In 1775, an American people preparing to fight for their freedom turned to a retired military officer to lead them.

For more than 15 years, Col. George Washington had been retired to farm the Virginia countryside, until Boston patriots waged their famous tea party and the Battles of Lexington and Concord erupted. Washington, the former fighter of the French and Indian War, determined he could remain on the sidelines no longer.

When Col. Washington (ret.) showed up shortly thereafter at the Second Continental Congress in his dusted-off uniform, the spirit of the American Revolution had at last found a man it could follow.

Today, as the tea party rages again in cities across the U.S., a retired American military commander is drawing attention to a new crop of George Washingtons already leading the charge for freedom.

As WND reported, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely declared it's time for millions of Americans to "stand up" to a federal government that is "conducting treason ... violating the Constitution, violating our laws." He's calling for marches, a legislative vote of "no confidence" in President Obama and congressional leaders, even citizen arrests - drawing inspiration from the 33 million Egyptians who stood up to their government and removed Muslim Brotherhood officials from office.

Now Vallely tells WND the radio interview in which he called for a new American uprising has struck a note with the millions of modern tea partiers who are looking for unifying leadership.

"It's been all over Facebook, a number of websites, radio shows calling me for interviews," Vallely said. "And the response I've received has been 99-percent positive.

"I think the biggest thing is that someone is finally standing up to lead," he explained. "We need someone to lead; we need a new George Washington."

Vallely pointed to the work of the Citizens' Commission on Benghazi - which included Vallely, Navy SEAL Capt. Larry Bailey (ret.), Admiral James Lyons (ret.), former Congressman and retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Allen West and several other retired military officers - as evidence that the missing leadership may once again be rising from the same place it did in 1775: from the ranks of those who have served our nation in combat.

"It's fallen upon senior, retired military to take stands against the overreach and tyranny of a corrupt government," Vallely said. "I think for people, they respect what the military has gone through. Senior military guys are very well educated, they've gone to the right schools, gone to combat for the most part, have had to manage enormous budgets, were involved in major financial decisions and are heavily steeped in foreign policy and national security.

"No other group, no CEO that has that kind of background," he said. "Obviously our politicians don't have that background. They have legislation experience, not leadership experience."

So what should be done with the current crop of political leaders?

Vallely said since impeachment isn't likely and recall votes aren't in the Constitution, the people need to rise up and accept nothing less than the resignation of D.C. leadership.

"We like to do things by the Constitution, but our forefathers never anticipated we'd be in a place where we have so many corrupt leaders, impeachment wouldn't happen," he said. "We had a demand of resignation with Nixon, and he resigned, so the power of the people can be heard."

And the next opportunity to sound the rally cry, Vallely said, is at the 2014 South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention, where Vallely will join Lt.Col. Bill Cowan, USMC (ret.) and former Navy SEAL Benjamin Smith among the speakers.

"I'm going back to the big kickoff in Myrtle Beach in January," Vallely told WND. "I'm a big believer in the tea party as a movement. Many of us retired military leaders are all together. We need to demand the resignation of Obama, [Vice President Joe] Biden, [Republican House Speaker John] Boehner, [Senate Republican Leader Mitch] McConnell, [House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi and [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid. The leadership of both parties needs to step down and new leaders step up."

Who are the new leaders?

"I think that George Washington is out there; we need to find him," Vallely said. "[New Jersey Governor] Chris Christie, [Florida Senator] Marco Rubio - these guys are amateurs on the world scene. We have to go beyond politics and not put congressman into higher office, but true leaders."


Vallely has been immensely popular among tea party organizations that are seeking a way to restore the rule of law to Washington.

Among other things, they cite the Obamacare law, and the 15 or more times Obama has changed the law - without consulting Congress.

In a statement earlier to WND, Vallely said a vote of no confidence could be used.

The founder of Stand Up America, an organization that provides education resources for leaders and activists based on the values of the Founding Fathers, said: "Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history. ... It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts, and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence. It's time for a 'recall.'"

Vallely believes the "credibility of our current leadership is gone."

Now, he said, "we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies and all manner of chicanery."

He admitted there is no legal authority in a vote of no confidence, but he argued it will "take back the power of discourse."

"What else is our nation to do now that the rule of law has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?" he asked.

Vallely believes impeachment likely wouldn't lead to conviction and doesn't solve the problem, anyway.

"Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton's day, forget about a finding of guilty," he wrote. "Incidentally, if Obama was found guilty and removed from office, Joe Biden would step in, Valerie Jarrett still wields all the power, and likely we get more of the same."

The Constitution can be amended without going through Congress, he pointed out, but it would take too much time, "a luxury we just do not have it we are going to save our republic."
� WND
Sign the petition urging Congress to pursue impeachment right away!

"That brings us to the other word no one wants to utter, revolution. In our opinion, this is the least palatable option. ... Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route," he said.

Vallely listed a sampling of Obama's broken promises and lies, crediting Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine:

His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)
His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn't.)
To be the most transparent presidency in history. (He's not.)
To put an end to "phony accounting." (It started almost on Day 1 and continues.)
And to restore trust in government. (Trust in government is at near-historic lows.)
His pledge to seek public financing in the general election. (He didn't.)
To treat super-PACS as a "threat to democracy." (He embraced them.)
His pledge to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. (It remained above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression.)
To create five million new energy jobs alone. (The total number of jobs created in Obama's first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)
To identify all those "shovel-ready' jobs. (Mr. Obama later chuckled that his much-hyped "shovel-ready projects" were "not as shovel-ready as we expected.")
To lift two million Americans from poverty. (A record 46 million Americans are living in poverty during the Obama era.)
His promise to bring down health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family (they went up) ... allow Americans to keep the health care coverage they currently have (many can't) ... refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act (it did) ... to respect religious liberties (he has violated them) ... and the insistent that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).
Obama's pledge to stop the rise of oceans. (It hasn't.)
To "remake the world" and to "heal the planet." (Hardly.)
To usher in a "new beginning" based on "mutual respect" with the Arab and Islamic world and "help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East." (Come again?)
To punish Syria if it crossed the "red line" of using chemical weapons. (The "red line" was crossed earlier this year - and nothing of consequence happened.)
That as president "I don't bluff." (See the previous sentence on Syria.)
And of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)
And let's not forget Mr. Obama's promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup polling.)
Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that "breeds division and conflict and cynicism." (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.)
And his counsel to us to "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long." (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker's wife.)

"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 Andrew C. McCarthy, who said that "absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up. ... And absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed."

Vallely noted that while the U.S. Constitution lacks a provision for a "recall" at the federal level, "there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for contempt of Congress, violations of oath of office and of the Constitution itself - for all the reasons stated in such a resolution."

He warned of growing "tyrannical centralized rule" without action.

There may be advances in the 2014 elections, but will that be a solution?

"Obama is still the president, and his Cabinet and appointees still remain in power. ... Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record shows us that no matter what the make-up of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator," Vallely said.

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

Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.

WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama's actions have reached "an unprecedented level, and we've got to do something about it.

"Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?" he said. "If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?"

Gowdy cited Obama's decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama's "recess appointments" of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president's actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.

Rice said that because of "this disregard of our country's checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president."

"After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president's clear overreach," he said.

A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.

"Why not?" asked Gowdy, "If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act - why not election laws?"

Gowdy noted that a liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, agrees.

WND reported Turley's concerns earlier this month.

Turley has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: "Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It's about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president's unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?"

Turley replied: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power."

Turley explained that the "Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration."

"There are two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress," he said. "One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction."

Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He's been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is "one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government."

"Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it," he said.

"That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they."

Cannon said it is "very dangerous" for the president to "wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve."

Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.


Vallely explained that a "no confidence" vote now "would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!"

Without that action, he writes, "Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect."

I wish the Supreme Court would agree to take it up and decide on the various issues so we can get on with something else.

He won the election.
Fairly and squarely.
Get over it.

That's about the only way we can get the trash out of DC.
Ex Military lead a legal coup.

and you are sure of that?

The majority of us are.

i'm not sure what that ha to do with anything, this about him being a bad president...

how do you know that?

This is not a democracy, get over it.

And where is that in the constitution? Those mystical beings in their black robes are part of the problem, not the solution.

seems like a lot of people forget that the people are not here for the government, the government is there for the people...

The majority is what, looking for a benefit? Again, this is not a democracy, the majority do not rule.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land but even then it is but a contract for a form of government. A contract once violated is null and void and has no authority.

Government is but a servant, not the master. King Odumbo has committed treason and the people need to hold him accountable.

But it's not just King Odumbo, there are many others that make his total ruse possible as the original post has outlined.

There can be no government but that ordained and established by the states for the people.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Nothing has stated the fact more clearly.

The original post has a major flaw, the "Tea Party" that insists on hanging their hat on a political party, specifically the Republicans.

It is the two party system that has led to the grief we are experiencing today, the illusion of choice. What choice, both parties have the same owners and have the same agenda.

It's all smoke and mirrors to make the general public, that "majority" believe they make a difference. Stop for a minute and look around, what has changed from Clinton to Bush to Odumbo or more appropriately "Slick Willie", "Village Idiot", and "Supreme Being"?

The answer was in the original 13th Amendment that was conveniently burned by the British, sort of like all those government records that were in World Trade Building 7, think about it!

Also while you're thinking, what do Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and John Kennedy have in common?

they are all dead

True, but that is not a thinking answer.

They were all against the power the banks sought thru the manipulation of our currency..... Against central bank charters.... the ones Congress and this admin just reinstated as their 100 year charter (the Fed Reserve Act) expired last month.....

We could have been done with the Fed Reserve on Dec 24th, 2014 as their 100 year charter expired..... but Obozo signed another 100 year renwel....just like he did the NDAA even tho Osama is dead...

He could not relinquish the power to make them forever chartered.....that would take the power of congress..... so he simply renewed it

we're stuck with the same problems for another 100 years now with a stroke of our kings pen.....without so much as a whisper in the news!

If he were found guilty of the fraud/treason implicated to/on his background, and officially impeached and criminally charged, we could be done with the NDAA, the FED, Obozo and his healthcare fiasco all in one fell swoop......

It would be an historical beginning to fixing the problems in our nation!

I think there was adequate evidence after the election that the votes were not "fair and square." Obama won, yes, but he won on promises that have not been kept and as time has moved forward his illegal activities have grown to the point where many who once supported him, no longer do so. I am in basic agreement with much of what your post is saying, Moe, as long as it is not a thinly veiled call for a military coup. We do by the Constitution here, so there must be a legal process..... what we really need to do is vote out the current incumbents and get control over the electoral process.

A dictator is a dictator whether he's an organizer from Chicago or a general matters not....we don;t want either.