Because of a statement made by Leon Panetta
and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the House passed
H.Con.Res.107.IH making it an impeachable
offense to bypass Congress and go to war on
the orders of the United Nations.On March 7, 2012 Congressman Walter Jones [R-NC] introduced House Concurrent Resolution 107 that has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Congressional Resolution 107.IH calls on the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, to "...[express] the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without the prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable High Crime and Misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution."jmbaurelius
The Resolution continues: "Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress' exclusive power to Declare War under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be itResolved 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' exclusive power to declare war under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Walter Jones made it clear that a violation of House Joint Resolution 107.IH would trigger articles of impeachment against any chief-of-state who places more store on international permission than the consent of Congress since Congress, not the White House, is the only body in the United States of America with the constitutional authority to declare war. No international body has the authority, or the basis of law, based on Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations, to send a nation to war to protect its interests.
In their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, both Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey were both asked point blank by Sen. Jeff Sessions under what law the military served. Sessions did not like their answer. Nor did Jones. Which was the reason for House Con. Res.107.IH. Clearly the House, in 112th Congress, has enough votes to pass the continuing resolution, it's equally clear that the Social Progressive Senate will not sign on to any binding resolution that renounces the authority of European Union, UN or NATO prerogatives from being enforced by the US military. Further, the resolution provides dire consequences for any commander-in-chief who chooses to endorse or obey any international edict not first approved by the United States Congress.
Barack Obama, his Defense Chief [and Osama bin Laden-slayer] Panetta and Gen. Dempsey made it clear in their testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee that the Obama Administration receives its marching orders for war not from the Congress of the United States, but from NATO and/or the United Nations. Panetta told Sessions that "...our goal would be to seek international permission. Then 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." Note Panetta's statement. The military would "...come to Congress and inform them"—not seek the permission of Congress under Article I, Section 8 § 11 (which provides only Congress with the right to declare war." It's important for the citizens of this nation to understand that the federal government of the United States is NOT the superior government of the realm. The federal government is Constitutionally inferior to the State governments, which created that central government to collectively serve the States, not lord over them.
Sessions shot back that he was "...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 that'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."
In response to Gen. Dempsey's statement that the US military acts on some types of international basis, Sen. Jeff Sessions [R-AL] interrupted him: "Wait a minute. Let's talk about an international legal basis. You answer, under the Constitution of the United States to its government, do you not? And, you don't need any international support before you carry out a military operation...I want to know that," Sessions said, "because there are a lot of references here..." (In Dempsey's and Panetta's testimony in a hearing about the Obama Administration's contemplative use of US forces—at the request of the UN—to overthrow the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.) "You don't need any international support before you carry out a military operation authorized by the commander-in-chief. I want to know that because there are a lot of references here about [consulting with other countries before making a decision]. I just want to be sure that the United States military understands that it is not dependent on a NATO resolution or a UN resolution to execute US policy that is consistent with the national security of the United States."Sessions then questioned Panetta about his attempts to form coalitions to isolate Syria by encouraging other countries to join—the European Union, the Arab League—to impose sanctions, noting that China and Russia are repeatedly blocking Security Council resolutions. Sessions asked Panetta: "Are you telling me [Obama[ has taken the position that he would not act if it was in our interest to do so if the UN Security Council did not agree?"
Panetta replied, "When it comes to the type of military action that would be required, where we ant to build a coalition and work with our international partners, then obviously we would like to have some kind of legal basis to do it as we did in Libya.". And, he could have just as easily added. "...as we did in Bosnia and Kosovo."
At the request of the UN and the European Union, President Bill Clinton placed American troops under the direct command of NATO in a war in which American soldiers were obligated, against the national security interests of the United States, to defend the majority radical Albanian Islamic extremists in Bosnia and Kosovo who were engaged in a civil war in which they slaughtered Christians to claimstake the oil rich Yugoslav province of Bosnia and mineral rich Kosovo by petitioning the UN that Christian Serbs and Bosnians were killing defenseless Muslims Without ever verifying who the aggressor really was, the EU, which wanted the Serbs crushed because they resisted the EUization of the Balkans, British Prime Minister Tony Blair convinced Clinton to bring America's war machines to the Balkans. Without Congressional authorization—but with a nod from the UN—Clinton went to war in Kosovo and Bosnia, killing thousands of Christians to defend the right of Muslims to steal the wealth of the former Yugoslav Republic. Kosovo was 91% Muslim. The Muslims were the aggressors who were slaughtering the non-Muslims when they applied to the UN for help against the modern military the Serb government launched against them.
In March, 2011, without Congressional authorization, Barack Obama followed Clinton's missteps and bombed Libya without Congressional authorization. But, like Clinton before him, he had the blessings of the United Nations which, today is increasingly controlled by anti-American totalitarian governments. Now Obama is talking about using the US military to crush Bashar Assad and bring down his brutal regime—without Congressional approval. Congress has a constitutional right to stick its nose into the affair of other nation only when not doing so poses an imminent danger to the United States. For example, the nation of Iran poses an imminent danger to Israel, it also poses an equal danger to the United States of America. The United States cannot wait for the Iranians to produce a nuclear bomb and then wait, with crossed fingers, for them not to use it..
Instead of threatening Israel for considering their national security concerns first, the United States needs to do the same thing. If you're read the Bible you know that when the 10-nation confederacy comes down against Israel (Ezekiel 38) it—with the help of the resurrected Soviet Union and Communist China—will also launch nuclear strikes against North America, the British Isles and Australia.
Iran, liked the other 56 Muslim nations are an imminent threat to the United States and its English-speaking free enterprise allies. So when 57 Muslim nations (which are about 30% of all of the votes in the UN) approve the United States bombing the crap out of another Muslim nation, then someone in the Pentagon with an IQ somewhat higher than his braided dress hat size needs to be asking why. And someone else with an IQ larger than his waist size needs to have the answer.
None of those "hat-sized" IQs seemed to grasp the reality that the Muslim Brotherhood covertly instigated what was spoon-fed to the public by the media as a spontaneous "student protest" that simply morphed into a full-fledged democracy rebellion to overthrow the secular Muslim governments in Tunisa, Egypt, Yemen, Qatar, Libya and Syria.
The "student freedom protests" were actually well strategized covert plans by the Muslim Brotherhood to depose the legal governments of secular Islamic nations (or those not Shariah-obedient enough) and replace them with leaders more to the liking of the Brotherhood who is on a quest to rebuild the Ottoman Empire on the ashes of Islamic freedom from a match lit by the Muslim Brotherhood in their quest for the 12th Caliphate The Obama Administration is playing "Mother, may I?" as they seek what Leon Panetta and Gen. Dempsey call an international basis to bring down Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and surrender yet another secular Muslim nation to Shariah—and the control of the Muslim Brotherhood as they reconstruct the Ottoman Empire. Helping them with more than just the machinations of war are the princes of industry who are in bed with the Muslim World by shutting off the US oil spigot under the guise of protecting the environment as it forces our allies to do business with the Arabs.
If the princes of industry refuse to act in the best interests of the American people, a new President and a New congress in 2013 need to do what George W. Bush threatened to do—take at least four closed military bases and convert them into four new oil refineries that will be owned jointly by the Independent Oil Drillers Association and the American people. This will keep independent drillers from being at the mercy of the refineries owned by the Seven Sisters. All oil drilled by US independent oil drillers, if it's refined in US Co-op refineries, must be sold domestically at an initial rate of $25 pre barrel (until the costs owed to the US government by the co-op is ultimately paid). An additions charge of $25 per barrel will bring the refinery cost up to $50 per barrel. No State may add any additives like ethanol to any US domestic oil, nor may they assess surtaxes.
States which insist on adding ecological additives that serve no purpose other than to appease environmentalists and social progressive ecowackoes can continue to drive up the price of gasoline produced by the Seven Sisters (who love the myriad of California laws that maintain no less than ten difference gas standards in that State because it slows production of gasoline, increases demand and raises the price at the pump. And, at the same token, because it is in the interest of the taxpayers themselves, States should have the right to impose whatever taxes they deem necessary on Seven Sister oil since that oil is Mideast oil and not domestic crude from active wells in the United States. Oh...I almost forgot. While the last thing I would ever want to do is help Newt Gingrich figure out how to sell $,50 per gallon gasoline in a $5-plus per gallon market, this is one way to do it.
Gasoline produced by US-owned independent drillers—who drill only domestic US oil (and not "American oil" from Canada or Mexico) refined only in a US co-op refineries (one owned in part by the independent drillers association and the taxpayers collectively) must be given equal access to sell non-State taxed, no additive domestic gasoline in States at a price equal to no more than the price at the pump in the non-additive States when crude was $50 per barrel.. At $50 per barrel, gasoline averaged $2 per gallon.
The princes of industry who probably always understood that oil is a self-replenishing commodity were not acting in the best interest of the United States of America by allowing social progressives in the US Senate to ban the drilling of United States oil not only in the Gulf of Mexico, but in the Gulf of Florida and along both the Atlantic and Pacific coastline, but also in ANWR, and anywhere oil is found in profitable levels in the land mass of the United States. By turning off the Alaskan spigot, the crude which used to travel down the Alaskan pipeline to oil refineries in the United States have slowed to a trickle because environmentalists clamed the warm oil in the pipeline was hazardous to the Alaskan caribou and the polar bears. Wildlife photographers have shot scores of photos of polar bears sleeping on top of the pipelines because, in the cold arctic nights, the pipes were anywhere from 10 ° to 30° or more warmer to sleep on than the frozen tundra. And, even in the winter, caribou found nourishment from patches of grass growing under the pipeline..
The real 20th century tragedy of the United States is that the People have allowed the princes of industry and the barons of banking to legally bribe every State and federal politicians (under the guise of making patriotic campaign donations to them). Campaign contributions are not patriotic goodwill gestures that help the process. Campaign contributions are bribes that buy access, and most of all, they buy the laws that donor needs to steal the American people blind.
In the end, the princes of industry in the United States like the princes of industry in Europe at the turn of the 20th century, need to erase the borders between the nation states to create one seamless economic trade zone although no Peoples in any of the nation states in the world want that to happen.
But the government of the United States, against the will and desires of its sovereign people are working hard to make this happen by willingly surrendering that sovereignty to the United Nations and the world government it is furiously working to create. It's critical that the citizens of this nation understand that the federal government of the United States is NOT the superior government of the realm. The federal government is Constitutionally inferior to the States based on the 10th Amendment. The States created a central government to collectively speak for the, and carry out the wishes of the States, not lord over them.
Look, people. It's your country. You can collectively take it back, or you can allow yourself to be relegated into serfdom by the Obama Administration because that is precisely what he is trying to do as he steers the Ship of State into the shoals. The choice is yours. So, for whatever it's worth, once again, you have my two cents worth on this subject. Until next time...