Tweet
'War on Terror is War on Liberty' - Nigel Farage launches e-petition
-
-
Next time your having a hear-attack it could be Phoenix working for these guys.
It's a cool looking gun anyway.
Originally posted by Brian View PostJust to show some 'conspiracy theorists' do get killed (where was Phoenix on the night of 01 March?).
Sudden Death of Andrew Breitbart Sparks Rumours...
Senators Frank Church and John Tower examine a CIA poison dart gun that causes cancer and heart attacks.
CIA Whistleblower talks about Heart Attack gun - YouTube
If it's Fatso that's after you it could be this.
The Heart Attack Grill - YouTube
Last edited by Brian; 03-10-2012, 01:08 PM.Comment
-
Secretary Panetta drops a bombshell that the USA can get permission from the UN or NATO to start a war. This prompted representative Walter Jones to start looking into impeachment action against Obama - YEAH!!! Can his ass.
There still is the court case against Obama challenging his eligibility to be President or run for the up-coming election.
TRAITOR LEON PANETTA ADMITS U.S. SOVEREIGNTY BEING SURRENDERED BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
VIDEO
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta Commits Treason, Violates Oath
Traitor Leon Panetta, Obama's Secretary of Defense, tells Senator Jeff Sessions (R-LA) that Obama's goal would be to seek "international permission" to establish a "legal basis" before taking military action, rather than seeking congressional approval (which he inferred to as being an option they "would have to discuss"). This is a obliteration of U.S. sovereignty, Article I Section 8, and Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution.
Leon Panetta, in his sworn testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, said:
Senator Jeff Sessions: “Well, I’m almost breathless about that, because what I heard you say is, “We’re going to seek international approval, and you will come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval. … You’ve served in the Congress. Wouldn’t you agree that that would be pretty breathtaking to the average American? So would you like to clarify that?”
Leon 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 we do this, you would seek permission from international authorities?”
Panetta: “If we’re 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 legal basis are you looking for? What entity?”
Panetta: “Obviously, if NATO made the decision to go in, that would be one. If we developed an international coalition beyond NATO, then obviously some kind of U.N. security resolution would be the basis for that.”
Sessions: “So a coalition of, so you’re saying NATO would give you a legal basis and an ad hoc coalition of nations would provide a legal basis?”
Panetta: “If we were able to put together a coalition and were able to move together, then obviously, we would seek whatever legal basis we would need to in order to make that justified. I mean, we just can’t pull them all together in a combat operation without getting the legal basis in which to act.”
Sessions: “Who are you asking for the legal basis from?”
Panetta: “If it’s, obviously if the U.N. passed a security resolution as it did in 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 to dealing with the situation.”
Sessions: “Well 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’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
Panetta: “Let me just for the record be clear again, Senator, so there’s no misunderstanding. 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’re trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in Libya or Bosnia or for that matter Afghanistan, we’d want to do it with permissions either by NATO or by the international community.”
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Neither the president, the defense secretary, nor anybody else is authorized to make that decision. Article 6 of the Constitution states that the Constitution is the "Supreme law of the land". No foreign entity or law supercedes the Constitution, yet Panetta voluntarily admits this administration's complete disregard for the Constitution and surrender of U.S. sovereignty, even after Senator Sessions gave him multiple opportunities to restate, clarify, or backtrack his position. He did not change his position, but instead doubled down, proving that this wasn't just some accidental "slip of the tongue".
Instead, Panetta made it clear that he has prefers to make foreign approval and acceptance superior to our own law. If the U.S. Government has made our laws subordinate to some foreign authority, then we have given up our sovereignty, all without a shot being fired by a foreign enemy. Our enemy is within. Abraham Lincoln had it right (I wonder how he knew this!) when he prophetically warned:
"America will never be destroyed from outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Please be reminded that Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense, was appointed by Obama and serves at his pleasure. He is speaking for the Obama administration, representing the Department of Defense, "the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense." He is part of the President's cabinet. He is speaking for the Obama administration and representing the President's policy when he speaks. President Obama must be pressured to take ownership and defend Panetta's statement, making him as guilty as Panetta is, or he should denounce Panetta's remarks and fire him. Unfortunately, no one in government or the press will do so. Most haven't even read the Constitution, nor do the care about the rule of law or even U.S. sovereignty for that matter.
Leon Panetta has publicly, under sworn testimony, made known that his allegiance is not to the U.S. Constitution, which he took an oath to uphold, but to some foreign or international body, like NATO or the United Nations. Panetta has violated his constitutional oath and should be removed from office and punished for this treasonous act.Comment
-
If Obama keeps going the way he has the USA is F'ed.
When Obama got elected a record number of guns were sold. In 2011 a doubling of gun sales and now it's only March and gun sales have surged a further 60% creating upto a 6 week backlog.
LOL. Any time I need a laugh I just think of Oprah back in the day when Obama was first running for Office and hoe the 'Black Super Man' was going to save us all and fix everything.LMFAO.Comment
-
More on this possible impeachment from the "New American".Originally posted by Brian View Post
Déjà Vu: Obama's Military Actions in Syria May Be Impeachable
09 MARCH 2012
On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Obama administration would seek “international permission” before engaging in war in Syria. Besides the possibility that it is merely a ruse — as there is growing evidence that the United States may already be covertly involved in Syria’s war — for the United States to seek permission from other nations to go to war is unconstitutional. For that reason, Representative Walter Jones (R-N.C., left) has just introduced House Concurrent Resolution 107, calling for the impeachment of the President if he declares war without congressional approval.
Jones's resolution, which calls upon the U.S. House — with the Senate concurring — to prevent President Obama from starting yet another war without Congress declaring war. HCR 107 states:
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.
The Obama administration has openly rejected the constitutional requirement of seeking congressional approval for U.S. military engagement.
"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," Panetta replied. "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."
The Obama administration has previously violated the Constitution in electing to involve the United States in an attack on Libya without congressional consent, prompting some members of the U.S. House to issue a resolution demanding that the President explain his reasons for such a decision. The resolution was ignored.
The Ohio Democrat told Raw Story, “President Obama moved forward [militarily against Libya] without Congress approving. He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.”
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) declared at the time that President Obama’s approval of air strikes against Libya was officially an “impeachable offense.”
Kucinich has been relatively consistent on the issue of unconstitutional wars, as he indicated his desire to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for similar actions in leading the United States into war against Iraq.
Ironically, in 2007 Obama adhered to a philosophy similar to that of Kucinich, when as a Senator he declared, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Since taking office, however, President Obama’s views of the so-called War on Terror seem to have changed dramatically. Yahoo's Associated Content observed:
Barack Obama has been obliged to renege on a number of his campaign promises surrounding the War on Terror. Besides keeping the prison at Guantanamo open, he has not made a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, has actually increased troop levels in Afghanistan, and has stepped up drone strikes in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. The joke is that Obama has killed more terrorists in the two years of his presidency than George W. Bush did in all eight years of his.
In fact, critics note that President Obama has exhibited all the qualities worthy of a neoconservative’s praise. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has hailed many of Obama’s hawkish decisions, explaining, "I think he's learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he's learned from experience.”
The discussion of a possible Obama impeachment was revisited following the targeted killing of American-born al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki last September, with no charges being brought. Texas Congressman and GOP presidential contender Ron Paul has observed that because of the President’s “flouting” of the law in the murder of al-Awlaki, impeachment is possible.
Ben Johnson of White House Watch wrote of the assassination of al-Awlaki:
Although federal agents have sought al-Awlaki since the Clinton administration, and the Authorization for the Use of Force passed following 9/11 allows the president to kill anyone he “determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,” al-Awlaki’s birth in the United States has many debating the proper interplay between national security and civil liberties.
According to Rep. Paul, the assassination of an American citizen, regardless of the reason, "continues" and "accelerates" the "slip toward tyranny.” He added, "I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction. We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”
Paul warned attendees at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire, that permitting targeted killings of American citizens without proper due process could set a dangerous precedent:
Al-Awlaki was born here. He is an American citizen. He has never been tried or charged for any crimes. If the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating who he thinks are bad guys I think it’s sad. What would the people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn’t assassinate him. We were pretty certain that he had done it. And they put him through the courts and they executed him.
Similarly, blogontherun.com wrote, “When the president of the United States can singlehandedly order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without charge or trial, we’re not just on the slippery slope toward dictatorship, we’re in free fall.”
Paul added that virtually every U.S. President during his own terms in Congress had committed impeachable offenses. “I just said almost every President I’ve known I’d probably have to vote for impeachment, because there’s very little respect for the Constitution, and certainly there’s no respect for the Constitution [if they’re] assassinating American citizens.”
Ironically, Panetta callled upon the Constitution in his defene of the President’s decision to seek international approval for military intervention in Syria. "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,” he declared.
He did not explain how U.S. military intervention in the Mideast country of Syria is acting in defense of the United States or where in the constitution authorization for such executive branch action is found.Last edited by Brian; 03-13-2012, 06:30 PM.Comment
-
-
You may have seen throughout this thread that I prefer 'conspiracies' of the real kind (political/economic) backed by evidence.
Phoenix and EgejskaMakedonia have introduced to this thread 'Aliens' and the like so seeing it's Moomba time - a kind of 'silly season' - I thought I'd show I also have a humerus side and indulge in their silliness and post something I found that's maybe better than their "Ancient Alien" stuff.
Don't go using this against me in the future, remember you introduced 'Aliens', I'm just having fun in indulging in your silliness to mark Moomba and the the threads 'Over 40 Pages' mark.
UFO 2012 - Mayan elders message to Humanity 2012 Don't be afraid
UFO 2012 - Mayan elders message to Humanity 2012 Don't be afraid - YouTube
2012 UFO's are here
2012 UFO's are here - YouTube
But this is more my kind of 'conspiracy' with some logical evidence.
March 22, 2012 Next MEGAQUAKE & Axis Shift? (Short Version) - YouTubeLast edited by Brian; 03-11-2012, 07:39 AM.Comment
-
Let me hijack your thread for a bit.
Sucked in all you face book users
Shit, that includes me
CLOSE YOUR FACEBOOK ACCOUNT - YouTubehttp://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=120873#post120873Comment
-
**Copied for later reference.Originally posted by Brian View Post
While we're all in a good mood, here's a video of Brian after having a few too many 'red pills.'
Guy smashes head on windshield - YouTube
Note: This occurs before he jumps online to return to his corner.Last edited by EgejskaMakedonia; 03-13-2012, 06:03 AM.Comment
-
Is that Brian or is that all of us after reading some of Brian's posts?Risto the Great
MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
"Holding my breath for the revolution."
Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.comComment
-
-
A funny tong-in-cheek version of the truth.Originally posted by Bill77 View PostLet me hijack your thread for a bit.
Sucked in all you face book users
Shit, that includes me
I was looking for the 'onion' logo to appear.Comment
-
Must be you guys - people of low IQ have been known to bang there heads in frustration when they can't understand something.Originally posted by Risto the Great View PostComment
-
Hey! Quit being so negative and have a look at the bright side.Originally posted by Brian View Post
You can now purchase the ENTIRE first season of Ancient Aliens for 12 bucks. Bargain!
How many should I put you down for Brian?Comment
-
Brian on the magic mushies...
Comment
Comment