chief ofStandUpAmericaUS.org, an organization that provides education resources for leaders and movers based on the values of the Founding Fathers. "Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history," writes Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, retired, the chief of StandUpAmericaUS. "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.'" He continued, "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. "What else is our nation to do now that the 'rule-of-law' has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?" he questioned. Vallely explains that impeachment really is not an option. "Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton's day, forget about a finding of guilty. 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." There is a procedure to amend the Constitution without going through Congress, but that would take a long time, "A luxury we just do not have it we are going to save our republic," he added. "That brings us to the other word no one wants to utter, revolution. In our opinion, this is the least palatable option. … Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route," he said. That there is reason for alarm is evident, he explains, listing more than page that represents a "good sampling" of Obama's long list of broken promises and lies. Vallely credits Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine for compiling this: His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.) His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn't.) To be the most transparent presidency in history. (He's not.) To put an end to "phony accounting." (It started almost on day 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 insistent that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is). Obama's pledge to stop the rise of oceans. (It hasn't.) To "remake the world" and to "heal the planet." (Hardly.) To usher in a "new beginning" based on "mutual respect" with the Arab and Islamic world and "help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East." (Come again?) To punish Syria if it crossed the "red line" of using chemical weapons. (The "red line" was crossed earlier this year – and nothing of consequence happened.) That as president "I don't bluff." (See the previous sentence on Syria.) And of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.) And let's not forget Mr. Obama's promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup polling.) Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that "breeds division and conflict and cynicism." (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.) And his counsel to us to "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long." (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker's wife.) "It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people," Vallely said. "We need to start with the White House and all of Obama's appointees, especially Eric Holder. … Then on to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – the architects who shoved Obamacare down our throats. We also cannot forget John Boehner and company who openly castigate the Tea Party caucus which are only doing that which they campaigned upon." Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in "Impeachable Offenses" by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott. Vallely quoted commentator Andy C. McCarthy, who said, "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." Vallely noted that while the U.S. Constitution lacks a provision for a "recall" at the federal level, "there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for contempt of Congress, violations of oath of office and of the Constitution itself – for all the reasons stated in such a resolution." He warned of the "tyrannical centralized rule" that is coming without action. There may be advances in the 2014 elections, but will that be a solution? "Obama is still the president, and his cabinet and appointees still remain in power … Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record shows us that no matter what the make-up of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator," Vallely said. "When that does not work, he will manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run by fiat, choosing winners and losers." Congress already has considered the unconstitutional nature of Obama's actions. WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama's imperial presidency has gone too far. "Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?" he said. "If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?" He said Obama's actions have reached "an unprecedented level, and we've got to do something about it." Gowdy cited Obama's decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. And Obama's decisions to change the Obamacare law as he goes along. And his decision to make "recess appointments" even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess. His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president's actions, through a resolution is being proposed by U.S. Rep. Tom Rice, a Republican, that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors. Rice said, "Because of this disregard of our country's checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president. After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president's clear overreach." A Fox interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws. "Why not?" asked Gowdy, "If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?" Gowdy noted that a liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, agrees. WND reported just days ago on his concerns. Turley has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution. He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing, and Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: "Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It's about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president's unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?" Turley replied: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power." Turley explained that the "Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration." "There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress," he said. "One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction." Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He's been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today. WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is "one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government." "Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it," he said. "That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they." Cannon said it is "very dangerous" for the president to "wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve." Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity. See the comments: Vallely explains that a "no confidence" vote now "would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!" Without that action, he writes, "Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect." View Original Webpage