Main Menu

Former general confuses US with UK

My heart goes out to the victims of dementia and their families. I’m not a real doctor, and I don’t make psychiatric diagnoses on the Internet, but there certainly seems to be something wrong with retired major general, Fox News military analyst Paul Vallely and frequent source at WorldNetDaily.

Vallely started having memory problems as early as 2005, regarding some probably imaginary conversations about Valerie Plame. In that instance, he could just have been lying, but no one lies when everybody knows what they are saying is false, and this is exactly what we see in a blog post last month from Vallely, on his Stand Up America blog. Plain and simple, Vallely’s plan to get Obama out of the White House is to hold a “vote of no confidence” in the US House of Representatives.

While the necessity of confidence in the executive by the UK House of Commons is a fundamental requirement of the British Constitution, we don’t do that in the United States.  He also seems to be having some delusional thoughts about the President’s birth certificate. This is an editorial comment at the Stand Up America blog, which has Vallely’s name on the masthead:

By now, even the most ardent nay-sayer of so-called ‘Birthers’ must admit, this Obama document fraud issue, and ignoring the eligibility question stinks to the high heavens. In the privacy of their own abodes they surely must admit it when they look in the mirror in the morning.

His articles attract the usual rabid birthers and usurper haters as commenters.

Vallely is confused. Poor fellow.

Read more:

Print Friendly

, , , ,

15 Responses to Former general confuses US with UK

  1. avatar
    Daniel January 14, 2014 at 12:49 pm #

    To those who are confused as to the difference, in the UK, the executive is formed from members of the legislature. The Prime Minister, head of the executive branch, is a sitting member of parliament, and usually the leader of the ruling party.

    There isn’t the separation of executive and legislative functions to the extent we see in the US.

    If the ruling party in the house fails a vote on non-confidence, the ruling party no longer has control of the house, and the government based on that control usually falls.

    This is, of course, simplified, and subject to my correct recall.

  2. avatar
    gorefan January 14, 2014 at 1:27 pm #

    The death of his son my have had an impact on his mental state.

  3. avatar
    Bob January 14, 2014 at 1:43 pm #

    Another advanced case of Birtheimers.

  4. avatar
    Rickey January 14, 2014 at 2:12 pm #

    Vallely may not have dementia, but he certainly is delusional. It appears that he is 74 years old, given that he graduated West Point in 1961.

  5. avatar
    Loren January 14, 2014 at 2:27 pm #

    He doesn’t *have* to be thinking of the UK. The Galactic Senate in “Star Wars” could remove the republic’s leader through a Vote of No Confidence.

    Granted, that vote ultimately resulted in Palpatine taking leadership and turning the Republic into the Empire, so I doubt Vallely would want to invoke that model.

  6. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm #

    It’s another birther scam. From the WND acrticle:

    He (Vallely) will elaborate on his idea when he appears as one of the main speakers at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention, scheduled Jan. 18-20.

    Buy your tickets now!!

    http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/hear-gen-vallely-offer-way-to-save-nation/

  7. avatar
    James M January 14, 2014 at 5:20 pm #

    I object to a military man claiming to know what I do in the privacy of my own home, and I demand a full investigation from the Top Brass. This type of spying is totally unacceptable. Can I sue him?

  8. avatar
    alg January 14, 2014 at 11:44 pm #

    Mr. Vallely is overdrawn on his allotted fifteen minutes of fame.

  9. avatar
    The Magic M January 15, 2014 at 4:05 am #

    Vallely’s plan to get Obama out of the White House is to hold a “vote of no confidence” in the US House of Representatives

    It seems to be his version of the RWNJ fad “impeachment means removal” (and when you tell them the Constitution says otherwise, they immediately turn to their usual name-calling because they don’t have an answer to that).

    Somehow this all ties into the “Democrats are not real representatives of the people” mindset which totally ignores the role of the Senate in removing a sitting president – and why, well of course because Democrats control the Senate. So they have to dream up something that allows Republicans to remove the President through a “back door”. (Yes, very constitutional, but that’s why they’ve been screaming “Obama shredded the Constitution” for years, so that they now have a “justification” for ignoring it.)

    Another version of Vallely’s claim that I read the other day ties these together by claiming “having lost the people’s confidence” is somehow an impeachable offense (and again assuming impeachment without conviction means anything).

  10. avatar
    The Magic M January 15, 2014 at 4:33 am #

    Now I’ve read Vallely’s article, and while he’s still full of the crazy, I have to defend him in one point and that is it’s obvious he knows a “vote of no confidence” has no legal meaning:

    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.

    Also, he’s obviously not talking about a vote in the House but “by the people”:

    We conduct a national “Vote of No Confidence.”

    So yes, crazy, but not the way you paraphrased it (“Vallely’s plan to get Obama out of the White House is to hold a “vote of no confidence” in the US House of Representatives“, emphasis added).

  11. avatar
    Chris Borthwick January 15, 2014 at 6:20 am #

    In Thailand, this approach is about to rip the country apart. The rebels say firmly that they don’t want another election, because the government would win, which would be wrong. They’re telling the government to step down so that a new unelected government from the right people can step in. There will be blood.

  12. avatar
    The Magic M January 15, 2014 at 6:48 am #

    Chris Borthwick: The rebels say firmly that they don’t want another election, because the government would win, which would be wrong.

    As I said in another thread, that’s the prime motive for separatism.

    Chris Borthwick: so that a new unelected government from the right people can step in

    See birthers. Most of them would not be pleased with any new government they’re not personally part of. It would deprive them of their “I will order all traitors to be shot” fantasies.

    The only thing that surprises me about birtherism is why it hasn’t entirely decomposed into factions mostly fighting themselves (as has happened with German neo-Nazis years ago).
    While some smaller skirmishes between pro-Orly/anti-Orly and pro-Zullo/anti-Zullo factions occur occasionally, on the whole birthers still pretty much stick together.
    They’re caught in an endless loop, with their latest croaks (“Congress put on notice”, “if they don’t act until … we need violent revolt”, “Obama knows his days are numbered”, “impeachment hearings will start in March/April/…” etc.) sounding the same as their 2009 (and 2010 and …) playbook. My prediction is they will soon rehash their other talking points (“states seceding is the way to go”, “no need to worry, Democrats will lose the elections in a landslide”, “Help us, Donald Trump!” etc.).

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2014 at 8:04 am #

    The article says:

    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:

    So, it is a vote in the House, and I guess by the people too.

    The intent of the article was ridicule, and I didn’t mean to be fair.

    The Magic M: Also, he’s obviously not talking about a vote in the House but “by the people”:

  14. avatar
    The Magic M January 15, 2014 at 9:46 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So, it is a vote in the House, and I guess by the people too.

    Either way they continue their early 2012 hopes that impeachment – as a mere propaganda instrument – in an election year is somehow going to help them win big (but the GOP is, at least so far, too clever to fall for that because it can backfire too easily, see Clinton).

  15. avatar
    Plantmaster January 16, 2014 at 10:44 pm #

    The poor general is obviously suffering a Mind-Shaft [sic] Gap…