None Dare Call It Treason

106 posts / 0 new

Leon Panetta recently said in open testimony with Senator Jeff Sessions that FOREIGN INTERESTS rule over our United States Constitution. He said it over, and over, and over again.

What if NATO gave "permission" for the U.S. government to circumvent the RIGHT of "FREE SPEECH"?

What if NATO gave "permission" for the U.S. government to circumvent "FREEDOM OF THE PRESS"?

What if NATO gave "permission" for the U.S. government to circumvent the RIGHT to "HOLD ELECTIONS"?

What if NATO gave "permission" for the U.S. government to circumvent the "EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14th AMENDMENT"?

All one has to do is "go down the line" of RIGHTS that are stated in The Constitution of The United States and imagine them being circumvented by "special interests". What's important to you? What ever it is, it is surely protected by our Constitution. This man has taken EVERYTHING that we hold dear and true. He has robbed us of our most prized possession... "Our Life, our Liberty, and our Pursuit of Happiness". This treasonous man has taken our Nation's Sovereignty and has offered it up to the gluttons of tyranny in exchange for fleeting monetary gain and the vain glory of power.

There can be no misunderstanding to what Leon Panetta meant. He clearly stated his belief system over and over again. He clearly states that the interest of foreign entities, be it: Countries, corporations, the military industrial complex, or anyone that has enough money... that THEY have the authority over The United States Constitution and not, "WE the people". Our beloved Constitution is nothing more than an afterthought for history to mock and sneer at. Our United States Constitution is merely a rag for them to soil with their elitist waste.

If this isn't, "TREASON"... on the highest grounds! Then pray tell, what is? This man should be arrested and taken before a military tribunal IMMEDIATELY! This war monger's blood lust for power has overreached onto our nations conscience and moral turpitude.

Let this one man's folly be a lesson to anyone that dares to sell out our Nation's most sacred document!

"Treason doth never prosper. For if it prospers, none doth call it treason."

I DARE CALL THIS TREASON! My brothers and sisters, do you? Do you DARE call this TREASON? If not HERE, where? If not NOW, when? Get up, stand up! STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm

Comments

No offense, but without some links for context it's hard to know if your post is satire or serious.

So I looked and found some similar lurid tabloid headlines coming from Alex Jones' Prison Planet:

Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony

Alex Jones: “This represents absolute 100 per cent proof that the military industrial complex which runs the United States is under the control of foreign central banks who are imposing a military dictatorship.”

The Pentagon is engaging in damage control after shocking testimony yesterday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing during which it was confirmed that the U.S. government is now completely beholden to international power structures and that the legislative branch is a worthless relic.

------------------

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.

Well, all I can say is surprise, surprise, U.S. Congress long ago ceded its powers over the MIC and everything else off our shores to the President. It deregulated during every presidency following Reagan with impunity. And now we have transnationals negotiating on their own with foreign states. These are things that have been pointed out going on for years. Congress was the first to begin using the Constitution in those stalls in the restrooms.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

SERIOUS

I wanted to link directly to Senator Sessions youtube channel. I do not know how to embed a link into a post or response. (I'm not the most nimble on a computer.)

If you link to Alex Jones, then people will view it through their own "filter". Meaning; if it's located on an odd site... then everything on it must be odd as well. (No one would do that "here", would they?)

I just called my 2 state senators, since that is who Mr. Panetta was directly dressing down (Senator Sessions). It's the 1st time that I have EVER officially and politically voiced my displeasure with an act. I'm sure that I sounded wimpy and pathetic... but I did try. I'm one of those who do really "fear" the powers of the government. I like the middle class living I have. Or what 50K a year gets you today. I don't easily risk it.

I figure that simply being on a political site (such as this) ALREADY has gotten me on a list or two... I might as well get more involved. I promise to be civil and live within the rules. But, this is MY "line in the sand". If we let this go by and be quiet as church mice, then what? What else are we prepared to give up? I think we ALREADY give up too much!

What Leon Panetta did was disgusting. Let's play "Devil's Advocate" and say that it's OK for the government to do an end around the constitution and congress loses it's authority over when the nation goes to war. Let's say that you're fine with eliminating the right to bear arms. Let's say you're fine with the right to religious freedom (or freedom from religion). Eventually, it's going to get down to something that you do hold dear... then what? It'll b too late, that's what.

Maybe somewhere else, somebody can teach me how to use this MEGA computer that my wife bought! All I do on it is READ (a lot), listen to music (a lot), and occasionally watch videos on youtube. I always start off on youtube with something serious and by the time I'm done, I'm watching Monks training in the Martial Arts or a chimpanzee that smokes cigarettes! Either that's by design, or I have ADD.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm

Fletcher, you are exactly right, We have been sliding down that slippery slop for many years.

World government through the United Nations is a serious threat to the freedom of all Americans. Imagine being held prisoner in a foreign land and tried in an international court with judges from such countries as Afghanistan, China, or Iraq.

The United Nations (financed by American taxpayers!) has long been a safe harbor for terrorist and oppressive regimes which hate America and see us as the enemy.

Even more alarming, the United Nations is beginning to take aim at the God-given rights enjoyed by Americans since our great nation was founded. The right to self defense, use your own property, or even the right to have children may all be trampled if the United Nations is allowed to have the power it seeks.

We need to quit funding them and giving foreign aid to all the countries that hate us and KICK THEIR ASSES OUT OF THE US!

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

This is a serious issue. It's too bad Thom hop scotched from one set of software to another for his site over the past six years because some of us put a lot of referenced information on those sites that are vanished somewhere in cyberspace now.

Congress began ceding the power of the people to the Presidency long ago. The last time it exercised its Constitutionally required mandate to declare war was during the Roosevelt Administration. Its been a bit of a back and forth fight since then, but the last big attempt to clip a President's wings was the Clinton Impeachment, which was a sick joke on our nation when there were really serious issues at stake at the time well worth considering. A more serious wing clipping took place with Nixon, and he simply resigned. We got FISA from that one.

Another more serious one should have been the one that was taken off the table in 2006 after the Bush Administration grabbed power through the legal theory known as the Unitary Executive Theory, and some of us did a lot of work on that towards the end of that regime. The Bush Administration used perpetual war and its Constitutionally based excuse for Presidential powers to walk all over FISA, and despite some tepid arguments from Congress, on the whole it conceded to the Presidency, and now we have Obama following the Bush lead and not overturning those power grab precedents as he said he would. In our history, that's what the Presidencies have always done. That tendency is one of the weaknesses in a Presidential Republic over the more modern Parliamentary governmental designs. The Constitution sets up a balance of power and there's always been this tension between the three parts, that's part of the design.

Unfortunately, it is much easier for the rich and powerful to gain influence and then control over the executive branch than Congress, though they certainly work at that with their minions on K-Street and such, and then the executive branch influences who will be on the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court makes decisions like Citizen's United where the money that influences who gets to be in the White House is further legitimated. For the most part history shows that the Congress will follow the Presidents' leadership there. That's why it's worth noting that this current, somewhat arrogant display from Leon Panetta is merely the natural result of a historic movement and Congress, really our most representative body of voices in the Constitutional power structure, has failed us and allowed those in the Administration to believe they actually do have that kind of power.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

God bless ya, matey!

Then it's time for someone to take a ceremonial "fall". Oust this blood thirsty, war whore from our political world. If we don't even have the "appearance" of a constitutional government...

...

then were F***'D.

(Pardon my censored French.)

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7870-agenda-21-and-the-movement-toward-a-one-world-govt

http://www.myfreedompost.com/2012/03/traitor-leon-panetta-admits-us.html#!/2012/03/traitor-leon-panetta-admits-us.html

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

After seeing the video of Panetta's testimony, I understand why on the same day, Rep. Walter Jones, Republican from North Carolina, introduced H. Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, with the Senate Concurring, to the following:

"112th CONGRESS, 2d Session, H. CON. RES. 107

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, March 7, 2012

Mr. Jones submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

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 Unires 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."

It actually seems like a wise idea, under the circumstances. Especially in light of potential future presidents.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Is it a coupe d'etat? Is it a move to a global government? I've even asked on the PrisonPlanet web site if people thought that a global government might be an eventuality but the problem was whose global government would it be. Actually people agreed. Obviously we don't want it run by the money interests. That would probably wind up being corporate communism or what is also called neo-liberalism.

I always advocate standing back and watching things at arm's length to get the bigger picture. I think too many here start looking at the fiber on the trees in the forest than the forest. At least discussions often go that way. Watch the trends and see what is coming. They are like arrows already shot in the air and about to land.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote captbebops: I've even asked on the PrisonPlanet web site if people thought that a global government might be an eventuality but the problem was whose global government would it be. Actually people agreed. Obviously we don't want it run by the money interests. That would probably wind up being corporate communism or what is also called neo-liberalism.

That is what I personally think that Panetta is referring to when he says "foreign interests" — those in control of the international financial intitutions which will be losing power as their monetary system crumbles. London based w/ Wall Street minions.

They would be the ones in demand of mighty war, after which they would be taking charge in "rebuilding" what was left. And the monetary system, and their power would be saved.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Where were these guys when Cheney was making the Unitary Executive and moving without any Congressional consideration worth considering? Many of us have been saying for a long time that an empire cannot be a republic and that the Constitution has not applied since the GOPimps and Democons of PNAC went empire and global unilateral instead of truly international. What the US did to the UN in the Cold War is the evil, not some phantasm of "world government" through the UN.

A genuine globalism based in regional security and power equities would have a place in the macro-micro mix, but the UN and NATO are clearly creatures of US imperialism, with the UN having a bit more actual internationalism in the UN apart from the tyranny of the Security Council. Ending the American Empire is something we can all support, but a neo-isolationism has serious defects as it did as the alternative to being part of a finite globe.

When cons end the "support the troops" no matter where they are sent chant, we will be closer to doing something positive about keeping citizens from being turned into troops and sent on racket missions for war profiteers and psychopaths. We need to end the militarization of America in order to be a decent global citizen.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This is just more right wing blather about the U.N. Yes, we know how you guys feel about the U.N. Who gives a crap what you think... I mean to say (in a more polite manner), this isn't any kind of explosive issue like what you're trying to paint it as.

If you dunderheads are really worried about U.S. sovereignty why fuss about the U.N. (which has a mandate to promote peace) when the real threat to our sovereignty is the WTO? What you guys are really interested in is preserving American empire at the barrel of a gun and your short sighted gunboat diplomacy approach is what actually threatens our soundness and security.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

The absurd behavior of most of the world's politicians and nations has nothing to do with treason or coup d'etat. If that was even to be an argument it should have been brought up when they killed Kennedy. Now, it is just old news. To be able to decipher what those characters are up to then you have to realize that they are nothing more than a gang of criminals which is beholden to no civil society. All ordinary people, which to their gang means the masses or the mob, are the enemy and they always have been. Ever since their historical hero Julius Caesar used to make up a war so he could conscript all the superfluous males between the ages of 14 and 50 so he could "use them up" the ruling gangs have been doing the same thing. The epitomy of that type of societal control was perhaps the trench fighting of WW1, which was arguably revenge for the French revolution in which many of their gang lost their heads.

Now, due to the interconnectivity of societies which essentially makes all of the world's peoples a single entity, the gang's simple minded control apparatus is proving inadequate and they are desperate to try and maintain their exploitive domination. Of course, they are destined to fail as miserably as their efforts to break up all societal cohesiveness by mixing up the races, so they could treat all societies as abysmally as they treat blacks. The only outcome projected from their type of gang rule utilizing "criminal capitalism" is for a single company to eventually own the world. Fortunately, that's never going to be fulfilled and history is going to find out that those low-life scum are the real "dead-enders" as that heartless fool Rumsfeld used to call the common people.

jmacneil's picture
jmacneil
Joined:
Mar. 6, 2012 7:24 pm

This is just more left-wing blather about the worthless US hating UN. Yes we know how you guys feel about the UN. Who gives a fuck what you think, because supporting it is ANTI-AMERICAN! It is a tool of the elite for the advancemenrt of the NWO.

Its time to get rid of the United Nations. Its committees are chaired by murderers. It hates the United States. And the United States pays more than any other nation to fund its ridiculous failed programs! No American President or Congress should take this organization seriously any more. At the most, we should stay involved figuratively only. And we should stay involved figuratively at a distance. Kick it out, stop paying for it and stop coddling dictators!

DRC_"When cons end the "support the troops" no matter where they are sent chant, we will be closer to doing something positive about keeping citizens from being turned into troops and sent on racket missions for war profiteers and psychopaths. We need to end the militarization of America in order to be a decent global citizen.

Then you should be supporting Ron Paul. He is for closing our military bases and bring our troops home and stop being the world's police for the benefit of the NWO and MIC.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote mdhess: What you guys are really interested in is preserving American empire at the barrel of a gun and your short sighted gunboat diplomacy approach is what actually threatens our soundness and security.

There never was an American empire, only an America with a Dream, untill London banks started taking over the financial running of the United States in 1913 when Wilson shut down the National Bank & gave the privately owned Federal Reserve the power to run the US economy. It's been a roller coaster ride for the US since then...

Maybe we can get off of this over-priced carnival ride finally!

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

US-centrist thinking (as if borders aren't completely arbitrary) and NWO conspiracy nonsense distracts from the issues of greed, massive inequity, starvation, overconsumption, the depletion of natural resources and legalized murder (a.k.a. foreign policy of 'developed' nation states). And thinking the answer to these ills lies in the dehumanizing, hierarchal system that has brought them (and the MIC) about is, in my estimation, a fatal flaw.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am

That is a great idea, Karolina! I dont't think the current occupant's and his minions' puppet masters are going to allow that to happen. They are too close to accomplishing the next phase of their one world government and NWO by collapsing the economies of this country along with many others. That was the objective of the Fed from its inception.

We have been steadily losiong our sovereignty through submission to the anti-American established for the goals of the elite of the NWO. Take a look at the freedom and rights destroying Agenda 21.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/01/25/agenda-21-exposed-in-the-blaze-magazine/

The so-called progressive liberal dupes have bought into this agenda.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote Fletcher Christian:...Leon Panetta recently said...

Just for fun, prove to me you are not insane. Actually quote exactly what Panetta actually said, then tell me why you think it is bad.

It is astonishing to me you could get so worked up and write for so long, without actually proving a single thing you are saying.

And, plesae, don't rest your case on a blind link to some lunatic right wing site.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Better think again, Garrett.

In 1992, Dr John Coleman published Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, Dr Coleman identifies the players and carefully details the Illuminati agenda of worldwide domination and control. On page 161 of the Conspirators Hierarchy, Dr Coleman accurately summarizes the intent and purpose of the Committee of 300as follows:

"A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.

There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited."

I think this is what the so-called progressive bunch thinks is the answer and they will live to regret it.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

Because only you Doc, possess sole ability to interpret and know the truth. Right? Bullshit!

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

I seem to recall that Thom used to also talk about "globalists" but I've haven't heard him mention the term in a while. Adhering to the Constitution is nether just a left or right position.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes, capt, we should demand that our pols in DC adhere to the letter of the Constitution. But the Constitution is a roadblock to the corporate elite and thier greedy plans. Their tools , the FED, The UN, the MIC and "climate change" are what they are using to accomplish their OWG agenda.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

Bullwinkle, that's where everybody here comes in — that House Concurrent Resolution 107 needs to be blasted through Congress.

People may be thinking that this is a hit on Obama, and as DRC pointed out, this should have been done during the Bush administration. People were annoyed with Bush, but they were not as frightened as they are now. I think that much of the Congress has turned into a group of fearful people as well, since Obama did the Libya bombings, and since NDAA was passed not as they had originally read it. The US & Europe weren't in such potentially hopeless economic situations and not as close to potential WWW3.

I really don't think that this is to hit Obama. I think that Sen. Sessions was speaking from a patriotic stantpoint, not from a place of fear and definitely not from any party politics. Probably that is how this Resolution got written as well. Its what many of us here have been going on about for months—nobody's paying attention to the Constitution!

Obama is not the enemy in the White House, as long as he does not ignore the Constitution and give himself dictatorial powers in a police state. And Congress is not a paid group of worthless wimps, as long as the US does not get dragged into any more wars (and continue to let outside entities manipulate our economy).

Now, this Resolution can be handed to each frightened Representative & every shivering Senator to allow them to affirm our Constitution. It's a start.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

The U.S. Constitution is already moribund and has been for a long time and putting on a show to pretend that it still has relevance won't reestablish it in any way. It's way too late for that. The U.S. is a de facto police state just as much as Nazi Germany was. The NDAA should have made that abundantly clear to everyone, even if the millions of people incarcerated for exercising personal choice in their recreational behavior wasn't a dead giveaway. What's needed now is something new, something that will ensure that the trillions of children who are yet to be born on this planet don't grow up under the obscene system put together by a bunch of half-wit criminals who never had any interest in looking after the legitimate needs of the populace.

jmacneil's picture
jmacneil
Joined:
Mar. 6, 2012 7:24 pm

There won't be anything new that would be better than what happens when the Constitution is upheld. It hasn't been completely upheald at least since 1913.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

This glorification of "The Founding Fathers" and the US Constitution is befuddling.

Nothing new could be better? How can such a statement be made? Corporate media and those grade school textbooks have really done a number on folks.

Let Your Life Be a Friction to Stop the Machine

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am

If the U.S. Constitution is not being upheld then the only reason there can be for that is that it does not work. That means that it is inadequate for it's purpose and a more comprehensive solution must be reached.

jmacneil's picture
jmacneil
Joined:
Mar. 6, 2012 7:24 pm

Wow. You guys are really some paranoid wackadoodles. You're logic is so tortured that it defies comprehension. Bullwinkle, you think that the "corporate elite" is using ""climate change"" as a tool? You better get some sleep and quit listening to all those voices in your head.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

Upholding the Constitution, which included having an economy that enriched the US Republic, by having its own National Bank that created the money as it was spent for the needs of the population and didn't gamble their money away, was a threat to the British Empire and was systematically destroyed, turning the US economy into their hands. This is, by far, not the first time that there has been treason at the highest levels of the US government. I am sure that you brilliant minds would be aware of that — as clearly your knowledge goes way beyond the textbooks and the mainstream media.

The YouTube video is more BS propaganda to frighten people and keep us from being wholeheartedly focused on recreating a strong economy, and a strong democracy.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

"Hurray! For Our Side!" sarcasm

Why is it that when someone witnesses something strange, that the individual that is witnessing it, becomes "strange" as well? I think it's pride and vanity that prompts this behavior. Example: "Since 'I' didn't catch the full nature of the situation... and 'I' am SO intelligent... then that person must be seeing something else entirely."

Maybe it's YOU that are missing out. Maybe it's ME that's missing out on this one. Because I am just as troubled by this as I was when I 1st saw it. I'll re-watch it and muse later.

Thom Hartmann has the smartest audience that I have ever heard. That is precisely why I started listening. I want to learn. I have learned so much from his show and these threads. I'm sort of shocked that I would need to "spoon feed" ANYONE here on what went down between Sessions and Panetta. I'm curious, so I'll try to dance to Mr. "Dr. Econ's" music. (Dance, monkey, DANCE!)

Sessions - Do you think you can institute a no fly zone in Syria without congressional approval?

Panetta - Our goal would be to seek International permission. THEN, we would come to congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this.

(Fletcher - Panetta then continued to dance around direct questions and filibuster his time in the spotlight with his resume. Notice the order of importance... International 1st, then congress 2nd.)

Panetta - We just can't pull together in a combat situation without the legal basis of which to act.

Sessions - Where are you asking the 'legal basis' from?

Panetta - If the UN passed a resolution... If NATO came together, we would rely on that.

(Fletcher - UN 1st, NATO 2nd. Not even a 3rd place for congress this time.)

Sessions - They provide NO legal authority. The ONLY legal authority that is required to deploy the US Military is congress, president and the LAW of the constitution

(Fletcher - I'm going to paraphrase... if I leave something critical out, then call me on it. I really want to be wrong on this. I'm serious.)

Panetta - We'd ONLY use congress to DEFEND... If we are going to DEPLOY, then it's the UN or NATO.

Here's what hurts the most about the situation. I've never seen such an OPEN act of treason unveil itself in front of my own 2 eyes as it's happening (and I'm fully aware of the consequences of their next set of actions). Which happens to be KILLING innocent people! "Oh! Fletch, it happens all of the time... it's OK. Get over it." NO! I won't. "It happened under Bush, too... so get over it." NO! I won't.

See, I'm smarter today than I was yesterday. Guess what? Tomorrow, I'll be smarter than I am today. I have become a concerned citizen over the last 12 years of my life. The 1st 29 are pretty forgettable. I blew it. I'm not anymore. I care and love my fellow human beings. I will not view the world through the self imposed myopia that I was trained in back in the day. I like Chris Hedges. I like Ron Paul. I like Bernie Sanders. I like Noam Chomsky. I like Jessie Ventura. I like Amy Goodman. I like Willie Nelson. I like Marilyn Manson. I like Michael Moore. I like Thom Hartmann. I'm also going to listen, view, digest different opinions than that of my own. I'll listen to Mathews, Farakahn, Limbaugh, Levine, Jones, or anyone else to continue to learn. If nothing else, I'll learn what I DON'T want to be like.

I detest the fake humility in Panetta. By saying that he'll seek "permission", then it will justify the terrible act. All I did was to take this line of thought towards other parts of the constitution.

OK parents out there... This is like if you're child brings 3 of her friends home off of the school bus and tells you, the parent, that they are staying the night. You respond, "Wait a second! YOU and your FRIENDS have decided to stay the night in MY HOME and eat MY food and stay up all night!" The child meekly responds, "But you see, I asked 'their' permission to do it. So 'if' I tell you what 'we' decided to do after the fact... it's OK because I got the OK from Tony and Chris and Bobby who ride on the other bus. So what's the problem?

I guess you as the parent should "give in" because the parents across the street gave in 4 years ago to their child's demands.

I only whip this out on the BIG occasions, but you've forced me to do it... "FINGER OF SHAME!"

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm
Quote Fletcher Christian:

God bless ya, matey!

Then it's time for someone to take a ceremonial "fall". Oust this blood thirsty, war whore from our political world. If we don't even have the "appearance" of a constitutional government...

...

then were F***'D.

(Pardon my censored French.)

I don't know if you were responding to me or Bullwinkle with that post, Fletcher.

If to me, then I'll say that I've written elsewhere that going after Obama is a distraction at this point, if that's who you refer to as a "war whore". Your use of taking a "ceremonial fall" appears to me to indicate that's what you mean. But please clarify if you meant otherwise. It might help the impression you seem to have created with others here as well.

The actual "war whore" to me is really a system which I tried to touch on in my last post above, which your above referenced quote follows. Wolin uses a wonderful phrase to describe it: "inverted totalitarianism." In a sense, we all are the "war whore" here in the U.S., because we perpetuate that system by the very way we live our lives and accept these structures as necessary.

Quote Fletcher Christian:

I like the middle class living I have. Or what 50K a year gets you today. I don't easily risk it.

Your expression there indicates to me you are well aware of how the system works to keep everyone in line.

Here's another way of talking about inverted totalitarianism:

The End of the Individual, Beginning of the Mass Man

Ellul uses the word “technique” to describe a totality of methods devised by cultural creators, having great efficiency in mediating nearly every aspect of human existence. This state of affairs needs no enforcement from outside authorities such as the Police, for it is latent and insidious – woven into the mechanisms emergent in a technological society – and as such is invisible.

In this manner, the force of technique is very similar to Gramsci's conception of the force of hegemony. Ellul argues that due to this mediation of the human spirit through cultural manipulation (propaganda, advertising) – the individual's ability to engage society on a critical level has been greatly compromised.

So while you are thrashing around, reading, listening, liking all these different voices that open your mind, that help you grow every day, are you also stepping outside the comfort of your middle class life style to see how you are a part of all this? Because expanding from within may be little more than filling a balloon with hot air. To see from without one has to sort of get outside the atmosphere and then get a view of the planet as a whole.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote bullwinkle:...Because only you Doc, possess sole ability to interpret and know the truth. Right? Bullshit!...

Is there something I have done to make you angry?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bullwinkle:...In 1992, Dr John Coleman published Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research

In 1848 Karl Mark published Das Kapital, which would eventually be 3 vollumes of meticulous research and scholarship. It revolutionized how the world thought about history, politics and economics:

  • "The commodity is first of all, an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind. The nature of these needs, whether they arise, for example, from the stomach, or the imagination, makes no difference. Nor does it matter here how the thing satisfies man’s need, whether directly as a means of subsistence, i.e. an object of consumption, or indirectly as a means of production"
I, 1, 126
Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Fletcher Christian: ... Leon Panneta: Our goal would be to seek International permission. THEN, we would come to congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this.

I don't see the big deal. What's wrong with a goal of getting international permission? If you are going to try and enforce a no-fly zone without co-operation it could lead to war and lots of death and destruction. I think he is thinkiing of the Lybia example

Quote Fletcher Christian (paraphrasing Panneta):...We'd ONLY use congress to DEFEND... If we are going to DEPLOY, then it's the UN or NATO.

I think you are thinking that Pannetta is saying that all deployments need international permission. I think that is wrong. And, if you read the full quote, it proves it:

"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."

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Das Kapital was the basis for the Soviet Union. I was there several times, and I can tell you that it was always a sad ride into an existentialist nightmare.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote Karolina:

Upholding the Constitution, which included having an economy that enriched the US Republic, by having its own National Bank that created the money as it was spent for the needs of the population and didn't gamble their money away, was a threat to the British Empire and was systematically destroyed, turning the US economy into their hands. This is, by far, not the first time that there has been treason at the highest levels of the US government. I am sure that you brilliant minds would be aware of that — as clearly your knowledge goes way beyond the textbooks and the mainstream media.

The YouTube video is more BS propaganda to frighten people and keep us from being wholeheartedly focused on recreating a strong economy, and a strong democracy.

Which parts of the video do you take issue with? Please be specific. For instance, I don't like that - around the 8-minute mark - the narrator mentions the loss of life of thousands of USians without mentioning the far greater number of Afghans and Iraquis who have lost their lives.

Why should the US Republic be "enriched" and at whose expense does the enriching take place? Before answering that, I suppose we should identify the riches...what exactly are they?

The video raises awareness about propaganda. And, if you watched the whole thing, you know it ends with an inspirational message of hope, as the title suggests. I'd also recommend reading what Robert Jensen wrote about "patriotism" in Citizens of the Empire.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am

Frankly, Garrett, I turned it off after a few minutes for the same reason that I don't ever watch horror flicks, or stop on the highway to look at people who've just been in an accident being carried to ambulances—I protect my mental health and I have no interest in having my subconscious infused with images and audio of devastation & tragedy. I prefer to keep myself mentally healthy enough to see reality. When real horror is upon me or those around me, I am then strong enough to act.

I don't need to raise my awareness about propaganda, economic or political. I've been aware of it since childhood, hearing it and recognizing it in several languages. And again, I protect my subconscious from it as much as I can.

Time is running out. We need an action program. Long before the climate kills us, other things are planned to decrease the global population. Greece is the first domino in a long series planned to go. Starving Greeks are now stealing olive oil from churches and cemeteries to survive. War is again being whispered into our consciousness by our population’s enemies.

If there is anything more about this in the video, please tell me. Anything else is a diversion. We need an action program.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Marx simply rewording a fairly obvious premise. Right, Karolina, Marx"s theories and musings were proven wrong in the Soviet holocaust. Pure evil.

Greece isn’t about saving Greece. The only reason something so small and insignificant could matter so much is that it matters in a way no one is willing to say. It’s about the subversion of sovereignty and democratic processes by removing decisions from people and giving them to trans-national financial elites. It’s about preserving a global system that’s based on the accumulation of debt and growing government power because there are two groups of people who benefit tremendously from that system, even if most people don’t.

That conclusion is simple: what’s going on in Europe has nothing to do with solving a debt crisis and everything to do with preserving a corrupt system based on limitless debt and growing government power. The same thing that is happening here. If fact the banksters of the "too big to fail clan" are behind, or in collusion with, most of it. Along with Timmy and crew.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

You dafts are missing a completely obvious point here - Syria poses no threat to the safety and security of the U.S. and thus we're not talking about a declaration of war or about the sovereignty of the U.S. but in assisting with an INTERNATIONAL problem which is that Syrian civilians are being slaughtered. If the Russians decided to unilaterally provide military support to the Assad regime would that be OK? They would claim that they are only trying to help stop the violence.

Just because the Republicans under Bush believed that Wild West style diplomacy was legitimate didn't make it so.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

traison .... is some one who dont represent the constitution

mrallnaturall's picture
mrallnaturall
Joined:
Apr. 7, 2010 11:55 am

french is great ...some low life never respect anything

mrallnaturall's picture
mrallnaturall
Joined:
Apr. 7, 2010 11:55 am

"God Bless Ya" was directed towards ".ren". (It's obvious that the computer pixies shuffle things up sometimes. I'm not blaming anyone for that. It's just stuff that happens.)

I think EVERYONE here is unanimous in the belief that killing innocents when it can be avoided 'should' be avoided.

In our system we have "separation of powers" to prevent one of the heads of government from becoming tyrannical. Any one of these heads can become tyrannical. When one does start to rear it's tyrannical head... the other 2 are there to quell it. It's a great system (if it's allowed to work).

In this instance, the military industrial complex (MIC) wants to go to war (supposedly) without reason. One of the other 2 heads wants to be in the conversation. I just used the word "want", I should say that one of the other 2 heads are DEMANDED to be part of the conversation. If the conversation takes place without 1 or 2 of the heads being present... it's unconstitutional. It's that simple.

I can't believe some of the justification of this. I'll try my best to make my point clear and concise.

We as a nation have a death penalty. I don't believe in the death penalty. I'm guessing that an overwhelming majority here share in my belief that the death penalty is wrong. Let's think a little "outside of the box" and use a little empathy.

Let's propose that a country gets "permission" from some non elected officials in the U.S., then gets together with some other countries that are part of the U.N. and N.A.T.O. and decide to intervene and provide "stability" to the U.S. by invading our country and blowing up our prison slave farms. They then would round up all of our citizens that are on death row and take them back to their respective nations hide outs and keep them locked up forever without the threat of a death penalty. Now keep in mind that they would have to KILL innocent Americans to accomplish this job. But these days, you have to KILL people in order to SAVE them. (Orwellian double speak, thank you very much! 3 points. Mark it down... yes!)

WE would say to that, "Hey Buddy! This is OUR country and we have a representative government here so WE will handle that problem, OK!?! It's none of any other countries business how we conduct our legal process. Now you're gonna pay for the innocent people you killed! (Something like that, right?)

So if it's a slaughter of dark skinned people that sound funny when they talk... it's OK to go to war. Oops! I accidentally called it "war". Going to "War" with out the right approval steps is treasonous. So, let just say that we're "Oingay otay Artway". There we have it. No one's talking about "Going to War", let the record state... WE are "OINGAY OTAY ARTWAY"! The constitution doesn't even have those words in it. I've looked! I can't find them. So then by definition, we are not going against the constitution OR committing a treasonous act. How dare you imply!

- DR ECON - ... Pannetta's full quote was "supposed" to be the response to Sessions statement of the following - The ONLY legal requirement to deploy the U.S. military is congress, the president and the law of the constitution. His incongruous statement is just like FOX/PBS saying that the Keysone Pipeline is linked up to Houston. (While it is 'true' that the pipe goes to Houston, it doesn't STOP in Houston! It continues down to the Gulf of Mexico!) Dr Econ, is this how you're going to start thinking. You're purposefully giving yourself a self imposed myopia outlook on this topic. Why?

Also, it looks like some of us have fallen victim to one of the oldest tricks in the book of propaganda. It's the phrase, "They're killing their OWN people." It happens all of the time. I got caught forgetting that people used to say "Nuclear Waste". Now it's called, "Spent Fuel Rods". I've even heard MSNBC commentators use the phrase, "Spent Energy". Hell! I've "spent energy" going up some stairs... so that incident in Japan can't be that bad if they're only worried about some "spent energy"!

We HAVE to become a Constitutional, Bill of Rights society. Everyone should be talking about what's actually in those little documents. If there are things that we don't like about the constitution... then we should AMEND it to better suit our times and needs. We have the authority to do so and history to show us how. But until we say that WAR cannot be waged without the proper consent... we can't do it! If you don't like it, change it. But do not pretend that it does not exist. If we do, it will be by our own peril.

(There are unfortunately too few things that I happen to be so right about... I'm as sure as in anything in my life that I am correct about this one. Listen fellas, I have a million opinions on a wide variety of topics. But NONE of them are written in stone. Neither is our constitution. OK?)

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm

Ok, Fletcher, I think I'm getting the gist of where you are coming from.

The way you switch back and forth between your sort of folksy narrative version of what's going on with references to the legal and political structure can be a bit befuddling. For instance, and many do this, when you say "WE" say this or "WE" say that to these foreign entitities who are also acting as if they are single entities in your narrative, I have to wonder how you imagine WE do say things, you dig? Because the doing is really in the details, and the details are in the power structure itself.

I look at the separation of powers as a three legged stool that supports our national governing structure, rather than three heads. But I have no problem with translating your three headed version, except perhaps that the President is the only one that represents a head to me, as he gets to be the figurehead for actions of the executive branch, and he is after all the civilian Commander and Chief of the military. And the executive branch and its bureaucracy is the only one of the three structures of power support for our political system that resembles the private tyrannical structure of a corporation. So when I bring out all this background on the Unitary Executive Theory, I have that structure in mind, and that structure and its relationship to Congress as defined by the Constitution is how WE talk to these foreign entities. There is no other voice talking. It's all basically legal policy making taking place. If I keep that in mind I don't get caught up in these folksy conversations that distract people from why exactly the President and his team are breaking laws that require a legal response from Congress, and maybe eventually from the Judiciary.

Let me try to illustrate how the foreign policy responsibilities, that are really the subject of this thread, break down so that this can be a discussion instead of being a series of polemical rants going back and forth, filled with undertones of disparaging insults and other propagandistic attempts to hook people's emotions. I'm using the following report from the U.S. Department of State as my reference:

Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress, June 1, 1999

Summary

The United States Constitution divides the foreign policy powers between the President and Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy.

This report identifies and illustrates 12 basic ways to make U.S. foreign policy. The President or the executive branch can make foreign policy through:

1) -- responses to foreign events
2) -- proposals for legislation
3) -- negotiation of international agreements
4) -- policy statements
5) -- policy implementation
6) -- independent action.

In nearly all of these circumstances, Congress can either support the President's approach or seek to change it. In the case of independent Presidential action, it may be very difficult to change policy in the short term; in the case of a legislative proposal by the executive branch or treaties and international agreements submitted to the Senate or Congress for approval, Congress has a decisive voice. In most cases Congress supports the President, but it often makes significant modifications in his initiatives in the process of approving them.

Congress can make foreign policy through:

1) -- resolutions and policy statements
2) -- legislative directives
3) -- legislative pressure
4) -- legislative restrictions/funding denials
5) -- informal advice
6) -- congressional oversight.

In these circumstances, the executive branch can either support or seek to change congressional policies as it interprets and carries out legislative directives and restrictions, and decides when and whether to adopt proposals and advice.

The practices illustrated in this report indicate that making U.S. foreign policy is a complex process, and the support of both branches is required for a strong and effective U.S. foreign policy.

That's the legal structure of our Macro governing process for dealing with foreign entities. In order to charge treason, the charge inevitably needs to be made through that legal structure. It's awkward, I agree, but that's the downside of "rule by law".

I can easily talk about how and why that structure is failing us. I can also talk about how that structure has led to what I see as a global empire, an overly power grabbing presidency, and one that is related to an economic power structure in the world. In doing so I can begin to approach your somewhat vague, somewhat folksy assertion:

Quote Fletcher Christian:

In this instance, the military industrial complex (MIC) wants to go to war (supposedly) without reason. One of the other 2 heads wants to be in the conversation. I just used the word "want", I should say that one of the other 2 heads are DEMANDED to be part of the conversation. If the conversation takes place without 1 or 2 of the heads being present... it's unconstitutional. It's that simple.

See what I'm saying?

And yes,

Quote Fletcher Christian:

Oops! I accidentally called it "war". Going to "War" with out the right approval steps is treasonous. So, let just say that we're "Oingay otay Artway". There we have it. No one's talking about "Going to War", let the record state... WE are "OINGAY OTAY ARTWAY"! The constitution doesn't even have those words in it. I've looked! I can't find them. So then by definition, we are not going against the constitution OR committing a treasonous act. How dare you imply!

We run into people, usually trolls on this site, but certainly elsewhere in our lives, who attempt to derail what we mean by working at the word definition level, often pretending that invading and destroying a country, displacing and killing millions of people, redesigning their government so it will be a democracy like the rest of the "civilized" world, is not technically war, therefore it's OK for the Unitary Executive GWB to do it, but, all of a sudden, not the Unitary Executive BO to do it. So let's get all hysterical now if we are conservatives.

I also agree, killing civilians makes other civilians, especially their friends and relatives, and networks of associations, religious affiliations and so forth, angry. Even if it's not technically war and in some vaguely unenforceable international law, war is illegal but preemptive defense is not. The result of that is what some in our very own bureaucracies like the CIA warn will be blowback. Which was what Chalmers Johnson was warning us about pre 911 when he wrote Blowback.

I'll leave it at that and see if we can find a common ground, if you are interested.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote Fletcher Christian:... - DR ECON - ... Pannetta's full quote was "supposed" to be the response to Sessions statement of the following - The ONLY legal requirement to deploy the U.S. military is congress, the president and the law of the constitution.

That is exactly why Panetta said "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. ". Pannetta agrees with you

Panetta was talking about putting together international coalitions that he thinks should be consistent with international law.He states this here: "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."

What could possibly be wrong with that statement?

He is against the idea of just invading a country like Iraq that is not an imminent threat. He is doing exactly what he should be doing - at least compared to many presidents. He and Obama are actually preventing us from the kind of fascism you should be against.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Karolina:

Das Kapital was the basis for the Soviet Union. I was there several times, and I can tell you that it was always a sad ride into an existentialist nightmare.

What? What in Das Kapital was the basis for anything in the Soviet Union? Simply because Marx wrote unfavorably of private property and markets in Das Kapital it doesn't mean he was for a government dictatorship owning property and markets. You might just as well say he was a Feudalist - where property is owned by a Feudal lord - or a Monarchist - where property is owned by the Church.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So long as multinational corporations are freely allowed to lobby and speak politically, "FOREIGN INTERESTS rule over our United States Constitution."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ: What? What in Das Kapital was the basis for anything in the Soviet Union? Simply because Marx wrote unfavorably of private property and markets in Das Kapital it doesn't mean he was for a government dictatorship owning property and markets.

That is my point D.E.—without something keeping government out of chaos (i.e. our Constitution) the most ironically Christian of plans will never be instated, because there are always human beings who will be there to steal power for themselves if they are not babysat.

I have no problem with the idea of bringing more socialist programs into our United States the way FDR did—within the realms of our Constitution shining thoughout the powerstructure of D.C. !

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote chilidog: So long as multinational corporations are freely allowed to lobby and speak politically, "FOREIGN INTERESTS rule over our United States Constitution."

I just wanted that to be here for everyone to read again—it's the truth!!!

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote Karolina:
Quote chilidog: So long as multinational corporations are freely allowed to lobby and speak politically, "FOREIGN INTERESTS rule over our United States Constitution."

I just wanted that to be here for everyone to read again—it's the truth!!!

Thanks Karolina. Chilidog's point really underscores the notion of US not really being represented by OUR constitution. What's the point in bickering about what our constitution says when foreign interests are really in the drivers seat? Which begs the question, wouldn't we be much better off if the elite powers that were in control were at least required to be domestic powers and not foreign. Keep their despicable greed within our borders. At least we can get a few jobs out of the deal.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I think that it would be better if we put regulations back on how much influence the b—ds are allowed to have once we regulate them with Glass-Steagall and renewed National Banking (which has been gone from our nation for a century, next year).

I don't know how they can be kept within our borders—if you know, can you explain?

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

The Constitution has guided the United States for over two centuries and has allowed it to be the freest, most prosperous, and most creative nation in the history of the world. However, the goal of so-called progressives, the leftists is to establish a court system that in the years to come would render the Constitution meaningless. The "vision or rhetoric" of the so-called progressives, their agenda, is a never-ending expansion of the arbitrary powers of the federal government. And such is Obama's rhetoric of "change".

What Panetta said to the Armed Services Committee is just one more example that proves the Constitution no longer matters to Osassinator and those in his administration and thier NWO puppetmasters.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system