If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

PUTATIVE DEFENSE SECRETARY SAYS CONGRESS “IRRELEVANT” IN WAR DECISIONS

by Sharon Rondeau

(Mar. 10, 2012) — On March 8, 2012, putative Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Congress that it was “irrelevant” during testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Panetta claimed that “international permission” dictates the policy of the U.S. military.  Panetta stated that he would need “some kind of legal basis” to enact military action.

General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama that an “international legal basis” is a criterion for U.S. troops deploying.

Sessions asked Dempsey if he answers “under the U.S. Constitution to the United States government,” and Dempsey did not provide a clear answer.

Sessions questioned  both Dempsey and Panetta if their views allowed them to initiative a “no-fly zone” in Syria without the consent of Congress, and Panetta made it clear that “international approval” and NATO would be sought before consulting with Congress.  Sessions called Panetta’s response “breathtaking.”

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress is the body which can declare war, not an “international coalition.”

Sessions asked Panetta if NATO would give Panetta a “legal basis,” and Panetta said, “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 in order to make that justified.  We can’t just pull them all together in a combat operation without getting the legal basis on which to act.”  When Sessions asked who would be the source of the legal basis, Panetta said there were “options” which included NATO and the United Nations to build an “international approach” to military action.  Panetta and Dempsey are considering military action in Syria.

Obama was accused of violating the War Powers Act when he unilaterally decided to bomb Libya during the “Arab spring” uprisings last year.  Obama is reportedly planning to support the “Syrian opposition” with “direct assistance.”  Syria was considered a state sponsor of terror through the Bush administration, although then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi visited the country and met with dictator Bashar Assad in 2007 against State Department recommendations.

It has been reported that Panetta has ties to the Communist Party, and his voting record while a U.S. representative from California during the 1980s shows that his votes supported communist regimes.  Panetta founded the Panetta Institute for Public Policy, a reportedly “non-partisan center” intended to “attract thoughtful young men and women” to “expand their knowledge of the policy process and develop their skills as future leaders.”  Panetta has served in the U.S. Army and earned a J.D. degree from Santa Clara University School of Law.  Prior to his nomination as Defense Secretary, Panetta was had of the Central Intelligence Agency, also under Obama, an appointment which reportedly came as a “surprise” to the organization.

The current lecture series featured by the Panetta Institute is entitled “Revolutions of the 21st Century:  Changing Our Way of Life.”

Why did Obama choose Panetta as his Defense Secretary, and why was Panetta “confirmed unanimously” by the Senate last April?  What would Obama’s motives be for assisting the “Syrian opposition?”

Dempsey was the presiding officer over an investigation as to why U.S. Army soldiers from Ft. Rucker were deployed into Samson, AL on March 10, 2009, after a man committed mass murder in the small rural town.  Dempsey’s investigation concluded that the Posse Comitatus Act had been violated by the order to deploy the soldiers.

Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III stated at the time that Dempsey had allowed the deployment and that it was an act of treason.  Having charged Obama with treason a year before, he named Dempsey also in the commission of treason following the Samson incident.  Since then, other instances of the U.S. military acting against citizens on American soil have occurred.

Fitzpatrick had attempted to have the criminal complaint against Obama heard by his county grand jury, which then led to the discovery that the local judicial system was corrupt.  In the complaint, Fitzpatrick stated that Obama was “not my president.”  Fitzpatrick had told The Post & Email that as a member of the U.S. military, Obama was obligated to either charge Fitzpatrick with mutiny or admit to his treason, but the charges were never addressed.

Three years later, a person working in the current regime who has been giving interviews to blogger Ulsterman recently told him that Obama “is no longer my president.”  He or she added that Obama appeared “willing to cooperate with those who have long sought to destroy this country…not so much a physical destruction mind you…but rather the…spiritual destruction of America.  A kind of…cancer that will eat away at its internals leaving nothing but…an empty shell of what it once was.”

Fitzpatrick has been incarcerated in the Monroe County jail on numerous occasions after exposing the corruption within the grand jury and judiciary following the filing of his criminal complaint.  He recently spent 18 weeks in the jail after being sentenced for resisting arrest, when four sheriff’s deputies had forcibly entered his home and arrested him for allegedly missing a court date involving his attorney of record.  Fitzpatrick has described both the Monroe County government and Obama and his associates as being in commission of treason, renewing his complaint to the FBI and two federal grand juries seated in Knoxville, TN last year.

A link from The Post & Email’s initial report on the corruption in Monroe County leading to Fitzpatrick’s original criminal complaint (first paragraph) now leads to a Google search box.  In the complaint, Fitzpatrick stated, in part:

Free from constitutional restraint, and following your criminal example, military commanders deployed U.S. Army active duty combat troops into the small civilian community of Samson, Alabama last week in a demonstration of their newly received despotic, domestic police power.

We come now to this reckoning.  I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON.  I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors.  Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger.  You fundamentally changed our form of government.  The Constitution no longer works.

Fitzpatrick told The Post & Email that the same problems endemic in Monroe County are found at the federal level as evidenced by the troop deployment in Samson, AL and, more recently, the statements of Panetta and Dempsey to the Armed Services Committee.  On January 17, 2012, Court Clerk Martha M. Cook admitted that someone else signed her name on the arrest warrant issued against Fitpatrick on December 7, 2011, to which Fitzpatrick responded, “That’s the definition of forgery.”

On March 1, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse revealed that their six-month investigation concluded that the image of a long-form birth certificate bearing Obama’s name released last April is a “computer-generated forgery.”  They stated the same of the Selective Service registration card.

Fitzpatrick told us recently that the only “peaceful” means of addressing the treason committed by Obama, Dempsey, Panetta and others is the grand jury.  Mentioned only in the Fifth Amendment, the grand jury was instituted to examine evidence of a crime independently of influence of a government prosecutor.  Fitzpatrick said:

What happens if one day, Mr. Obama comes to the podium in a press conference or speech and says, “The Constitution is not our law any more.  We’re not going to use the Constitution any more; we’re going to use something different.  We’re going to do things our own way.”  This is exactly what happened when Gen. Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Panetta said, “We’re not going to use the Constitution anymore as it applies to oversight and command of the United States Armed Forces.  We are now including the United Nations in these decisions.”

When you have people who come in and casually say that they’re not using the Constitution anymore as the fundamental law of the land, what are you going to do? and you say, “This is treason,” and they smile at you and say, “What are you going to do about it?”

What’s going on in high government is going on in our own backyards.  That’s the point that we’ve been trying to make with the American people for a long time.  It’s happening in your own neighborhood. The reason it can happen at the highest levels of our government is that we don’t have the ability to fight back at our lowest levels of government.  This was Panetta and Dempsey saying to the U.S. Congress, “You guys are of no account anymore.  You’re only in an advisory capacity.  You give us your opinion, but that’s not what we use anymore as our command structure.  What are you going to do about it?”

This is the point in time in history when we turn to the grand jury and we answer that question, and this is what we’re going to do about it:  “We the People, as a grand jury, find that you, Mr. Panetta, and you, General Dempsey, have violated the law…”

Fitzpatrick recently sent The Post & Email a letter explaining his position on the grand jury further:

First page of letter from Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III stating that he wants to testify before a grand jury

 

Page 2
Enlarged text of top of page 1 of Fitzpatrick's letter calling for testimony before a grand jury

Top of page 2. Information not yet made public has been redacted.
Bottom of page 2

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. To ALL:

    There is a new government in town. How else does anyone explain what is going on with the way things should operate under the Federal Constitution? The new government is de facto and some in the Congress should know that fact:

    Senate testimony on May 11, 1955

    Former American Bar Assoc. President, Carl B. Rix, in Senate testimony on May 11, 1955 summarized the destruction of our Constitution thusly; Congress is no longer bound by its Constitutional system of delegated power. Its only test is under the obligatory power to promote human rights (not the inalienable rights secured for us by our Constitution) in these fields of endeavor. Civil, political, economic, social and cultural. These powers are found in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations. Congress may now legislate as an uninhibited body with no shackles of delegated powers under the Constitution.

    Internet search today only provides for one webpage therefore everyone needs to go to their closest Law Library that has Congressional Records to get a facsimile of the Senate hearing for May 11, 1955.

    Important point:

    “If it isn’t established by law enacted in compliance with the constitutionally prescribed legislative process, an agency doesn’t legitimately exist. It has no lawful authority. Whatever it undertakes is de facto — it may do one thing or another in fact, but all acts are without lawful authority.”

    What they do stands for the ‘Government de facto’ is currently ‘A government of fact’ until the de jure government is restored!

    Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition page 697 –
    Government de facto. A government of fact. A government actually exercising power and control, as opposed to the true and lawful government; a government not established according to the constitution of the nation, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplanted or displaced the government de jure. A government deemed unlawful, or deemed wrongful or unjust, which, nevertheless, receives presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.
    There are several degrees of what is called “de facto government.” Such a government, in its highest degree, assumes a character very closely resembling that of a lawful government. This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorities from their customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country. The distinguishing characteristic of such a government is that adherents to it in war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason; and, under certain limitations, obligations assumed by it in behalf of the country or otherwise will, in general, be respected by the government de jure when restored. Such a government might be more aptly denominated a “government of paramount force,” being maintained by active military power against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and obeyed in civil matters by private citizens. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less by military force. Thorington v. Smith, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 1, 19 L.Ed. 361.

    How the de facto took over is documented within the postings found with this search – http://www.thepostemail.com/?s=by+Steven+Wayne+Pattison&x=8&y=3

    All Rights Reserved,
    Steven Wayne Pattison