Listen Taped Live: Rose Colombo welcomes Dr. John Gamble, distinguished Professor of Political Science and International Law at Penn State and International Law at Penn State’s Behrend College in Erie and Director of Honors Programs. Dr. Gamble has dealt with stuttering during his life time and despite the challenge, he’s overcome his life’s challenge and moved forward climbing the ladder of success in the field of education. He managed to turn his personal challenge into an opportunity which helps enlighten and empower people and students. He used his personal experiences and belief that words are precious and should not be taken for granted. His life’s experiences led him to write an informative and intriguing book, “No Bull Information” available at amazon.com (Click Follow – Like – Comment and Reblog) – Click the Link Below to Listen:
Radio Show: Rose Colombo N The Justice Club, MWF, 9am-10:30am or 12-1:30p est-usa – Listen Live Worldwide Online – Podcasts (347) 324-3704 – Roseie’s Rants on the Issues of the Day – Author’s Corner with prominent guests – Join Rose and Follow and Share the truth and information for educational and entertainment purposes only – Bookmark http://www.freedomizerradio.com or Archived shows at http://www.rose4justice.com
Radio Show: Women Fight Back! Rose and Victor – 2 Conservative Women – Beauty -Stress – Notable Women – Quotes – Household Tips – Women’s Issues of the Day and Struggles – Men Welcome – Long Time experience in the Beauty Industry,Radio,Activist, and Advocates for Justice – Bookmark and Like – Follow – Share – spread the word – every Wednesday – 10:30a – 12p pst and 1:30-3p est-usa- Listen Live Online Worldwide, Podcasts or at (347) 324-3704 – Bookmar http://www.freedomizerradio.com or archived shows at http://www.rose4justice.com
Follow Rose Colombo – The Justice Club – Constitutional Bar Association on Facebook or Twitter@Rose4Justice – and Rose4Justice at Stumbleupon, Google+, Pinterest, Tumbr, and Digg
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. Constitutionand 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
“Legal Gangsters??” (c) a title coined in 1991 by Rose Colombo – Rose permitted the use of her title for a newspaper article as a co-author published April 9, 1996 – She wrote this latest original article pub. (c) 11/20/2011 as follows:
Legal Abuse is not new! After Obama was elected as U.S. President without proper vetting, he and his supporters enacted a new definition of what is illegal for the people vs. what is illegal for congress. The new definition of illegal is titled “inversion!” What is illegal for the American people is legal for congress! This new congress that sees the constitution as “meaningless” for them have created a “them against us” society. They are holding themselves above the law and view themselves as royalty and the people as peasants who are nothing more than numbers, possibly to be depopulated under the U.N.’s Agenda 21 program; mandated abortions, gay indoctrination, euthanasia; rationing of health care services; radiation; and excessive laws which deny due process of law in some cases; a “hit” list, as well as, the illegal and indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, which is unconstitutional under our nation’s laws. Yet, the U.S. Congress and Department of Justice, as well as, the ABA Constitutional Lawyers continue to remain silent. These mandates, requirements, and laws which circumvent the U.S. Constitution do not reflect the Constitution of the United States or federal job descriptions. They fly in the face of America’s Rule of Law in every way, shape or form. Every federal public servant, who remains silent and fails to perform their fiduciary job duty for which they are paid by the taxpayers, are guilty. A job and wages in exchange for public servants whose fiduciary duty it is to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America is a legal binding contract according to the law. A job as a public servant does not include the authority to circumvent the constitution and rule by Executive Order. Executive Orders are not laws.
Every public servant should search their conscience and if they choose to abuse their power and deny constitutional rights to the citizens of the United States, then they are violating their fiduciary duty to their constituents in exchange for their jobs and taxpayer wages and therefore, should step down. How then shall we deal with those public servants who refuse to step down, but are in violation of their sworn oath and without conscience stonewall due process of law, while protecting their own? In fact, some lawyers and judges believe that they can trample on the constitution and establish a foreign law in our courtrooms. The enemy of a great nation is like a big fat yellow belly rattle snake with giant fangs, who lies dormant, still, and hidden away, but at a calculated moment, he strikes at his enemy and poisons his prey.
As a long time advocate for justice who has monitored the courts and helped people who ended up victims for years, documenting their cases and researching the law, I can tell you from first-hand experience that unless you’ve walked through the fires and tribulations, you cannot call yourself an “expert” or an “authority” on corruption or legal abuse. Talk show hosts may read the information provided by those who have been exposing injustices for years, but the experience and knowledge gained after 25 years of research only touches the surface of what happens to the victims without anywhere to go for help.
Ironically, I found myself intrigued by articles in the newspapers or Newsweek or Time Magazine during the 80s and 90s. One such article which caught my attention and stuck in my head was written by a reporter who said that the government was creating a “them against us society.” A most fascinating article hit a major news magazine about 1990 which stated that the law schools were graduating so many lawyers that it would create an over abundance of lawyers within ten years and there would be hungry lawyers looking for the same jobs. So, what was the remedy? Legislatures must create more laws so the general public will intentionally or unintentionally or through ignorance violate more laws and keep the “machine” in operation.
For example, perjury for the powerful is referred to as “a mistake.” Mismanagement of $10,000,000 of stimulus tax dollars promised for jobs but used for buying and selling guns for criminals is referred to as “negligence.” Insider Trading by congressional members or other public servants is referred to as a “legal.” The lawmakers who swear to uphold the Rule of Law boldly state that it is legal for congress to commit the crime of “insider trading” because they have provided themselves the authority to do so outside of the Rule of Law. They have used their positions to circumvent the constitution and expect the voters and taxpayers to believe they have the authority to hold themselves above the law and exempt themselves from the law, prosecution, lawsuits, or fines.
Therefore, I decided to include an excerpt from my Irwin Award winning book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” featured in the Daily Law Journal, which reflects what is recurring in the executive and congressional and judicial branches of our government, as they hold themselves above U.S. Constitutional law, protect their own, rendering the Constitution and the Bill of Rights dead on arrival before you hit the courtroom!
An excerpt from “Fight Back Legal Abuse” (C) involving a true story of a former Treasury Agent assigned to Organized Crime Strike Force, Mr. George Wright, who believed that public servants and prominent people should be held to the same standard of the law, but found out the hard way that those in positions of power didn’t agree:
“The investigation was done for all the right reasons, but the system broke down…deciding that public attention would be the only way which the Wyoming case would be prosecuted, I again contacted the Los Angeles Times.” He says, “My decision was not an easy one, I had violated department regulations and knew the risks involved. He said, Our public officials and prominent business leaders should be held to the same standards of conduct as everyone else. Crime is crime.”
“Wright was seeking justice, but instead, he says, “On a sweltering Friday, July 1, 1974, the supervisor of the Los Angeles Office of the U.S. Treasury Department called me into his office. He said, ‘Wright, Washington advises me to have you turn in your badge, gun, credit card and cash advance. You are relieved of your responsibilities here. Furthermore, Washington is considering prosecuting you on as of yet, undetermined charges.’ Wright said, “I wanted to remember my badge the way it was, not the distorted image it had become.” He says, On July 4th, 1974, while America celebrated its independence, I was being separated forever from government service because I’d done what I thought was right.” He said he wrote a resignation letter, but the government wouldn’t accept it and “I was told that the wording was not acceptable and that if it was not changed, I would be prosecuted.”
Wright asked, “What are the charges?” The man from Washington responded, “We are prepared to arrest you immediately on charges of treason, espionage, giving out confidential income tax information, selling diagrams of government installations to a foreign power.” And, then almost as if an afterthought, he added….”and the misdemeanor for giving information to the press without going through channels.”
Mr. Wright said, “If they arrested me, I’d have a criminal rap sheet and would spend the rest of my life explaining how I came to be arrested for treason and espionage. Not only would my career have been over, but my job prospects would never exceed folding napkins at a taco stand. I had no choice at all. Wiping away tears of sad frustration, the secretary slowly typed my second letter of resignation…..”
(This article may be shared, but no part of this article may be copied without the express permission of the publisher or author as stated under copyright laws in the book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse”). On the back cover of my book is a quote from a letter written to me from the Hon. Nancy Wieben Stock…..”and the truth shall set us free.” ** (This articlemay be shared but Not Plagiarized by a Third Party.)
Rose Colombo’s self-help Irwin Award Winning book, Fight Back Legal Abuse, and her latest political satire paralleling todays unconstitutional health care law, Obamacare, with fictional characters that reveal the Orwellian changes coming to America offer Free Reviews and Complimentary Pages at www.amazon.com