Senator Sessions Nails Panetta

Everyone who reads my messages knows that I have no use for US Senators —— sitting and former. It pains me to temper my long-held contempt for US Senators, but Senator Sessions turned me around —— at least as far as he is concerned. I still have no use for the US Senate as an institution because it remains a nest of traitors. Ratifying the New START Treaty was the most recent betrayal.

So how come our Republican wannabes are not exploring the topic Senator Sessions examines in this enlightening video? The topic is infinitely more important than is the crap Romney/Santorum/Gingrich talk about:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84&feature=player_embedded"]Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria - YouTube[/ame]

Here is where Panetta got clever:

Clever hell! Panetta is lying through his teeth. He knows that no Democrat president, certainly not Hussein, will defend this country without the approval of the United Nations. In practical terms that means the US military will never be used to defend this country against communism as it did in Korea and Vietnam. You can put Panetta’s answers to Senator Sessions in perspective if you read my posts in this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/intelligence/192647-putting-panetta-perspective.html

This final excerpt should remind everyone of Al Gore:

Al Gore thanked the families of American pilots for “dying for the UN” in flyovers after Desert Storm ended. That pretty much sums up what every Democrat thinks the US military is for.

Congress Impotent at Calling War: NATO UN Only Approval Criteria for Panetta
March 8, 2012By Maggie

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is conducting a hearing of the Armed Services Committee. In the first minute of the video he chats with General Dempsy, then moves on to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Panetta tells him that no Congressional authority will be need to take action in Syria, as none was need in Libya. Panetta says the President has the authority after he receives permission giving him legal basis either from NATO or the United Nations.

Sessions responding to General Dempsey says:

I want to make sure you understand, and I know you do that, that we are not dependent upon a NATO or U.N. resolution to execute policies consistent with the national security policies of the United States.

Then he turns to Panetta, and they discuss how we joined a coalition to take action in Libya, and what will happen if we take action in Syria.

Panetta asserts several times that the President has the authority under the Constitution to defend the United States (intimating that Congress is not necessary).

What is never said is that any action taken in Libya had nothing to do with defending the United States, and any action we take in Syria will have nothing to do with defending the United States.

What we are hearing here is an in-your-face denial of the Congressional branch of our Government’s authority to deploy our Military. This is, in my opinion, the result of Congress letting Obama go around them, over them, behind them and under them to get things done without them. They have all too often willingly abdicated their authority and their sacred obligation to the people they represent. With a Globalist in the Oval Office the fruit of Congress’ foolishness is in harvest.

Here’s a portion of the transcript beginning at about 1:50.

SESSIONS: We worried about International Legal Basis but no one worried about the fundamental Constitutional legal basis that this Congress has over war. We were not asked, stunningly, in direct violation of the War Powers Act, whether or not you believe it’s Constitutional, it certainly didn’t comply with it.

We spent our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time worrying about the elected Representatives of the United States.

Do you think you can act without Congress and initiate a No Fly Zone in Syria, without Congressional approval?

PANETTA: Again, 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, I think those are issues I think we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.

SESSIONS: Well, I’m almost breathless about that, because what I heard you say is, we are going to seek international approval and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek Congressional approval.

I want to say to you, that’s a big deal, wouldn’t you agree? You served in the Congress. Wouldn’t you agree that would be pretty breathtaking for the average American, so would you like to clarify that?

PANETTA: I’ve also served with Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents who have always reserved the right to defend this country if necessary.

SESSIONS: But before you do this you would seek permission of the international authorities?

PANETTA: If we are working with an international coalition and we’re working with NATO we would want to be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. That’s something that all of these countries would want to have – some kind of legal basis on which to act.

SESSIONS: What kind of legal basis are you looking for? What entity?

PANETTA: If NATO made the decision to go in, that would be one. If we developed an international coalition beyond NATO then some kind of U.N. Security Resolution…

SESSIONS: So you are saying NATO would give you a legal basis…and an ad hoc coalition of the United Nations would provide a legal basis?

PANETTA: (blather – more about coalitions and justifying being a part of a coalition)

SESSIONS: Well who are you asking for the legal basis from?

PANETTA: If the U.N. passed a Security Resolution as it did with Libya, we would do that. If NATO came together as it did in Bosnia, we would rely on that, so we have options here IF WE WANT TO BUILD THE KIND OF INTERNATIONAL APPROACH for dealing with the situation.

SESSIONS: I’m all for having international support but 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.

I don’t believe it is close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that is required to deploy the United States Military is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.

PANETTA: Let me for the record be clear again…when it comes to the national defense of this country, the President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country and we will.

If it comes to an operation where we are trying to build a coalition of Nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in Libya or Bosnia, for that matter Afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by NATO or by the international community.

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012...r-nato-un-only-approval-criteria-for-panetta/

 

example of a non UN approved action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Jessica_Buchanan_and_Poul_Hagen_Thisted

so it's hard to take that point serious but.


What has congress done after the 90th day? they have a little hearing to show boat for voters but thats it.

Here, whether the president it breaking the law or not, congress is not taking any steps to remediate the situation. Under Nixon congress at least responded with the war powers resolution.

They are more then willing to let the president get away with it, which makes them complicit. They are not taking their responsibility to check and balance.

you're little affair with Sessions is nothing more then just falling for the dog and pony show to allow congress to appear upset.

 

To krunkskimo: I don’t think you grasped my premise. Perhaps #3 permalink in this thread will help:

http://www.politicalforum.com/global-issues/236549-treason-uniform.html

 

The two linked articles add some interesting points to the topic.

I want to add that enslaving the American people from within can never be completed until they are disarmed, or at least until the government knows where the guns are. REGISTRATION IS THE FINAL STEP BEFORE CONFISCATION.

Even if American Socialists controlling the government fail to collect all of the guns there is a more serious problem standing in the way of a return to limited government. As far as I know there has never been a revolution where the productive people overthrew the parasites IN AND OUT OF GOVERNMENT.

NOTE: There is vast difference between private sector citizens who support the government as they did in Czarist Russia, Nationalist China, Cuba, and elsewhere, and our own parasite class who continue to vote themselves more of the country’s wealth while contributing nothing to society. In short: Parasites overthrow governments but no one has ever overthrown parasites. Generally, historians offer various reasons as to why a country, an empire, a society declines and falls. No one has been able to prove how parasites do it from within.

Also note that for decades parasites have been getting everything they demanded, yet America is becoming more violent every day.

Returning to limited government in a less violent manner than armed rebellion would be to replace the XVI Amendment with an amendment that clearly prohibits the government from using tax dollars for charity of any kind. I believe that the First Amendment’s prohibition against a government religion already does that, but no one is enforcing it. Hell, Hussein & Company are destroying the Constitution with coerced charity —— including corporate welfare!

Unfortunately, Congress rolls over every time Hussein & Company take the next step in their agenda as they did by openly handing America’s military to the UNIC (United Nations/International Community):

Obama Syndicate‘s Panetta: Congress is no Longer relevant governmental body
Sher Zieve Friday, March 9, 2012

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45142

I suspect they are a bit nervous about this one. Even President Clinton was sneakier about doing the same things Hussein is doing. I think Communist Panetta and Dempsey threw it out there and are nervously watching the reaction to see if it sticks. Think about this: Few Americans would know what Panetta and General Dempsey said were it not for the Internet. The MSM certainly isn’t going to give it much coverage if any.

Here’s the link to the second article:

The United States is a sovereign country…for now
Jerry Philipson Friday, March 9, 2012

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45143

 

Representative Tom Tancredro connects Panetta’s statements to any unconstitutional military action Hussein might take in the future:

Obviously, Hussein cannot be impeached for anything Panetta and military leaders say, but the ground is being prepared should he carry out their (his) proposed policies. For now, it would be better to change the UCMJ so that officers like General Dempsey and Admiral Locklear can be dishonorably discharged whenever they violate their oath of office. See this thread to learn why Locklear and Dempsey are birds of a feather:

http://www.politicalforum.com/global-issues/236549-treason-uniform.html

Should the House impeach Hussein before the election there is not a chance a Senate controlled by Democrats will find him guilty in a trial. The question of a Republican House & Senate impeaching Hussein after he leaves office would reopen a long-running debate. Article I: Section 3 of the Constitution says this:

The general consensus seems to be that a president can be indicted after he leaves office. I’m not sure if that applies to an indictment for impeachable offense when he was in office? I do not think the experts know the answer.

My view is that no traitor should “Profit under the United States” if he is indicted and found guilty after he leaves office. That means he should lose everything he took with him when he left office; his pension, his secret service protection, and everything else that is paid for with tax dollars.

Anyway, it’s heartwarming to see that some of our elected officials see Panetta’s statements for what they are.

Finally, Tom T lists a few impeachable offenses Hussein has already committed:

Our choice: Impeachment or dictatorship
Exclusive: Tom Tancredo urges House to begin proceedings against Obama ASAP
Published: 16 hours ago
by TOM TANCREDO

Almost every week brings a new reason for the United States House of Representatives to bring impeachment charges against President Obama. The question of the day is not why he should be impeached but why it hasn’t already been done.

This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations. This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.

Well, really, folks: Is Obama’s disregard of the Constitution really news? No. He has done it so many times it doesn’t make news anymore. Democrats approve it and Republicans in Congress appear to accept it – not all Republicans, of course, but far too many.

The list of Obama’s constitutional violations is growing by the day and ought to be the topic of not only nightly news commentary but citizens’ town-hall meetings and protest rallies.

President Obama can only be emboldened by the lack of impeachment proceedings. His violations typically arouse a short-lived tempest among some conservatives, yet impeachment is not generally advocated by his critics as a realistic recourse. That must change.

That Obama can be voted out of office in eight months is not a reason to hold back on impeachment. Formal impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives would help alert the nation’s 120 million likely voters that more is at stake in Obama’s power grabs than Syrian human rights and contraception subsidies for college students.

The grounds for House impeachment proceedings have been laid by Obama’s own actions. A list of his unconstitutional and illegal actions would embarrass any honest public official and makes Nixon’s Watergate cover-up look like a college fraternity house panty raid.

Obama’s policy on the use of military force abroad raises grave issues – both policy issues and constitutional issues. When Defense Secretary Panetta tells a Senate committee he will rely on NATO and the U.N. for “permission” for use of military force, that is an affront to and direct assault on the Constitution.

Those Panetta statements propelled Rep. Jones to introduce a House resolution stipulating that any use of military force by the president without an act of Congress, except to repel a direct attack on the United States, is an impeachable offense under the Constitution.

But this is only the latest Obama assault on the Constitution. There are many other examples of Obama’s disregard for constitutional limitations to his power.

∙ Obama violated the Constitution with his “recess appointments” while the Senate was not in recess. It is up the Senate to decide when it is in recess, not the president. That distinction between executive and legislative authority is what the Separation of Powers doctrine is all about.

∙ Obama is an obvious participant and co-conspirator in Eric Holder’s approval and later cover-up of the illegal “Fast and Furious” gun-walking program. Unlike the Watergate case, people have actually died as a result of this illegal program.

∙ Obama undoubtedly has knowledge of and has approved Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano’s project to require Border Patrol management to falsify apprehension numbers on the southwest border. This is a clear violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which requires the federal government to protect the country against foreign invasion.

∙ The president’s open refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act is a violation of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which does not authorize the president to choose which laws to “faithfully execute.” The oath taken by a new president on Inauguration Day does not say, “… to defend the Constitution of the United States… to the best of my ability except when I disagree with it.”

∙ Did the president violate the law when he instructed Labor Secretary Solis to negotiate agreements with foreign governments to expand the “labor rights” of illegal aliens?

∙ The precedent of Clinton’s impeachment over his perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case established the principle that the legal definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is what Congress wants them to mean. Have Obama’s actions met the constitutional standard for impeachment? Absolutely, yes.

Unless the House of Representatives acts to begin impeachment proceedings against this bold usurper, we are headed for dictatorship. Either the Constitution limits the president’s powers or it does not. If it does, Obama must be impeached for his actions. If not, then a dictatorship is not only inevitable, it will be upon us soon.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/our-choice-impeachment-or-dictatorship/

 

Much to my surprise Panetta’s unambiguous negative view of the US Constitution exposed by Senator Sessions is getting some media coverage; at least it is on FOX. In addition, Newt Gingrich calling for Panetta’s resignation also got some play. Newt has called for some other resignations, but Panetta’s departure over this issue would send shock waves through the ranks of the global government crowd. Should Hussein keep him on Republicans should pound away at the Administration's priorities until election day.

The following excerpt from a piece by Jed Babbin offers some background on this extremely important issue:

Leon Panetta: Clueless or Brazen?
By Jed Babbin on 3.12.12 @ 6:10AM

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/12/leon-panetta-clueless-or-braze

 

I hope somebody asks Leon Panetta what he thinks about this:

Voter-ID Insanity at DOJ Going to the United Nations
Ken Blackwell
March 13, 2012
Editor's Note: This column was co-authored by Ken Klukowski.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...at_doj_going_to_the_united_nations/page/full/

 

This nails panetta can minting all are equal

 

To henrypanda: I have no idea what your response means.

 

You have to give the NAACP credit for grim determination. See the enclosed article for some good stuff on voter ID. However, it’s this bit about the UN that caught my attention:

To see the word treason connected to the United Nations in any context is a long-awaited gift from heaven; more so when it appears in a newspaper: The Washington Times. Now if only the major press would get after those people in the federal government who betray this country to the United Nations every day of the week.

KNIGHT: Betrayal by any other name
Complaining to autocrats about U.S. voter laws is perfidious
By Robert Knight

What would you call it if some Americans went overseas to the United Nations Human Rights Council and gave aid and comfort to some of the most repressive regimes on the planet?

What if they falsely accused America of suppressing the vote of racial minorities because some states require voter photo ID and other measures to deter fraud?

I'd call it "treason," but you also could say it's just liberal politics as usual.

The core argument is that minorities are incapable of getting an ID and playing by the same rules that all adult citizens must follow regardless of race. It's the same poisonous brew of lowered expectations that liberals have been pushing on minorities in order to expand government and foster dependency.

On Wednesday, NAACP President Benjamin T. Jealous, who apparently longs for an electoral system like those in Cuba, China or Saudi Arabia, whose representatives hung on his every word, trashed his own country. I was not there, but I'm assuming these regimes enjoyed seeing a certified "civil rights" leader criticize the United States.

Here's some of what Mr. Jealous said, according to CNS-News.com:

"These voter-suppression laws include so-called strict voter ID laws, cutting of Sunday voting, early voting and same-day registration, and the reimposing of notoriously racist bans on formerly incarcerated people voting." Mr. Jealous claimed that 25 laws passed in 14 states "will together make it harder for more than 5 million people to vote."

It's true, at least, that Mr. Jealous, a zealous Democrat, wants to deliver more of the ex-felon vote, disproportionately represented by minorities. This is because, sadly, minority communities have been targets of liberal "compassion," and fatherless young men commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Upon release, ex-cons of any race find a natural home in the Democratic Party, which uses taxes to steal in ways that unreformed ex-cons can only dream about.

Common-sense precautions against fraud, such as proving that you are who you say you are, is not a return to Jim Crow laws any more than being asked to show an ID before cashing a check at a bank is "racist."

I would wager that Mr. Jealous and his entourage had to show photo IDs to board their jet to Geneva and to get into the U.N. compound. I attended a U.N. session in Geneva in 2001, and it took a herculean effort to get through security. I'd like to think that's because I'm a scary-looking guy, but I'm not.

Getting back to the vote-fraud issue: States with photo-ID laws such as Georgia and Indiana reported higher minority turnout after the laws took effect. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have found no plaintiff with a plausible claim to be unable to get an ID. In liberal Rhode Island, where a Democratic legislature last summer enacted a voter-ID law, Democratic state Sen. Harold Metts, who is black, co-sponsored the legislation.

"As a minority citizen and a senior citizen," Mr. Metts explained, "I would not support anything that I thought would present obstacles or limit protections, but in this day and age, very few adults lack one of the forms of identification that will be accepted, and the rare person who does can get a free voter-ID card from the secretary of state."

The left is getting desperate. It has lost every fact-based argument about domestic policy. Its social experiments, along with Hollywood's relentless mythmaking about sex without consequences, have shattered families, left cities in shambles and created a debt-ridden, mega-nanny government that is careening toward the cliffs of Greece. It isn't just minorities who are victimized by liberal policies, but they have taken the brunt of the war on marriage, religion and personal responsibility.

The evidence is all around. Just take a stroll through much of Detroit or through run-down areas of any big city in broad daylight. Detroit, which has tried every liberal government "solution" to poverty, spending tens of billions of dollars over the years, has lost one-quarter of its population over the past decade and is on the verge of bankruptcy. Democratic Mayor Dave Bing has just the right medicine for this sick patient - another tax increase on businesses.

Years ago, before GPS, I got lost in Detroit coming from downtown and drove the wrong way for a couple of miles. As the sun began to set, I noticed groups of young men gathered on corners, giving me puzzled looks.

At a stoplight, an older man gestured for me to roll down the window. "Son," he said. "you do not belong here. You cannot be here. You need to make a left at the next corner, turn around and head back in the other direction. And do not - I repeat - do not stop at any more lights." He shook his head at my stupidity, gave me a warm smile and walked away.

I did find my way out, and I have never forgotten that man's kindness.

The point is, before the Great Society, I probably would have felt differently about being lost in Detroit, at least in most of it. Every big city has a rough side, of course. In Detroit, the Great Society and the auto industry's government-and-union-managed decline have managed to make almost the whole city "the rough side."

Over there in Switzerland, I hope Mr. Jealous and the delegation had a fine time after dumping on their country. They probably didn't bring up the wonders of Detroit's enlightened path toward true democracy and social justice.

The U.N.'s cafeteria serves up subsidized gourmet meals and fine wines, even at lunch. It's a great place to relax and plot the next desperate move to hang on to political power.

Robert Knight is a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/16/betrayal-by-any-other-name/

 

How many US pilots died in Desert Storm???

 

To Margot: Do some research.

 

47 Scud missiles were fired into Saudi Arabia, and one missile was fired at Bahrain and another at Qatar. The missiles were fired at both military and civilian targets. One Saudi civilian was killed, and 78 others were injured. No casualties were reported in Bahrain or Qatar.

On 25 February 1991, a Scud missile hit a U.S. Army barracks of the 14th quartermaster Detachment, out of Greensburg, PA, stationed in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 soldiers and injuring over 100


Eleven Americans were killed in two separate friendly fire incidents, an additional 14 U.S. airmen were killed when an American AC-130 gunship was shot down by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile (SAM), and two American soldiers were captured during the battle. Saudi and Qatari forces had a total of 18 dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

 

To Margot: I’m not certain where you’re trying go with this? Are you defending the United Nations? Are you defending Muslims? Are you knocking the US military? When I suggested you do some research I thought you were going after this in the OP:

Here’s what I was referring to:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/believe_new_world_order.htm

Naturally, Gore could not know what those Americans thought about the United Nations; nevertheless, he used their deaths to glorify that anti-America organization.

Technically, they might have died while serving the UN’s agenda, but their first loyalty was to the US. Not a one of them took an oath to support and defend the United Nations. I’ll wager they would not have served the UN had they not been ordered to do so. Make it voluntary, and I doubt if more than a tiny percentage of military people would serve the UN. Since that topic did not interest you, I don’t know what you’re getting at in the context of this thread?

 

The no fly zone was put in place to protect the Kurds if you recall..

And I can recall the Iraqis shooting down a single plane over nearly a decade.