Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Globalists Have Claimed the US Military: Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony

Posted 2 years ago on March 8, 2012, 3:39 p.m. EST by Reneye (118)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Staggering....

"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."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84

6 Comments

6 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

This is nothing new. When was the last time we went to war on the basis of the Constitutional requirement of a declairation of war? WWII? That train left the station a few generations ago.

[-] 0 points by Wondrous (37) 2 years ago

Yes, I agree, but this is the first time that Panetta specifically says that The US Military takes their orders from NATO/UN...not USA...that once the Military has gotten its orders from NATO/UN they will then "inform" the US of their movements. This is a huge change and a sign that the globalists/internationalists have taken over. No announcement...no nothing.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

He said no such thing, unless the link changed. He said that IF the US was trying to build a coalition, it would have to have a legal basis for doing so from the other member nations in ADDITION to having the legal authority from the president. NO law currently denies the president sole authority to use military for for up to 60 days, with or without congressional approval. Congressional consultation is all that is required by law.

Maybe the laws should be changed, but this does NOT represent a breach from the past, nor does it set a precedent, nor does it violate the constitution. And it is counterfactual to claim it does.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I agree, but it has been going on a long time. No one was more of an Imperial president than GWB. My point is that I believe this is yet another effort to paint Obama as being different than, or worse than his predecessors in this regard. That conclusion would be erronious.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I'm still reeling about Eric Holders' speech.

Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech outlining when and why this administration believes it has the right to murder US citizens without any due process. He gave this entire speech without even mention of Anwar Al-Awlaki, which is completely absurd considering that he's the first American citizen that we know that the administration has done this to. He's also important to mention considering that this administration still hasn't made public the secret legal memo specifically detailing why they considered it legally justifiable to do to Awlaki. Then here's another kicker, Holder said that the administration doesn't have to get the approval of a judge to carry out this kind of assassination, a word he called loaded and misplaced. Unfortunately the mainstream media only gave the issue a few minutes here and there at best today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eum130DpWIY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8NmED4Xrk8

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

Which one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYDnYgQ5MQ

Is there really no difference between the two constitutions other than the two words, "of" and "for"? Are they the same?