By Chip Roy The United States of America is starting to resemble a Target in Minneapolis, overrun by lawless mobs and left for dead by the very leaders charged with upholding the rule of law. Today, we are witnessing the wealthiest, freest, and greatest country in the history of the world, which took more than 240 years to build, being burned to the ground at the hands of radical leftists motivated primarily by anarchy and a Marxist agenda, not racial justice. Compared to previous generations and their peers who sign up to defend America, these folks have contributed precious little to society. Yet, somehow, they have found a way to bend America to their will. How? Because most of our nation's political class won't stand up and lead. Yes, those civilians choosing to loot businesses, paint "Kill Cops" on billboards, destroy property, and promote violence are being propped up by the very politicians--Democrat or Republican, take your pick--you've elected. But it goes deeper than that. The very people you have sent to Washington, D.C. to make laws, uphold them, conduct oversight, and ensure America remains a safe and prosperous nation have cowered to the mob. Politicians have allowed the community of CHAZ in Seattle, run by a self-proclaimed "warlord," and BHAZ in downtown Washington (feet from the White House) to take over chunks of sovereign cities. They have sat idly as historical statues and federal monuments have been defaced, torn down, and destroyed. They have allowed the mobs to "cancel" anyone with opinions contrary to their radical agenda. We all know the debauchery playing out before our eyes is part of Democrats' ultimate agenda to remake America in their image. They have not hidden it, after all. What is shocking to see, though, as a life-long conservative and now Republican member of Congress, is my party, whether at the local, state, or federal level, so far failing to give their voters reason to believe the GOP will defend our country. More, they have been failing to go on offense to make clear the systemic racism that is ripping apart black families and the fabric of our nation comes from the Democrat Party and its adherence to failed big government programs over the promise of individuals, families, and communities prospering. Republicans must immediately stand up for the rule of law. We must loudly defend law enforcement. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi won't allow us to show up for work, so we must loudly demand we do our job. We must loudly demand an end to broken schools over education freedom, an end to the failed welfare state over a vibrant opportunity agenda, and an end to broken families over homes with mothers and fathers and community support. But the first step is restoring law and order. Republicans must call out the radical agenda of Antifa and the Black Lives Matter Organization, while championing true liberty and justice that benefits all. There isn't an American alive, regardless of race or any other immutable characteristic, who doesn't want to be able to put her baby on the hip, walk to the corner store, and return home without fear of harassment or violence. Americans want freedom, which isn't possible without safety and security. Today, I have called for the Department of Justice to use all tools and resources necessary to defend America's federal property, including monuments and federal parks, America's churches, synagogues, and all religious organizations under all applicable federal laws, and end organized criminal activity by Antifa and any other group associated with rioting, looting, and general lawlessness. I call on the president to use the Insurrection Act to step in where necessary to restore order. And I call on Congress to defund any states or localities who will not work with us to enforce the rule of law. It's time for Republicans to Stand Up For America. We must no longer retreat to lawless mobs and undermine security and prosperity for black Americans, or any other American, being used to advance Marxism.

By Justin Amash, Ken Buck, Jared Golden, Scott Perry, Dean Phillips, Chip Roy and Abigail Spanberger We are members of Congress whose political ideologies and priorities run the gamut, but we are united in our determination to safeguard the constitutional duty of Congress to declare war and to ensure that the American people have their voices heard. This duty is essential to providing the men and women of our armed forces the support and clarity of mission they deserve. Leaders from across the political spectrum have too often avoided that responsibility -- and the full debate and engagement it brings. Congress must act now, before our inaction irrevocably undermines our constitutional separation of powers and endangers lives. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power to declare war in Congress. As representatives of the people, we have a responsibility to engage with them on the purposes, goals and risks of war. The Founders rested this authority with Congress to guarantee that the decision to send Americans into harm's way would be made by the individuals most accountable to the people. Today, less than half of 1 percent of Americans serve in the armed forces. Too often, military families experience multiple deployments while the rest of us, including members of Congress, go about our lives disconnected from their sacrifice. Our broken system is failing them. We have been at war in the Middle East for nearly two decades, under authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) that our predecessors in Congress passed almost a generation ago. Men and women of our armed forces continue to risk their lives as presidents of both parties stretch these authorizations to justify often tenuously related military engagements. Rather than debating and voting on present conflicts, Congress habitually acquiesces to the executive branch's actions. This must change; the Constitution demands it, and the people we represent deserve it. Last week, the House of Representatives voted on a concurrent resolution regarding the use of force against Iran or its agents. For some of us, this vote was a positive step toward reasserting Congress's constitutional responsibilities. For others, it was an inadequate and inapt substitute for real action. Regardless of our respective positions on that vote, we firmly agree that Congress must reclaim its Article I responsibility regarding the use of force. To start, it is time to have a serious debate and vote on repeal of the 2002 AUMF, which authorized the use of force against Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. This authorization has fully outlived its purpose, given the death of Hussein, regime change and the withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2011, regardless of how one views the merits of that withdrawal. Just last year, the full House supported, on a nonpartisan basis, repeal of the 2002 AUMF as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, but this provision was later stripped from the final text as the House and Senate conferred. The 2002 authorization -- as well as a lingering 1991 authorization -- should be removed from the books, lest either be used to justify further military engagement beyond what Congress intended. We also must foster an informed debate on a strategic alternative to the 2001 authorization. It granted the president authority to use force against those responsible for the attacks on 9/11, or those who harbored such organizations or people, yet it has been used to justify an array of military engagements against targets that, although perhaps worthy, were in some cases nonexistent or unimagined 19 years ago. We are committed to developing and debating a new approach that provides the executive branch with the latitude necessary to fight the ongoing transnational terrorist threat, while also ensuring that Congress takes responsibility, as the Constitution requires, for the decision to send men and women off to war. Our debates and votes must affirm that the decision to proceed with war-making resides in Congress. The declarations or authorizations we pass must have a clear scope and requirement of periodic congressional reconsideration to ensure the proper defense of our nation and prevent ill-defined forever wars. We expect that any effort to reconsider the 2001 authorization will be difficult, contentious and emotional, but it must not be partisan. In the face of geopolitical challenges and transnational threats, it is more important than ever that Congress affirm its willingness to do its job, debate the hardest of topics and vote -- expressing the will of the people -- on the wars that may take the lives of those we represent. At a time of divisive, angry partisanship, the call to do right by our service members, their families and the Constitution is one that can and should unite us. We are a group of representatives who, despite our disagreements, stand together to affirm the role and duty of Congress. In the halls of Congress and at gatherings around the country, let us lay down our partisan swords and commit to do better by the men and women in uniform who take up arms on behalf of our nation and the Constitution we swore to support and defend.

The Democrats have filed Articles of Impeachment. No one is surprised, because impeachment has been the goal for the radical Left and others who dislike the president since before his election. Impeachment of a president is a solemn undertaking. It will inevitably, as Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 65, veer toward political factions. Yet it is important that our Founders intentionally did not embrace "recalls" or "votes of no confidence." Rather, our system demands from Congress evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors and contemplates a level of behavior commensurate with the chaos inflicted on the republic by potential removal of a president. By its very structure, it suggests a judicious exercise of that constitutional safeguard when the people have a clear opportunity to render their own judgment in less than a year. To determine the facts, I have largely sought to avoid the media circus while taking part in depositions, reading reports, and observing public hearings. As a former prosecutor and as a member of the House Oversight Committee, I believe it important to review the facts and then render judgment. The most important evidence presented is the July 25 call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which the White House voluntarily released. I am sympathetic to those who reasonably believe that the call was not "perfect," but I also do not see evidence sufficient to impeach a president of the United States. My specific thoughts are as follows: Regarding the call, it was foreseeable that mentioning a potential political opponent on a call with a foreign head of state would, at a minimum, give the appearance of mixing domestic politics with foreign policy. This is particularly likely when there are people within the bureaucracy who want to find malfeasance, whether it exists or not. I also do not believe so much effort should be spent advancing the argument that there was "no quid pro quo." It's legally debatable, but it's difficult to argue there wasn't a "this for that" desired outcome, based on the totality of the phone call and the testimony. But conversations of this kind occur often between heads of state, and provided they are related to the interests of the United States, they are generally speaking legitimate. It is important to stipulate the relatively clear facts. A meeting and a portion of foreign aid were in fact withheld. In the case of aid, it was withheld for two months and apparently with the knowledge of at least some in the White House. The president clearly wanted President Zelensky to act both in the form of investigations and, it appears, by way of some public statement(s) -- ostensibly to demonstrate that Zelensky would be different from past Ukrainian leaders in combating the country's endemic corruption. It also appears that President Trump wanted Ukraine's assistance in looking into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation (which the Justice Department had been conducting) and into activities involving Ukraine and the Bidens vis-à-vis Burisma. So, were there high crimes and misdemeanors? First, the president deserves, and is given under the Constitution, a great deal of latitude to conduct foreign policy, which includes tough negotiations. In the case of Ukraine, it is clear that President Trump wants Europe to carry more of the burden of supporting their effort, and that he views both a longstanding history of corruption and Ukraine's nexus to our 2016 elections as a problem. He is most certainly within his rights to believe these things, and act on them. Indeed, federal law requires he act to stop corruption if American foreign aid is being distributed. The history of corruption is readily agreed to by all. But central to the issue at hand is whether there is evidence that Ukraine worked with Democrats to influence our 2016 elections. While my Democrat colleagues and the media counter that this allegation has been "debunked," in doing so, they make two errors. One, they suggest that because Russia is rightly regarded to have purposefully targeted our elections, this means Ukraine did not. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive, and both can have meddled in varying degrees. They also purposefully obfuscate the obvious evidence -- as acknowledged under oath by one of the Democrats' most celebrated witnesses, Dr. Fiona Hill -- that there were troubling efforts by Ukrainians to influence the 2016 elections. They do this by conflating it with the less likely technological "interference" (see, e.g., "Crowdstrike"). To be certain, the president's continued personal promotion of that angle perpetuates that questionable narrative, but that's not the core issue. The truth is that we saw Ukrainian leaders -- including the sitting ambassador -- publicly attack candidate Trump in the press. We saw some make open efforts to promote Hillary Clinton and actually work with the DNC to try to dig up dirt on candidate Trump. Further, though later overruled, even a Ukrainian court once found that a Ukrainian parliamentarian and head of anti-corruption police interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. But what matters is that all of these things raise legitimate questions of Ukrainian engagement in 2016 elections, and thus provide President Trump with reasonable questions to raise to a new, reformist Ukrainian president. Second, investigating the Bidens was never based on "digging up dirt," as both Bidens' public actions raise legitimate questions regarding self-dealing and are reasonably connected to overall corruption in Ukraine. The elder Biden threatened $1 billion in aid to the Ukrainians in part to eject the prosecutor general, who was looking into Burisma -- an energy company with known corruption issues and a board that his own son was sitting on with income of $83,000 per month. Whether or not Biden's effort was independently defensible, his actions regarding Burisma are not immune from scrutiny just because he is a candidate for president. That would be absurd. Even the Obama administration raised concerns about the likely conflict of interest involving the Bidens -- as was clear in testimony provided by Ambassador Yovanovich. It is also noteworthy that not one witness -- in a sea of witnesses offering loads of conjecture -- has yet provided direct evidence that the president targeted former vice president Biden or his son specifically and/or solely for political reasons involving the 2020 elections. Arguably the July 25 phone call could have been word-for-word the same even if Biden were not running for president, and if the name Biden had not been mentioned, the president's comments would have been an unremarkable call for a crackdown on corruption by a country that receives hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from U.S. taxpayers. Even if you make the leap that it had to be about gaining a 2020 advantage, not one witness offers direct, non-hearsay evidence connecting withholding aid specifically to targeting Biden for 2020 political gain. The closest was David Holmes's testimony that Sondland said it was about "big stuff" like Biden, but that implication wasn't specifically about 2020, and Sondland rejected this account anyway. For me, that's the whole ballgame and ends the question of impeachment. But for those remaining on the fence, we should not dismiss the larger context. Zelensky himself denies feeling pressure either during the phone call or after. The delay in funding was a fraction of the total that lasted for barely three months, and there is no evidence that the delay was actively communicated to Ukraine, certainly not in a way to apply pressure. Furthermore, there was reason to ask Ukraine, with a new reformer as president, to investigate potential meddling in 2016, and there were non-political reasons to mention looking into certain activities involving Biden and his proximity to associated allegations involving Burisma. Additionally, a delay in aid was consistent with the president's directive that foreign aid in general be scrutinized, given our own country's financial straits. This is particularly obvious when viewed through the lens of history -- in which President Obama saw an airliner get shot down in Ukraine and Russia annex Crimea, yet he resisted missile defense and had offered his own quid pro quo to Russian president Medvedev about needing space to get past the election, when he would have "more flexibility." It is noteworthy that during the administration of President Trump, the Ukrainians now have a potential reformer president in Zelensky, full security funding, and Javelin missiles. Therefore, while I will continue to examine any evidence offered in the apparent final days of this partisan impeachment exercise, House Democrats have utterly failed to provide compelling evidence of a high crime and misdemeanor meriting the impeachment of a president. Once this process is completed in the U.S. House, we should immediately turn our attention to solving any one of the significant issues that Americans care most about. Reducing health-care prices, securing the border, balancing the budget, passing free trade, or providing a clear mission for our military -- these are the things I hear Texans talking about every day. Let's do our job now. Whether you agree with this analysis or not, one thing is clearly true: Americans will have the opportunity to make their choice in just over ten months. We should let them do it.