Thread: Panetta, Dempsey and treason: And Congress did nothing

Panetta, Dempsey and treason: And Congress did nothing

March 10, 2012 by ppjg

Marti Oakley Copyright 2012 The recent statements by Leon Panetta and joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, to the effect that they are under no obligation to the Congress to seek their permission to start wars. Both Panetta and Dempsey claim their authority comes from the United Nations and NATO.



These were clear and unambiguous declarations of submission to foreign governments, agencies and organizations and ended with the dismissing of the Constitution as not applicable to them or their decisions. I have to wonder why both men were not frog-marched out of the meeting and straight to jail. But then, we are talking about the District of Criminals here and we know it is rare that anyone from the District ever goes to jail no matter how anti-American, unlawful or unconstitutional or treasonous their activities or views.

Both men did however, say they might inform congress

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.”



So, if I understand this correctly: They would seek permission from non-US entities and then if they thought it was any business of the United States as to how our military would be used…….they would make a decision as to whether or not they would “want” to get permission from Congress? And these two are actually still walking around free?

Note: My goal would be to see Panetta and Dempsey both tried for treason and publicly hung. International permission be damned and congress along with it.

I believe it was this moment in time that Senator Sessions and his companions in the meeting realized that they were being given notice that their services were no longer needed. Panetta and Dempsey publicly, effectively declared that Congress was of no further use.

One Representative did respond with a resolution which no one else has bothered to co-sponsor with him or shown any support for. Representative Walter Jones R-NC submitted his response to the open declaration of the forfeiture of sovereignty of the United States to the UN and NATO, among other organizations.

H.Con.Res.107 – 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.

I find it more than ironic that this same congress, one that has repeatedly dismissed the American public as irrelevant as it subjected us to foreign agreements, harmonization agreements, Agenda 21 from the UN, and [world organizations] edicts and mandates, suddenly finds itself declared irrelevant along with the rest of us. This is the same congress that repeatedly sold us out to global corporations and which openly advocated for global interests, corrupt banking cartels and Wall Street thugs and crooks.

The sense of congress

I have to laugh every time I see “It is the sense of Congress” as a prelude to some statement made by congress. There is not one of us out here who believes for a minute that Congress has any sense at all, of anything, at any time. So absorbed in their own self-enrichment, so arrogant in their disregard for the people they were sent to the District of Criminals to represent, these same individuals were just informed that essentially…….their services were no longer needed.

Our military, at least the one we are being forced to finance and populate, is no longer subject to the control of the United States according to Panetta and Dempsey. From the statements by these two anti-American advocates, our military has been subverted and conscripted to global entities.

Again, I ask: Why were these two men not immediately arrested and frog marched out of the building and to a nearby jail? Why were they not incarcerated, without legal council, indefinitely? Why were they not stripped of their citizenship, declared domestic terrorists and tortured? Why didn’t Obama issue one of his murder memo’s targeting them and having them assassinated for openly declaring that they no longer served the United States? These things could happen to you or me for little or no reason at all. Yet these two traitors openly admitted and advocated for the overthrow of our military for foreign interests and then left that meeting and went to dinner.

Why did these Senators, including Jeff Sessions, sit there and take this? Why did not one of these arrogant, self serving jackasses leap from their seats and demand the immediate arrest of these two traitors?

The answer is simple actually. Congress no longer has the power or authority to object to anything, or to assert themselves. Whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, congress has for years, shot itself in the foot so many times by initiating, acquiescing to, and constructing global agreements that forfeited our sovereignty and along with it their own power and authority; they have rendered them selves useless. Every time they voted against us, the people they were supposed to represent, they brought them selves one step closer to being out of a job. Panetta and Dempsey just handed them their pink slip.

As for that bill by Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina? Not one co-sponsor. Not one supporter in that collection of bloated, self serving congressmen.

Now the questions:

• Why should we, the American public, continue to finance the military on any level if it is no longer subject to US control?
• Since Panetta and Dempsey have declared that our military is now under control of foreign organizations and agents, will they allow service members to choose whether they want to continue in service to a foreign organization or be relieved of any further obligations?
• Will the United Nations and NATO now assume all costs of military actions?
• Will these foreign organizations that Panetta and Dempsey have subjected our military to, now assume all costs associated with military expansion, including funding the military industrial complex?
• And finally, considering the failure of “congress” to defend the nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, which I assume includes domestic enemies working for foreign organizations but collecting a paycheck from US taxpayers; will congress voluntarily step down and acknowledge their complicity in this treason against these United States?

And one last observation: Do not the statements by Panetta and Dempsey fall under the “Trading with the Enemy” Act?

As we have all witnessed the growing malice of the Federal government towards the people of the United States, the question that has nagged at many of us is: Would our own military turn on us?We need to re-frame the question and give this some thought:

Would the military, formerly under the control and direction of Congress and the President, but now subverted and controlled by the United Nations and NATO, turn on us?How does “I was just following orders”, sound to you?

Panetta, Dempsey and treason: And Congress did nothing « The PPJ Gazette

War Powers, Impeachment, Syria and Kony

March 13, 2012 by Sam Rolley



Outside of conservative media, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the President should not consult the Congress but look to the globalist power of NATO and the United Nations for direction when deciding to openly engage in foreign war went largely unnoticed.

Questioned by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) about what legal authority the Administration of Barack Obama has to intervene in Syria as it did it Libya, Panetta made one thing remarkably clear: The Administration answers not to the American people, the Congress or the Constitution, but to NATO and the U.N.

“We’re worried about international legal basis, but nobody worried about the fundamental Constitutional legal basis that this Congress has over war,” Sessions said. “We were not asked, stunningly, in direct violation of the War Powers Act, whether or not you believe it’s Constitution [sic], it certainly didn’t comply with it. We spend too much 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. Do you think that you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria without Congressional approval?”

In answer, Panetta said that the Federal government would first seek permission from International authorities and alert Congress only after the fact.

View the video below for a video of the hearing:



Most Americans, like Sessions, likely would be outraged to know that the Administration takes its marching orders from international interests. But, as Republic Magazine notes in a recent article, this is nothing new:

On December 20, 1945, Truman signed a measure entitled the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (UNPA), which effectively abolished Congress’s constitutional function in declaring war. Under the UNPA, the U.S. President can “negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council” concerning the use of American military personnel and facilities for UN “peacekeeping” and “peace enforcement” missions.

UNPA has been used by Truman and his successors — most recently by George W. Bush and Obama — to violate Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 — which grants Congress sole power to declare war — and engage the United States in perpetual and unConstitutional war.

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul was outraged by Panetta’s assertions and responded on Friday:

For President Obama’s head of the Defense Department to state that international permission, rather than congressional approval, is what would be needed as a legal basis to initiate a no-fly zone over Syria flies in the face of the guidelines established by our Founders… But such actions should no longer come as a surprise. During the conflict in Libya last year, we saw exactly what this President thinks of following the rule of law. President Obama consulted NATO, the United Nations, and the Arab League for permission and authorization to use U.S. military force against Libya. But he utterly ignored the one body that has the legal authority to grant that permission—the U.S. Congress. That was, and still is, unacceptable.

Another lawmaker, Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC) is also angered by Panetta’s remarks and introduced a resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 107) declaring that the President should be impeached for using the military without the consent of Congress.

The resolution, which is currently in the House Committee on the Judiciary, 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.

Amid controversy over whether the United States will involve itself in further military adventurism with or without the consent of Congress, new problems are emerging in Afghanistan where the Nation is already at war. Details emerged Monday about an American soldier (some reports indicate more than one drunk American soldier) massacred 16 Afghan civilians, including women and children, as they slept in their homes before torching their bodies. According to The Associated Press, the Taliban have vowed revenge on the United States for the attack, and officials say that the incident will likely damage the relationship between the U.S. and the Afghan puppet government.

Anti-war advocates such as Paul point out that the United States’ failed military adventurism is clearly evidenced by Iraqi backlash against Western ideas, instability in Libya and the horrific actions carried out by some battle-weary and desensitized troops in Afghanistan.

Despite the evidence, propaganda is leading a growing number of Americans and American lawmakers to believe that the United States must intervene elsewhere in order to create a more perfect world. A Syrian rebel going by the name “Syria Danny,” who makes weekly appearances to beg for U.S. military intervention in the country, was recently caught on camera orchestrating gunfire to be heard in the background before the interview began. The Hollywood elite and their puppet masters are also trying to drum up support for further U.S. adventurism in central Africa — where Obama sent 100 U.S.troops last year to Uganda — with an Internet campaign focused on African warlord Joseph Kony. The campaign features an emotional documentary called “Kony 2012” that tells of how the warlord uses children to build his armies and likens him to Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden. Critics say further U.S. actions in the region would equate to colonialism.

Ugandan journalist Angelo Izama writes, “Many African critics unsurprisingly are crying neo-colonialism. This is because these campaigns are disempowering of their own voices. After all the conflict and suffering is affecting them directly regardless of if they hit the re-tweet button or not.”

War Powers, Impeachment, Syria and Kony : Personal Liberty Alerts=

Ron Paul Senior Advisor Bruce Fein talks Impeachment Resolution and Republican Convention Outlook

Submitted by Kurt Wallace on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:52

Bruce Fein Senior Advisor for Ron Paul 2012 campaign and author of Congressman Walter B Jones H. CON. RES. 107M joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for ‘Ron Paul Senior Advisor Bruce Fein talks Impeachment Resolution and Republican Convention Outlook’ to discuss the resolution’s purpose moving forward, the support for this legislation and Leon Panetta’s statement regarding whether or not the administration would even talk to congress prior to military action in Syria as impeachable. He also talks regarding the no clear winner scenario at the Republican National Convention.

Listen Here!


Ron Paul Senior Advisor Bruce Fein talks Impeachment Resolution and Republican Convention Outlook | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012