CANCEL BIDEN's ADDRESS

 

[Published on Newsmax 

SOTU Would Only Let Biden Trumpet His Hollow 'Accomplishments' | Newsmax.com]

Republicans should uninvite President Biden giving his State of the Union Address in the House Chamber.

Republicans can use this historic opportunity to draw attention to everything President Biden is doing to America. They know they will not convict Biden, or any of his Cabinet, using Impeachment.

Instead, Republicans can, in one master stroke, sanction Biden and realign the balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches.

There is no official reason for the speech.

There is not a requirement for it to be annual.

Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution only requires the President to “from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union”.

There is no requirement for Congress granting the President the use of their Chamber for this ritualized taxpayer-funded infomercial.

Republicans would prove that the Congress is a co-equal branch, not subservient to the President. They would not be seen as a pack of trained seals clapping at dozens of cheap applause lines. They would not be the stage for ritualizing Biden's trumpeting hollow accomplishments and demonizing Republican opposition.

They would also avoid being put in awkward political binds as the President introduces controversial people seated next to the First lady, daring the Republicans not to applaud. Speaker Johnson would not have to maintain his dignity as Biden promotes the destruction of everything he holds dear.

Not inviting the President also brings the State of the Union back to its traditional position in American government.

President George Washington delivered the first State of the Union speech in person before a Joint Session of Congress on January 8, 1790. Since then, there have been 232 opportunities for Presidents to deliver their report before Congress. Presidents have delivered their report as a speech before a Joint Session of Congress only 108 times (46%).

The other 125 times were through written communication.

George Washington and John Adams delivered their State of the Union reports as speeches, but Thomas Jefferson was more comfortable with the written word. For 113 years, no other President delivered a State of the Union speech before Congress until Democrat Woodrow Wilson on December 2, 1913. This was part of Wilson’s elevating himself to new regal heights.

President Warren Harding continued this new practice. President Calvin Coolidge delivered his first and only State of the Union address on December 6, 1923, then went silent.

For ten years, Congress did not have to arrange a Joint Session for the State of the Union Address. Then Democrat Franklin Roosevelt asked for the forum in 1934. In 1946, President Harry Truman opted out of a formal speech because, during the previous nine months, he had spoken to five Joint Sessions of Congress relating to the end of World War II. In 1956, President Eisenhower opted out of the speech because he was still recovering from his September 24,1955 heart attack.

No one really missed the Presidential vanity hour. Twenty-six Presidents, including two of America’s greatest Presidential orators, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, choose not to speak to the Congress. Congress still operated. Legislative business proceeded. America survived.

Presidents issue a detailed Budget Message a few weeks after the State of the Union Report. This is a more tangible and actionable communication of the Administration’s priorities. Far more budget initiatives become reality than the dozens of empty promises made during a typical State of the Union address.

Americans have grown tired of this annual narcissistic charade.  President Bill Clinton’s first State of the Union Speech (SOTUS) was watched by a record 70 million.  The television audience for Biden’s 2023 SOTUS was only 27.3 million.

Congressional Republicans can reprimand Biden while reinventing government in the 21st Century. 

Let the President speak from the Oval Office and send a written version to Congress - that would more than meet the Constitutional requirement.

TODAY’S MASTERS OF DECEIT

Published in Newsmax

The thundering chorus of alarm over the neophytes who attempted clumsy networking pales in comparison with decades of Left-wing Democrat collusion with Russia.  The so-called “Progressives” in politics and the press aided and abetted America’s enemies for generations.  Their current cacophony of indignation is just another round of deceit. 

For a hundred years, these newly minted anti-Russians among Congress and the media were actively pro-Russia, pro-Bolshevik, and pro-Soviet Union, the Russia Putin served and was shaped by. 

Let’s review actual Russian collusion.

President Woodrow Wilson bungled the U.S. response to the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, paving the way for decades of terror and the Cold War.  One reason may be that his Russia Advisor was John Christian Bullitt.  Bullitt was a close associate of the famous communist author John Reed.  In fact, Bullitt married Louise Bryant, Reed’s widow.  He tried to convince Wilson to recognize Lenin‘s regime within months of the Bolshevik Revolution.  He later went onto to serve as Franklin Roosevelt’s (FDR) Ambassador to the Soviet Union.

In 1921, leading liberal Democrat thinkers met with Lenin in Moscow to learn about his New Economic Policy and assess its adaptability for America.  This group went on to be the highly feted “Brain Trust” that formed FDR’s inner policy circle and launched the New Deal.  One of Roosevelt’s first acts was to open diplomatic relations with the USSR and name Bullitt as the first U.S. Ambassador.

Ambassador Joseph Davies followed Bullitt in Moscow.  He did everything he could to cover-up Stalin’s great purges and the gulags.  He is best known for his official declaration, “Communism holds no serious threat to the United States.”  His book and subsequent movie “Mission to Moscow” remains the purest example of Stalin worship.  He ended his diplomatic career as an advisor to Truman at the Potsdam Conference, which sealed the fate of Eastern Europe within the Soviet “sphere of influence”.

Davies’ pro-Stalin efforts were supported by Alger Hiss.  Starting in 1936, Hiss advised Cordell Hull, FDR’s Secretary of State, and rose in influence until he was FDR’s key Russian advisor at the Yalta Conference.  The Yalta Conference was noteworthy for the tilt of FDR toward Stalin and away from Churchill.  In 1948, Hiss was unmasked as a Soviet Agent.  To this day, many liberals defend Hiss and deny the mountain of evidence against him.

President Truman is idolized as the President who stood-up to Communism.  Yet his team mishandled the rise of Mao and the Communists in China, losing China in 1949.  Worse, they deprived South Korea of tanks and artillery in the hopes of not “provoking” North Korea.  On June 25, 1950, North Korea invaded anyway.  The lack of tanks and artillery allowed Chinese and Russian backed North Korean forces to capture Seoul, the Capital of South Korea, in three days.  In less than two months North Korea nearly drove anticommunist forces off the Korean Peninsula and into the sea at Pusan.

The exposure of Hiss was the first of many actions taken by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).  Truman denounced it.  Liberals to this day assert HUAC ushered in the darkest days of America and dismiss its investigations as witch hunts. HUAC was abolished in 1975, after the Democrat post-Watergate landslide. 

Secret Soviet intelligence documents, known as the Venona Papers, surfaced in the 1990s.  In 2000, former Intelligence Committee investigator, Herb Romerstein, published the translated papers, which revealed Soviet agents in the State Department and Hollywood (1943-1980), vindicating HUAC’s work.

The Venona Papers, and other intelligence disclosures, ultimately proved Russian collusion with the “New Left” in the 1960s and with John Kerry’s antiwar activities in the 1970s. 

Defectors and additional documents also outlined how the unilateral Cold War capitulations of the Carter Administration were guided by an array of Russian agents. In particular, the National Security staff of Zbigniew Brzezinski was known for its overly cozy interactions with America’s foes.  This social and professional collusion led to ten significant security breaches including exposing Trigon, America’s highest placed agent in the Kremlin.

Reagan’s White House staff and Bill Casey’s newly invigorated CIA eradicated the Russian and Cuban agents, and their associated “agents of influence”. This cleared the way for America to finally go on the offensive and destroy the Soviet Empire.

Today’s apocalyptic rhetoric about Trump and the Russians takes Left-wing hypocrisy into yet another round of deceit.

Americans should call for a day of reckoning for Trump’s holier than thou detractors.

[Scot Faulkner led the legislative team for Rep. John Ashbrook (R-OH), ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.  He served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives.  He also served on the White House Staff, and in Executive Appointments, during the Reagan Administration.

Currently, Faulkner helps private corporations by flattening organizations; achieving dramatic and sustainable cost reductions while improving operational and service excellence.]

TRUMPING WASHINGTON

[Published at http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/reagan/2016/11/14/id/758756/ ]

The Washington Establishment is betting on Trump faltering.  Trump can triumph by not letting any of them subvert from within.

The well proven maxim, people equals policy, should be Trump’s driving force.  Trump can gain inspiration and insight from Reagan’s earlier victory over the Establishment.  These lessons can assure Trump’s tenure achieves historic change.

The Reagan Revolution almost did not occur because the Republican Establishment did everything it could to co-opt it.  Reagan’s transition planning team was hijacked by technocrats who had no understanding or desire for revolution.  Legions of moderate Republicans, who fought Goldwater in the 1960s and Reagan in the 1970s, poured into Reagan’s transition teams in the weeks following the 1980 election.  Former Ford appointees, derisively called “retreads”, filled the short lists for government executive positions.

It took the aggressive intervention of Reagan’s Kitchen Cabinet to clean house and get his revolution back on track.  Reagan’s closest friends, including Joe Coors and Bill Wilson, arrived in Washington, DC in early December 1980 and personally took charge of the transition.  Their clarity of purpose and unwavering devotion to Reagan and his agenda, assured that Americans got the change they so clearly wanted.

President-Elect Trump has not waited until early December.  Trump’s Veterans’ Day Transition realignment was bold and effective. His top associates, family members, and key operatives are now the rocket boosters to propel the Trump Administration into a sustainable orbit.

There is one advantage that Trump in 2016 has over Reagan in 1980 - the Washington Republican Establishment openly and vehemently opposed Trump throughout his campaign.  The usual post-nomination unity was hindered by the “never Trump” forces.  Many anti-Trump Republicans openly boasted about voting against him in countless social media posts on Election Day. 

This disloyalty and outright sabotage must be remembered.  It clears the field for new blood to serve Trump.  It is far easier to “drain the swamp” when the K Street crocodiles have exposed themselves. 

Those who knifed Trump in the back are waiting for the day he “comes to his senses” and sells out his “Deplorables”.  Many observers are smugly musing that Trump will have to scale back his revolution and make peace with the Establishment.  Otherwise, they declare, Trump will not have enough capable people to run the Executive Branch. 

Trump can once again prove his detractors fools.  The private sector has a vast array of corporate change agents. These top executives have successfully run enterprises larger than most federal agencies.  Those who profitably navigated the post-2008 economic collapse are “battle” seasoned and proven innovators.  Those who remained profitable in the face of global competition have mastered the upheavals of the 21^st Century.  Many will heed Trump’s call to join his crusade to Make America Great Again.

Trump can tap Republican governors who have turned around the governments and economies of their states.  Their dramatic successes have earned them re-election or assured a Republican succeeded them.

The Republican governors were successful because they unflinchingly fulfilled their campaign pledges, and kept their focus on bettering the economic wellbeing of their citizens. They were also successful because they hired highly effective lieutenants to run their state agencies.   These successful change agents bring a record of vanquishing public sector inertia.  They can be paired with private sector leaders to become an unbeatable team for “Trumping” the Federal Government.

Many rallied to Trump within weeks of his announcing his candidacy.  These included policy experts and strategic thinkers who helped in the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions.  Reagan alumni stood firm with Trump by courageously endorsing him while enduring ostracism from the Washington “powers that be”.  Hundreds of retired military and national security leaders, many of whom helped win the Cold War, stepped forward to offer Trump timely and critical support.

Trump’s “Deplorables” are counting on him winning for them and America.

INVITATION ONLY

Also published on https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invitation-only-scot-faulkner?trk=prof-post

How can the new Republican Congress signal that they are the co-equal branch of government? How can Republicans avoid being out maneuvered by President Obama?


It’s time to NOT invite President Obama to give his State of the Union Address before Congress. This is a clear and simple way Republicans can, in one master stroke, register their opposition to Obama’s Executive Orders and realign the balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches.
There is no official reason for the speech. There is not even a requirement for it to be annual. Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution only requires the President to “from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union”.


There is also no requirement that Congress grant the President the use of their Chamber for this ritualized infomercial.


On January 16, 2014, Rep. Eric Cantor sponsored H.Con.Res.75 authorizing “That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 9 p.m., for the purpose of receiving such communication as the President of the United States shall be pleased to make to them.” What if, in January 2015, no one sponsored a Concurrent Resolution or voted for it?


Republicans would prove that the Congress is a co-equal branch, not subservient to the President. They would not become a pack of trained seals clapping at dozens of cheap applause lines. They would not be the stage set for Obama's grandstanding to the nation and helping the media continue their “Obama is on the rebound” narrative.

They would also avoid being put in multiple political binds as the President introduces controversial people, daring the Republicans not to applaud. This may include Michael Brown’s and Eric Garner’s parents sitting next to the First Lady. Obama might even introduce Al Sharpton or some newly pardoned illegal aliens from his VIP delegation in the Chamber’s balcony.


Not inviting the President also brings the State of the Union back to its traditional position in American government.


President George Washington delivered the first State of the Union speech in person before a Joint Session of Congress on January 8, 1790. Since then, there have been 223 opportunities for Presidents to deliver their report. Presidents have delivered their report as a speech before a Joint Session of Congress only 98 times (44%). The other 125 times were through written communication.
George Washington and John Adams delivered their State of the Union reports as speeches, but Thomas Jefferson was more comfortable with the written word. For 113 years, no other President delivered a State of the Union speech until Democrat Woodrow Wilson on December 2, 1913. President Warren Harding continued this new practice as did Calvin Coolidge, once.


For ten years, Congress did not have to arrange a Joint Session for the State of the Union Address. Then Democrat Franklin Roosevelt asked for the forum in 1934. In 1946, President Harry Truman opted out of a formal speech because, during the previous nine months, he had spoken to five Joint Sessions of Congress relating to the end of World War II. In 1956, President Eisenhower opted out of the speech because he was still recovering from his September 24, 1955 heart attack.


No one really missed the Presidential vanity hour. Twenty six Presidents, including two of America’s greatest Presidential orators, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, choose not to speak to the Congress. Congress still operated. Legislative business continued.


Presidents issue a detailed Budget Message a few weeks after the State of the Union Report. This is a more tangible and actionable communication of the Administration’s priorities. Far more budget initiatives become reality than the dozens of empty promises made in a State of the Union address.
Congressional Republicans have an historic opportunity to reinvent government in the 21st Century.


They can start by ending this annual narcissistic charade, which promotes the image of a dominant Executive Branch. Let the President speak from the Oval Office - that would more than meet the Constitutional requirement.


[Scot Faulkner served as Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and on President Reagan’s White House Staff]

REBOOT THE STATE OF THE UNION

Published on http://hnn.us/article/154543 

It is time to rethink the State of the Union Address.

On January 28, Americans will once again endure the pointless spectacle of yet another State of the Union Address.  The President will enter the chamber like a reigning monarch with all branches of government in polite attendance.  Many promises will be made, of which few will be kept.  Many cheap applause lines will be given so that everyone in the Chamber, except the Supreme Court Justices, will rise in ovation.  An array of symbolic guests will be seated next to the First Lady and be used as props at key junctures in the speech. 

Whether Republican or Democrat, Presidents use the State of the Union address to annually reboot their agenda.  It is a huge waste of time for everyone involved.  It creates the visage of an imperial President holding the co-equal branches of government hostage to the vanity of one person.  The only people longing for this annual rite are the pundits who get to spend a week speculating on the speech and another week analyzing it.  It is the Super Bowl for politicians.  The only difference is the cheerleading occurs afterward in Statuary Hall and the pre-game tailgate parties are held at expensive clubs and restaurants.

Why is there a State of the Union speech?

There is no official reason for the speech. There is not even a requirement for it to be annual. Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution only requires the President to make a report:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

It is also not required that Congress grant the President the use of their Chamber for a ritualized infomercial. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives must formally vote on a Joint Resolution to convene a Joint Session of Congress. At any time, one or both Chambers could bring an end to this tedium by simply refusing to approve the resolution.

President George Washington delivered the first State of the Union speech in person before a Joint Session of Congress on January 8, 1790.  Since then, there have been 223 opportunities for Presidents to deliver their report.  Presidents have delivered their report as a speech before a Joint Session of Congress only 98 times.  The other 125 times were through written communication.

George Washington and John Adams delivered their State of the Union reports as speeches, but Thomas Jefferson let his written word suffice.  For 113 years, no other President delivered a State of the Union speech until Woodrow Wilson on December 2, 1913.  President Warren Harding continued this new practice as did Calvin Coolidge, once.

For ten years, Congress did not have to arrange a Joint Session for the State of the Union Address.  Then Franklin Roosevelt asked for the forum in 1934. In 1946, President Harry Truman opted out of a formal speech because, during the previous nine months, there had been five Joint Sessions of Congress relating to the end of World War II.  In 1956, President Eisenhower opted out of a speech because he was still recovering from his September 24, 1955 heart attack.

America seems to have survived the absence of Presidential vanity 125 times.  Congress still operated.  Legislative business continued.  The President issues a detailed Budget Message a few weeks after the speech, which is a far more tangible communication of the Administration’s priorities. So why, in the 21^st Century, must we put up with this annual charade, which everyone knows is totally meaningless?  A simple reading of the President’s Budget executive summary from the Oval Office would more than meet the Constitutional requirement. The last memorable line from a State of the Union Address was President George W. Bush’s description of an “Axis of Evil” on January 29, 2002.  That did not end well.

Since Bush’s 2002 flourish viewership of State of the Union Addresses has plummeted.  In 2003, 62 million watched.  By 2013, only 33.4 million viewed the festivities.  Even if you factor in alternative viewing modes offered by digital media, the audience has substantially declined.  It seems that most Americans, unlike politicians and pundits, are tuning out this outdated and superficial display of Washington excess. Imagine any State of the Union address without the pomp and pageantry and without countless interruptions for orchestrated applause.  The words would be even more empty and meaningless than they are already.  

Rules of Engagement

by Scot Faulkner and Jonathan Riehl

IRS, Associated Press, Benghazi - It has been a sad month for America. The Nixonian turn of the Obama Administration has threatened basic liberties and trust, while the turn down the rabbit hole of the Congressional Republicans has undermined basic roles and responsibilities of the Legislative Branch.

Holding power accountable is a vital and fundamental part of America’s civic culture. The First Amendment’s protections for free speech, and Article I of the Constitution outlining Congress’s powers and responsibility to protect the use of public funds, are pillars that hold our government and society together. Recent actions by both the Executive and Legislative Branches raise alarm.

As President Truman famously declared, “the buck stops here” at the President’s desk. No matter how much President Obama declares his innocence; no matter how much the President asserts he only learned about every problem from watching the news; he is responsible for the actions of the Executive Branch. Intimidation of citizens and the media, violations of privacy, violations of law, and covering-up facts are ultimately the fault of the person who sets the tone, and governs, the Executive Branch. If subordinates were “rogue”, then find out who and find out why. No second or third level functionary wakes-up one morning and decides to create national policy without receiving orders or telling others. To maintain otherwise insults the intelligence of all Americans. The alternative is an admission of gross negligence and incompetence emanating from the Oval Office.

The role of Congress is to use its oversight powers and responsibilities to expose and address illegal, unethical, and unseemly acts of federal officials. This oversight role has been an integral part of Congress since President George Washington. It is the key element of balancing powers among the three branches of the federal government.

Oversight is about truth seeking. When Congress uses this power to create fantasy instead of fact it disserves the institution and the public. The egregious performances by Executive Branch officials have unfortunately been equaled by over-the-top rhetoric and drama by Members of Congress. There is a fundamental problem with the rhetorical strategy of the GOP, and it is evident in these recent hearings. When there are failures in the functioning of government, it is up to Congress to investigate and call them to account. In these recent matters at State, Justice, and the IRS, the duty is obvious. It’s how the House majority has gone about it that is so problematic.

This is especially disappointing because Republicans have a strong record on oversight. In recent history, nothing stands out more than the Watergate hearings, to which many allusions have been made.

In 1973, the wrongdoings of the Nixon administration were brought to light by responsible, bipartisan hearings in which we heard memorable lines from the likes of GOP Senator Howard Baker, asking calmly, “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” The stakes were high. The modesty of the questioning allowed for the public to come to its own conclusions. The facts drove the investigation. Chairing the hearings was Democratic Senator Sam Ervin, of North Carolina. While there was certainly shrill demonizing of Nixon and the Republicans by liberals, this rancor was shut-out of the Ervin Hearings.

Republican leaders in Congress have their hands full. When Chairman Issa, and other “adults”, hold sway, the tone of the hearings hearken to the Ervin hearings. However, less seasoned Republicans on these committees, and those speaking on the House Floor, drown out the search for truth with “truther” style rhetoric. No matter how much some Republicans hate Obama, their best strategy is to let the petulance of Executive Branch witnesses drill holes in the Administration’s boat. When Republicans use their interrogation time to spout conspiracy theories instead of fact finding they divert attention from Obama onto themselves. They also waste precious time. They should be asking questions designed to peel back the “onion layers” to expose the rot. There will be plenty of time to assail the Obama Administration, once the facts, or the lies, are in hand.

The poor performance of both interrogators and interrogatees continue Washington, DC’s downward spiral into hyper-partisanship and perpetual campaigning. Every utterance seems aimed at producing the next soundbite for partisan pundits or campaign ads. Congressional hearings should enlighten and build trust, not become a fodder for comedians where the Members are mouthing their own punch lines.

Scot Faulkner served in the Reagan White House and as Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. Jonathan Riehl, J.D., Ph.D., is a communications consultant for political campaigns and national nonprofit organizations, a former speechwriter for Luntz Research, and an instructor in Communications Studies.