Coup D?etat: Pentagon & Obama Declare Congress Ceremonial

**pillaroflight** · 8th March 2012, 23:38

Congressman Jones introduces bill that would subject Panetta & Obama to impeachment

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta?s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military, words which effectively declare Congress a ceremonial relic, have prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce a resolution that re-affirms such behavior as an ?impeachable high crime and misdemeanor? under the Constitution.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/coup-det...eremonial.html

WASHINGTON, March 7?Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a 'legal basis' for military action by the United States.

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

Similar Threads:

**Heretic** · 9th March 2012, 00:19

2nd clause of Article VI of the US Constitution which reads:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So no treaty nor anything binding can go against the constitution as that would be "contrary"

the founding fathers knew this "treaty trick" would be used to attempt to subvert the constitution

so made it illegal and non binding activly and retroactively, yet only "enforcable" by the states themselves to stand up to the FED

now all that is lacking is the patriotism in our own elected officials to actually support the constitution. The last time Congress passed joint resolutions saying that a "state of war" existed was on June 5, 1942, when the U.S. declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania. Since then, the U.S. has used the term "authorization to use military force", as in the case against Iraq in 2003. (source)

**alienHunter** · 9th March 2012, 01:00

Pandering to isolationists, nativists, and empire building dinosaurs. I think it's pretty obvious that if viewed in full context, the claims this kookooboo is making are baseless. What's interesting though is that Panetta refused to simply agree with him to the obvious point that the constitution must be followed. Partisanship at its finest level of gamesmanship. It is scary...the Republican side of the ledger has gone to such lengths to undermine the function of American government that we really are losing valuable ground. It would also seem that Panetta is trying to avoid the trap of making a statement that would provide grounds for another one of the incessant Republican side attempts for impeachment (that they conduct against every Democratic president). The insidious nature of the 'real conspiracy' is abundantly clear.

**Odah** · 9th March 2012, 06:12

what ..Ah ..

the problem is the democrats don't know how to get the republ;ican to go along..but the republican president know how.. even George bush..could get democrats to vote for things on his agenda..

while obamas been unable to figure out how ..

bribing Isreal to not attack iran until after the election.. (which.. i think is fine ..but it really doesn't look good )

in anycase the power is shifting away from bopth sets of idiots ..the money will run short soon enough .

---------- Post added at 06:12 ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 ----------

adding.. if obama loses .. you know the table will shift and the republicans will warm up to the idea of the president just like attacking a country that is not our enemy.. so they are just playing the game of we don't like it when the other guys have this power ..

kinda like the democrats did...

**pillaroflight** · 9th March 2012, 06:27

Originally Posted by Odah

what ..Ah ..

the problem is the democrats don't know how to get the republ;ican to go along..but the republican president know how.. even George bush..could get democrats to vote for things on his agenda..

while obamas been unable to figure out how ..

bribing Isreal to not attack iran until after the election.. (which.. i think is fine ..but it really doesn't look good )

in anycase the power is shifting away from bopth sets of idiots ..the money will run short soon enough .

---------- Post added at 06:12 ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 ----------

adding.. if obama loses .. you know the table will shift and the republicans will warm up to the idea of the president just like attacking a country that is not our enemy.. so they are just playing the game of we don't like it when the other guys have this power ..

kinda like the democrats did...

I disagree with your analysis, but thank you for commenting.