PDA

View Full Version : Coup D’etat: Pentagon & Obama Declare Congress Ceremonial




John F Kennedy III
03-08-2012, 03:20 PM
Coup D’etat: Pentagon & Obama Declare Congress Ceremonial

Congressman Jones introduces bill that would subject Panetta & Obama to impeachment

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military, words which effectively declare Congress a ceremonial relic, have prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce a resolution that re-affirms such behavior as an “impeachable high crime and misdemeanor” under the Constitution.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”

Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

In an effort to re-affirm the fact that “the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” Republican Congressman Walter Jones has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives.

The full text reads;


Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Under the terms of Jones’ resolution, both Panetta and Obama would be subject to impeachment for abusing their power and violating the Constitution in disregarding the authority of Congress and placing a foreign power above its jurisdiction.

Despite the Pentagon’s efforts to claim that Panetta’s words were misinterpreted, the Obama administration itself has routinely cited the authority of the United Nations in relation to last year’s invasion of Libya, which was conducted without approval from Congress.

In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”

Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”

In boldly asserting the authority of international powers over and above the legislative branch, Panetta and Obama are openly declaring that they no longer represent the American people and instead are water carriers for a global dictatorship that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.


Hyperlinks in original article:
http://www.infowars.com/coup-detat-pentagon-obama-declare-congress-ceremonial/

bluesc
03-08-2012, 03:24 PM
Pretty terrifying that this headline is 100% accurate. Now you answer to the UN.

Or should I be a "realist" and completely dismiss the idea of a world government?

Anyway, it's good to see Walter Jones fighting back. He is a good friend to Dr. Paul and deserves our help if he needs it.

Pisces
03-08-2012, 03:27 PM
Pretty terrifying that this headline is 100% accurate. Now you answer to the UN.

Or should I be a "realist" and completely dismiss the idea of a world government?

Anyway, it's good to see Walter Jones fighting back. He is a good friend to Dr. Paul and deserves our help if he needs it.

He has a primary challenger this year. I don't know if its a serious threat, though.

bluesc
03-08-2012, 03:28 PM
He has a primary challenger this year. I don't know if its a serious threat, though.

Need to see a poll.

Hopefully he is treated as a priority just as Thomas Massie is. Ignoring friendly incumbents is a huge mistake.

specsaregood
03-08-2012, 03:29 PM
So, when do we cancel congress' pensions and salaries and send them home?

RiseAgainst
03-08-2012, 03:29 PM
" except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States"

Thereby nullifying the entire motion.

John F Kennedy III
03-08-2012, 03:32 PM
Pretty terrifying that this headline is 100% accurate. Now you answer to the UN.

Or should I be a "realist" and completely dismiss the idea of a world government?

Anyway, it's good to see Walter Jones fighting back. He is a good friend to Dr. Paul and deserves our help if he needs it.

This.

robertwerden
03-08-2012, 03:32 PM
In the course of human events.....

specsaregood
03-08-2012, 03:34 PM
" except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States"
Thereby nullifying the entire motion.

Not really. The President has the power to defend against an imminent attack without approval of congress.

Pisces
03-08-2012, 03:36 PM
Need to see a poll.

Hopefully he is treated as a priority just as Thomas Massie is. Ignoring friendly incumbents is a huge mistake.

I don't know if any public polling of this race has been done; I haven't seen any. His opponent is named Frank Palombo and he's a former police chief. He's going after Jones for being a "liberal" mostly due to his foreign policy positions.

RiseAgainst
03-08-2012, 03:38 PM
Not really. The President has the power to defend against an imminent attack without approval of congress.

Thus nullifying congress. Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Beirut Marine Barracks, WTC 1 ('93), USS Cole, WTC 2 ('01)...

specsaregood
03-08-2012, 03:41 PM
Thus nullifying congress. Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Beirut Marine Barracks, WTC 1 ('93), USS Cole, WTC 2 ('01)...

I don't recall defending against those. You are thinkng of retaliation which does require congressional approval, that is not the same as defending.

RiseAgainst
03-08-2012, 03:44 PM
I don't recall defending against those. You are thinkng of retaliation which does require congressional approval, that is not the same as defending.

Again, reread what I quoted:

"except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States"

specsaregood
03-08-2012, 04:01 PM
Again, reread what I quoted:
"except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States"

It isnt a matter or rereading, you just have a different interpretation of it. I read it as defending against an event. eg: somebody is about to drop bombs on us, the president can order those planes shot down. I'm sure that is the interpretation that Rep. Jones meant as well.

RiseAgainst
03-08-2012, 04:02 PM
It isnt a matter or rereading, you just have a different interpretation of it. I read it as defending against an event. eg: somebody is about to drop bombs on us, the president can order those planes shot down. I'm sure that is the interpretation that Rep. Jones meant as well.

Yes, because nobody has ever used interpretations to get around things like this....

specsaregood
03-08-2012, 04:04 PM
Yes, because nobody has ever used interpretations to get around things like this....
Nope, never. ;) You could write to Rep. Jones and suggest he be more explicit if it worries you. It isn't like this will get any traction anyways. Congress has already shown they don't want this responsibility.

mosquitobite
03-08-2012, 04:52 PM
Nope, never. ;) You could write to Rep. Jones and suggest he be more explicit if it worries you. It isn't like this will get any traction anyways. Congress has already shown they don't want this responsibility.

Exactly. They don't want their votes on record so that when an unending war becomes unpopular they might be held accountable.