Panetta, Sibelius, & Chu Expose Insanity of Obama Policies

American Voter: Are YOU in favor of ceding US military sovereignty, increasing the federal deficit, and $8 a gallon gasoline?

Panetta, Sibelius, & Chu Expose Insanity of Obama Policies

- John Lillpop Friday, March 9, 2012

Hello, America, are you awake and paying attention?

If not, now would be an excellent time to inform yourself so as to participate intelligently in the most crucial election in our nation’s history, now less than eight months away.

In this, the “Information Age,” a mouse, a broadband connection, a discerning mind, and a healthy disrespect for all politicians are vital requisites for ferreting out the truth, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Armed with just those tools, the inquisitive soul would have been shocked to hear Obama cabinet members Panetta, Sibelius, and Chu testify before Congress this week and, in the process, trash the concept of US military sovereignty; expose the fact that contrary to promises, ObamaCare may actually increase the federal deficit, and reveal why the Department of Energy is being run by an leftwing elitist who thinks that $8 a gallon gasoline would be good for America.

To begin this sad journey, consider the remarks of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as reported, in part:
Panetta Surrenders US Military Sovereignty:

“During the 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.”

Panetta’s assertion that he would seek “international permission” before ‘informing’ Congress about the actions of the US military provoked a firestorm of controversy, prompting the Pentagon to engage in damage control by claiming Panetta’s comments were misinterpreted.”

Sibelius Exposes Lies About Cost of ObamaCare

As reported in part:

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius. She testified before a Senate committee on the new national health care law this week and, in an exchange with Senator Ron Johnson (R – Wisc.), she admitted she really has no idea if Obamacare will save us money or cost us money. Well, that’s not all she admitted, but it was the first thing. We’ll get to the other ways she stumbled through Senator Johnson’s questions, but this is a good place to start. Here is a transcript of the exchange, from the Free Beacon:

“The bottom line here is, the cost of this healthcare law is so uncertain, don’t you think we ought to put the brakes on it?” Johnson asked. “You know, Nancy Pelosi said, ‘We have to pass this law to figure out what’s in it.’ What I don’t want to see is that we have to implement it to figure out how it’s going to bust a hole in our already horribly broken budget.”

SEBELIUS: The original estimate, yes. I think that’s–

JOHNSON: Right. So, the original estimate for deficit reduction–

SEBELIUS: I’m assuming–

JOHNSON: The original estimate for deficit reduction in the first 10 years was $143 billion, correct?

SEBELIUS: Yes–

JOHNSON: So now we, we’ve reduced that $143 billion by $86 billion – by not getting revenue from the CLASS Act – and now $111 billion because we’ve increased the mandatory costs of the exchanges, correct?

SEBELIUS: I’m assuming the numbers are correct. I’m sorry I don’t have them.

JOHNSON: So, when you add those together, that’s $197 billion added to the first 10-year cost estimate of Obamacare, so now we are instead of saving $143 billion, we are adding $54 billion to our deficit, correct?

Chu Reveals Why He Could Care Less About Exploding Gas Prices

As reported in part:

The big news yesterday was that Energy Secretary Steven Chu does not own a car. But his wife owns a 2002 BMW 325i, which gets 21 MPG, according to the Daily Caller. Why did Chu not get her to trade in the Beamer for a Chevy Volt?

Also, as a Cabinet secretary, he gets a security detail that drives him around in an SUV, most likely a Cadillac Escalade. We can mince around with words over whether he owns a car or not, but he is not taking public transportation, walking or riding a bicycle to get everywhere.

Craig Bannister of CNS said a senator asked Chu at a budget hearing if he owned a Chevy Volt.

Said Chu: “No, I don’t own a car at the moment.”

Why does he not own a Volt?

If as he says the Volt is such a great car — if as he says our use of oil is a bigger threat to national security than terrorism — why does Chu not own a car?

His answer indicates that he does drive. Why not lead by example?

In fact, why does the president not trade in The Beat Cadillac that he rides in for security reasons for a Chevy Volt? Could it be that this Motor Trend Car of the Year and European Car of the Year be a piece of crap that has no speed, no range and takes 10 hours to refill?

If Volts ain’t good enough for our hired help, why should we bother making Volts.”

After listening to Panetta, Sibelius, and Chu, the big questions facing voters are: Are YOU in favor of ceding US military sovereignty, increasing the federal deficit, and $8 a gallon gasoline?
Or do you still love America?

Ref 1 » Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Panetta, Sibelius, & Chu Expose Insanity of Obama Policies

War Powers, Impeachment, Syria and Kony

March 13, 2012 by Sam Rolley


http://personallibertycom.files.word...0313_image.jpg
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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwO...layer_embedded

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=