Did Panetta Say That He and Obama Seek OK of Intern’l Powers to Deploy Troops; Declare War; Forget the U.S. Congress?

Rose Colombo, author, Political Activist &, Legal Consultant for Justice
Rose Colombo, author, Political Activist &, Legal Consultant for Justice

by Rose Colombo – original pub.(C) 3/21/2012 -(you may listen to the archived interview with myself and Chuck Wilder dated 3/27/2012 at www.crntalkradio.com/chuckwilder

Did  Secretary of State, Leon Panetta, just inform the U.S. Congress, that the U.S. Congress hasn’t  any authority over the actions of Panetta, the military, or the U.S. President?  

In a stunning congressional hearing, which included General Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and led by the Hon. Sessions, the testimony of General Dempsey and Panetta boggled the minds of the congressional members and that of the American people on or about  March 2012.  Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, stated that he and president Obama may or may not inform Congress of their actions when declaring war or deploying U.S. troops around the world because they intend to seek a “legal basis” and seek permission from international powers such as NATO, the U.N., or E.U. or an international assembly.  Panetta referred back to the attack on Libya when he and Obama did not inform Congress of their intent to attack Libya and assassinate Gaddafi, but the question remains, whose “legal basis” or “permission” did they seek to fire off 220 Tomahawks?

Consequently, Panetta’s statements beg the question if he referred to Libya as justification for his current stance so he could cite Libya as a case precedent for justification of their intent and desire of eliminating the sovereignty of the United States of America preserved as an inheritance by our Fathers, who were natural-born or native-born Americans, to be passed down to the natural-born or native-born children, which should be the desire of all public servants;  but on the contrary, it appears that such actions as stated by Panetta would grant absolute powers to Panetta and Obama as he referred in his testimony, not only to Obama, but stated “we” intend to seek a “legal basis” and seek permission of international powers and that they may or may not inform congress of their intent in the future.  Therefore, it begs the question if it is possible that Libya was attacked as a test case for future justification should they deploy our troops around the world or attack another nation without congressional and constitutional authority?

Obviously, the American people were not pleased when they heard the news that Panetta and Obama ordered the assassination of an unarmed leader of a nation, Gaddafi, who didn’t attack or threaten America, without congressional authority and without being captured alive and provided due process of law.  For if one man is denied due process of law how then should any man be provided due process of law thereafter?  The news reported that Obama with Panetta’s blessings ordered 220 Tomahawk missiles fired off at Libya at a cost of about $600,000 per Tomahawk, and those costs were passed onto the over burdened U.S. taxpayers, who are struggling to survive.  So, shouldn’t Congress have considered that they should investigate the reckless spending of U.S. tax dollars and the risk to the country’s welfare and safety  since they control the purse strings as part of their fiduciary duty?  Also, the attacks on Libya,  in the name of freedom, and congressional approval cost the lives of an undocumented number of innocent civilians and Freedom Fighters, whose families are now seeking compensation from the U.S. government for their losses.

Did Panetta state that they may or may not inform Congress of their decisions to declare war or send U.S. troops around the world, but will base their decisions upon the “legal basis” of international powers and permission from NATO and the U.N. or E.U. and other international assemblies?  Isn’t that like lawyers playing games with words such as “legal basis” similar to Bill Clinton spinning the word “is” or the Obama administration spinning the word “war” with “mission” to avoid congressional authority?  Are they attempting to use Libya as a pattern to circumvent the will of the American people represented by the U.S. Congress and disrespect the American people who pick up the tab for their decisions?

Hon. Sessions informed General Dempsey and Panetta that the U.S. Military answers to the U.S. Congress, a U.S. President and the U. S. Constitution.  He informed them that the U.S. Congress is not dependent upon NATO or a U.N. Resolution to execute foreign policies consistent with the National Security of the United States

Rep.  Sessions asked Panetta if he was saying that Obama is taking the position that he would not act if it was in the best interest of the U.S., if the U.N. did not agree.  Panetta commented that when it comes to military action that he and Obama would like some “international legal  basis.”  He said, “We want to build a coalition – we want some sort of legal basis as we did in Libya.”

Rep. Sessions said, you worry about some “international basis” but you didn’t worry about the fundamental constitutional legal basis this Congress has over the War Powers Act.  He said that congress wasn’t asked whether or not Obama and Panetta were in direct violation of the War Powers Act.

Panetta answered that “we would come to Congress and inform you.”  He said, we’re going to seek international approval and we’ll inform you.  If we’re working with an international coalition or NATO, we will want to get appropriate “permission” to do that – all of these countries would want to do that – we will reserve the right.

Rep. Sessions asked if he was stating that NATO would give Panetta and Obama a legal basis. Panetta said that if he and Obama developed an international coalition – an ad-hoc coalition of nations of NATO – who would give them a “legal basis.”  Rep. Sessions inquired as to who they were asking for a legal basis.  Panetta said that if the U.N. passed a Security Resolution as it did in Libya- we would do that.  If NATO came together as we did in Bosnia, we would rely on that so we have options here.  We want to build an international support.

Rep. Sessions assured Panetta that he’s all for international support, but stated he was baffled that Panetta was stating that he and Obama needed an international assembly to provide a legal basis to deploy U.S. troops into combat.  Rep. Sessions informed Panetta that they provide “no legal authority and the only legal authority they should be seeking is from the U.S. Congress, a U.S. President, and the U.S. Constitution.  Rep. Sessions said he was “breathless” by  Panetta’s statements.

Panetta said that when it comes to the National Defense of this country, [Obama] the President of the United States, has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country and if it comes – and “we will” – if it comes to whether we are trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and work in Bosnia – operate as we did in Libya – Afghanistan – then we want to do it with NATO or the international community.

So, did Panetta state that he and Obama have absolute power over YOUR sons and daughters, who are in the military, to do with whatever they want and deploy them anywhere in the world without Congressional authority and globalize the U.S. military without the consent of the American people and authorization of the U.S. Congress?  Congress is paid wages by We The People to represent Americans, not relinquish our sovereignty and the laws established for 235 years rooted into the U.S. Constitution.  It is immoral, and should be illegal and unconstitutional to use America’s troops for deployment anywhere in the world without the authority of the U.S. Congress and in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, to whom the military swears their allegiance, and in accordance with the will of the U.S. Citizens, who must pick up the tab for war, as well as sacrifice their loved ones and suffer the losses when they occur.

In other words, did Panetta state that he and Obama view congress as meaningless and the U.S. Constitution as meaningless and their allegiance is to NATO, the U.N., the E.U., and international powers, not the citizens of the United States of America who pay their wages?

The country is established by the founders who become the Fathers of that nation, such as the Forefathers, who establish the original set of Constitutional laws, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights rooted into the Ten Commandments and the Law of Nations, which shall be passed down to U.S. Natural Born and Native citizens from their fathers for the preservation of the country, not foreign-born inhabitants, born to one or both foreign-born parents, who are known as naturalized citizens and foreigners permitted to settle and live in the country peacefully alongside the U.S. Natural Born and Native American citizens.

According to the book, ‘The Law of Nations,” pub. by Emerald de Vatell, pub. 1758; which is rooted into our U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, it states, “Right of the Citizens, when the nation submits to a foreign power,” (Chapter XVI, 175).   It states, “In the case of a real subjection power, the citizens who do not approve this change are not obliged to submit to it.  They ought to be allowed to sell their effects and retire elsewhere.  For my having to enter into a society does not oblige me to follow its face when it dissolves itself in order to submit to a foreign dominion.  I submitted to the society as it then was, to live in that society as a member of a sovereign state and not in another.  I am bound to obey it while it remains a political society, but when it diverts itself of the quality in order to receive its laws from another state, it breaks the bond of union between members and releases them from their obligation.”  In other words, the law of the land infers that U.S. Natural born and Native Citizens have the right to secede from the union and remove itself from the union legally and peacefully resisting a takeover by foreign powers or under the U.S. Constitution, remove those public servants from power who have surrendered their powers to foreign nations and pledged their allegiance to a foreign entity against the objections of the majority of U.S. Natural Born and Native American citizens.

According to the televised video of a congressional hearing of March 2012, Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, who answered questions of  Rep. Sessions, inferred that he and president Obama had the authority to deploy U.S. troops around the world without congressional authority and they would seek international permission of NATO, the U.N. or E.U., and may inform the U.S. Congress of their actions as they did in Libya.

Where then should the blame fall, on the executive office, or the congressional leaders, for failing in their fiduciary duty to properly vet a U.S, President under Article II; and secondly for not holding him accountable, when he fired off 220 Tomahawks at Libya at a cost of about $600,000 each, passed onto the American taxpayers?  How many freedom fighters in Libya depended on our help, but were met with Tomahawks, which created their disillusionment, when they witnessed civilian men, women, children killed as well as  Gaddafi’s grandkids, and his 16-year old son and friends.   How is this any different then the U.S. soldier who killed 17 Afghans while they slept and the White House calling out “murder” before an investigation took place?  At the very least, shouldn’t congress have suspended Obama and Panetta, while congress performed their fiduciary duty and investigated the actions taken in Libya on behalf of the military and  the American people as it is their fiduciary to uphold just and fair actions against American citizens or foreign nations.

Consequently, it isn’t just the fact that Obama and Panetta claimed attacking Libya was only a “mission,” but it’s also the fact that the U.S. Constitution requires that America must be under threat or attacked before attacking a foreign nation.   How is it that Libya didn’t threaten or attack America, yet the Obama administration fired off 220 Tomahawks at taxpayer’s expense, which cost the lives of innocent people, as they by-passed congress and the constitution?  For example, we should ask if the attack on Libya without oversight is any different from Obama funding Fast and Furious under the watch of Eric Holder,  without oversight, which cost the lives of U.S. agents, Mexican police, and thousands of innocent foreigners. It is immoral to think, oh well, the lives of the victims, whether legal or not, is worth the price.  If the government were to add up the number of people who died in Libya and Mexico at the hand of the U.S. government since 2008 versus 3,000 lives on 911 – what would that number be?

Furthermore, isn’t this exactly why oversight is established and written into the U.S. Constitution?  Isn’t the fact that abuse of power can’t be monitored if congress grants one man or  2 men the right to knight themselves with  absolute power as if they pledged their allegiance to the British Queen?  Obama called the attack on Libya,  a “mission.” and said he didn’t need congressional authority because there wouldn’t be boots on the ground and the mission would only take but a few days.  Today, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken control of Libya and established Sharia Law, so why did we attack Libya and assassinate an unarmed foreign leader who didn’t threaten the U.S. if we couldn’t deliver freedom to the citizens of Libya? Shall we ponder if the  answer lies in the fact that if Gaddafi had been captured alive, it may have set off questions as to the constitutional and legal justification for the attack as required by constitutional law?

In conclusion,  if the congress continues to approve absolute power to Obama and Panetta, then they are failing, in their duty to country.  If congress allows this pattern of self-government, without congressional authority to continue, which could establish a consistent pattern,  it could be the “legal basis” that Panetta and Obama are seeking to exercise and claim that they have absolute authority to declare war and deploy U.S. troops anywhere in the world without congressional authority, based on the fact there wasn’t any opposition by congress or the citizens. This unconstitutional behavior could lead to spreading our military troops too thin and creating a financial burden upon the American taxpayers.

Furthermore, if  the presidential executive office continues to assassinate foreign leaders because they “think” specific foreign leaders are “evil” people, then who in America is next to be targeted as an enemy, based upon their opinion?  America has leaders, who foreign nations believe are evil, so what’s the difference should foreign leaders  conspire to attack America’s leaders if we’re behaving in the same manner?

How then does congress justify that the Obama administration and the 112th Congress is denying the American people their constitutional right to exercise Due Process of Law since they voted to deny Due Process of Law  rendering Americans helpless by shredding Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and approving the unconstitutional and tyrannical law known as NDAA?  By the way, what’s the difference between a law that allows public servants to place them on a “hit” list versus the mafia creating a hit list knowing innocent people will die without a trial?  Even a guilty person should be given a trial!  In fact, our laws are based upon just laws that allow even the guilty to defend themselves until now.  The NDAA law has caused the American people to fear their government and places mistrust of the federal government in their minds.  The NDAA law places grave doubt in the minds of the citizens knowing that the government is spying on Americans as  potential targets of their own government for indefinite detention and assassination based upon an accusation only.  By the way, how is that even legal in America?  It is the love of country of our natural-born and native-born fathers who preserve the laws and pass them onto their U.S. Natural Born children or Native born children for the preservation of our culture, lifestyle, and laws.  Shame on the U.S. Congress for not invoking their powers and agreeing to shred Article IV, Due Process of Law, that targets Americans who pay their wages!  Americans didn’t agree to pay their wages and provide them jobs and retirement in exchange to suspend or shred and replace constitutional law, but to uphold, defend, preserve, and protect the U.S. Constitution. ***(This Article May be Shared but Not Plagiarized by a Third Party)

Click the like button and leave a comment, please.  You may share this blog with anyone and check out my website which includes my bio, awards, videos, photos, laws I’ve proposed, and my book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” on Amazon or visit   Disclaimer:  Nothing said in this blog is meant to be legal, political, medical, or financial advice but a dissemination of information for educational purposes only. www.fightbacklegalabuse.com

Thanks for the read…..

Japan’s Triple Catastrophe Coming Towards America:Why is TSA Radiating Americans As Radiation is Radiation!

Rose Colombo, author, Obamacare, Dinosaurs, Red Necks and Radicals!
Rose Colombo, author, Obamacare, Dinosaurs, Red Necks and Radicals!

written by Rose Colombo, original (c)  3/16/2011

Fear is the biggest enemy of all people in every nation!  Yes, women and children FEAR being GROPED and RADIATED at the airports and rightfully so while others are exempted!  And, people should fear the Fukushima Nuclear Explosion because it is more serious than reported.  In fact, Hillary Clinton approved food from Japan imported into the USA after the explosion in the news.  Most people don’t bother to  pay much attention unless it involves a catastrophe.  This problem appears to be ignored by the White House, yet it is a serious threat to mankind.

For example, Japan’s 9.0 earthquake, Tsunami, and Nuclear Plant Radiation leaks are an unprecedented tragedy.  Japan has been  hit with three different disasters.  A triple disaster.  And, they continue to live through after shocks in very cold weather.  Japan’s triple disaster has caused a rude awakening for America, Russia, China, and the rest of the world.  Japan’s Tsunami touched the shores of America.  Obviously, radiation can leak into the drinking water, soil, ocean, and atmosphere. If  the radiation becomes  airborne, it can enter into the pores of humans, ocean life, and animals.  Medical Journals state there aren’t any guaranteed safe levels of radiation.

Radiation has adverse health affects. Tragedies such as those in Japan cause the loss of  life, jobs; stocks; homes, and businesses.  In America, this catastrophe has plummeted Wall Street and will cause food prices to rise, but the White House and Obama seem to have been MIA (missing in action).  They don’t up-date America on the serious problem at Fukushima.  The radiation catastrophe affects the economy , The news reported that radiation is blowing in the wind towards California’s West Coast and the radiated trash is washing up along our shores.

Ironically, Obama, Chertoff,  Soros,  Homeland Security and TSA support radiating every American including minor children in America under the guise of fear of terrorism, but it’s pretty doubtful that they get groped or radiated.  Shouldn’t Americans be given the right to be safe and protected from radiation, not threatened with radiation or else punished with an intrusive groping of the private parts of every passenger?  It’s my belief that the federal government should be held liable for any adverse side effects in the future as well as Rapiscan and should be held accountable and made to answer the following questions:

1. Is it healthy for Americans to be radiated as Janet Napolitano has led Americans to believe through Homeland Security?

2.  How is it legal for TSA security guards to radiate Americans as non-health care professionals under the laws of each state pertaining to health care professionals?

3. Why is it that professionals in the beauty industry must graduate from school; attend continuing educational classes, take a state test, and obtain a state license before they can touch anyone or be threatened with lawsuits and jail if they are caught touching anyone without a license, even with a curling iron?

4.  How much more important is it for TSA employees who are operating radiation machines and examining naked photos of people to be licensed health care professionals and follow the health care laws of each state?

5.  How is it that TSA employees can full body radiate Americans without using any protective coverings on their customers as a  precaution? And, what damage could the radiation do to the eyes and where are the long-term studies?  How about cause cataracts?

6.  How does the radiation affect people with cancer or other health problems or people who don’t know they have cancer or don’t know if they are pregnant?

As a long time licensed Skin Care Specialist in the beauty industry, I’ve attended many continuing education classes with doctors and chemists and I can tell you that they warn Americans to stay out of the sun for long periods of time during specific hours of the day and avoid radiation that can cause skin cancer and increase the aging process as well as shorten one’s life span.  The government now regulates tanning beds because people are being radiated by artificial light and even though the government says the beds are at a safe level of radiation, the government believes that the  tanning beds must be regulated because radiation can cause adverse side effects to human beings, but how is it not a risk to the skin cells with TSA’s radiation program?

Most of the medical reports I’ve read state that there are no safe levels of radiation, but the Obama regime states that the newly installed Rapiscan full body radiation scanners are set at safe levels, but how is radiation safe when Americans have been warned to stay away from any radiation.  In my opinion, staying away from radiation is safe!  The reason that there are warnings against radiation exposure such as staying in the sun too long or in a tanning bed too long is simple.  Over exposure is similar to  cooking yourself.  Radiation is heat and it can cook flesh.  In fact, one girl over exposed herself in a tanning bed and hit the news because she cooked herself and died before her wedding day.

Consequently, radiologists, doctors, and dentists, are educated, licensed and certified to operate radiation machines.  Radiologists are  trained and certified and they work under the wing of a licensed doctor or Dentist..  Doctors and dentists require that patients sign and consent before being radiated and treated or touched.  The radiologists cover up all healthy parts of the body before radiating the unhealthy parts of the body and they leave the room before turning on the switch, even though, they must operate within “safe” levels of radiation.  So, the question remains, why leave the room, if radiation is safe and why cover up the body if radiation is safe?

Therefore, will Rapiscan full body radiation scanners and x-ray machines long-term, end up to be a slow genocide for traveling Americans, who are radiated without  protective coverings?  Will Obama implement the Rapiscan radiation machines into entertainment parks and public buildings so there is no escape from being radiated in the future?  Most people are healthy, so why is congress and the American people allowing Obama, Soros, and Chertoff to subject Americans to an unnecessary health care “treatment” of radiation and nude x-ray photos by non-health care professionals knowing the risks of radiation at any levels?  Even a Fox News guest who is an expert on radiation stated there aren’t any safe levels of radiation.  If there are safe levels of radiation as the federal government states under Obama and the news is reporting that the radiation levels in Japan are safe then why are they evacuating the people and treating them for radiation contamination or handing out iodide tablets?  And, what are the long-term effects on children as they must continue to be radiated throughout their lives if Rapiscan isn’t stopped now.

Not surprising in the news is the fact that Obama’s regime provides Muslim women and kids “special considerations” based on their religion, but Americans aren’t provided any considerations based on their Judeo-Christian faith.  Even law enforcement must have probable cause to touch or grope a citizen, but not TSA, who is groping innocent children and American men and women.  Shouldn’t the Obama regime be concentrating on searching the parking lots and the luggage as well as closing the borders along the U.S. from the terrorists?

In conclusion, the American people must ask if Obama and his family and all White House public officials are being radiated every time they fly or did they exempt themselves just like they exempted themselves from Obama Care?  Therefore, why would the Obama administration require that Americans be radiated and state that its safe, yet he opposes nuclear radiation plants in America?  Also, the news reported that Obama is withdrawing the troops in May 2011 from securing the borders, so if terrorists  will continue to enter through our borders then why bother radiating healthy and unhealthy Americans at the airports?  Shouldn’t Chertoff, Soros, and Obama take their Rapiscan radiation to the borders and to the Middle East airports if they really want to catch terrorists?  Someone should inform Obama, Chertoff and Soros that they’re radiating the wrong people.

Remember, radiation is radiation.  The medical and beauty industry reports  which  I’ve read stated that radiation sets off  free radicals that continuously kill healthy cells which is non-reversible.  Radiation can cause cancer.  Radiation can cause death.  Radiation can change DNA.  Radiation can cause sterilization.  Radiation contaminates soil and drinking water if leaked, but so does Corexit 9500 sprayed over the gulf where there are alleged cover-ups.  Radiation is airborne and ends up in the drinking water and contaminates the food.  Japan reported that their spinach and milk and drinking water is now contaminated.

7.  Who in Congress or the Senate or judicial system or federal government owns stock in Rapiscan as they should have to disclose that information.

8.  How is it that Obama could provide U.S. tax dollars from the stimulus money which he promised for jobs and approve it for a private corporation owned by his federal employee who worked under him, Michael Chertoff, executive in Homeland Security, so  Chertoff could fund his private corporation, Rapiscan, without the approval of the American people and why is Obama funding a private corporation with tax dollars?

9.  How then does the federal government state that funding Rapiscan with stimulus funds is not a conflict of interest and abuse of power so Obama’s donors, supporters, and employee can become extremely wealthy?

In essence, it’s my opinion that the American people own Rapiscan since it was funded with U.S. tax dollars and it is the American people who should be issued the stock.  Otherwise, why isn’t Soros and Chertoff  having to reimburse the American people for funding their for-profit private corporation?  Rapiscan is a generational built-in customer base money-maker.  The news reported that Obama’s supporter, George Soros  owns most of the stock in OSI Systems and OSI owns Rapiscan, so how can the congress look the other way.  The funding of Rapiscan was unethical in my opinion and Obama provided no transparency, so did congress open the purse strings and approve the funding?

In my opinion, Rapiscan was set up to radiate Americans for-profit  allowing Soros and Chertoff and the stockholders to use every American man, woman and minor child as Human Capital and as individual commodities for their profit.  It could also cause depopulation long-term. In my opinion, the American people have been tricked into funding their own possible civil genocide depending upon how the radiation effects each American citizen who suffers adverse side effects or death.

By the way, didn’t Made-off, oops, I mean Madoff take people’s money and promise to do some thing specific with it, but instead divert it for his own agendas?  So, what’s the difference?

America is vulnerable to losing its economic status and freedoms under the Obama regime.  It was Obama who stated to America that he would be the “most transparent” president.  He is not. He promised to create jobs with the stimulus money, but he did not.  Instead, he supports radiating every U.S. citizen and simultaneously doesn’t support nuclear power plants.  Wake up, America, it’s nearly too late! **Note:  Readers may share my original Blog, but please don’t change or steal the content and it’s unethical and prohibited by law to Plagiarize written works. 

You’re invited to read 5 Star Reviews and Complimentary pages of Rose Colombo’s award winning book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” and her latest political satire,  “Obamacare, Dinosaurs, Red Necks and Radicals” at www.amazon.com

For more information and bio on Rose Colombo google www.fightbacklegalabuse.com

Follow:  www.facebook.com/rosecolombo  and  Twitter@Rose4Justice