Home | About | Donate

Obama's Speech Reminded Americans That the War with ISIS Is Still Illegal


Obama's Speech Reminded Americans That the War with ISIS Is Still Illegal

Trevor Timm

f you listened closely during Barack Obama’s speech to the nation on Sunday night, you would have heard him reference the fact that the US war against Isis – which is well over a year old at this point – is illegal and unconstitutional.


Presidential precedent:


That part of what he said last night was curious. Wondered if he was saying to Congress "either put up or shut up." Is he hoping they'll trip over their own bellicosity? If you listen to the GOP candidate magpies these nefarious terrorist madmen have us surrounded and the homeland is about to collapse.


Yes, of course, the war is unconstitutional, but the situation is much worse than that. It is a fake. The U.S., NATO, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are proxies for the the international banking cartel and their corporations. The CIA created al Qaeda and ISIS and still control them. These mercenaries are placed in countries that the cartel aims to destroy, a list that General Wesley Clark has said was handed to the Pentagon right after 9-11.

Syria, and the rest of the countries on that list, all control/controlled their own central bank and currency. In addition, Syria is in a strategic geographical location for a pipeline to bring cartel oil to Europe and break the Russian monopoly on the continent's oil.

So, ISIS and "the Syrian opposition" are used as a cover for the cartel's proxies to bomb the Syrian army. Putin called the cartel's bluff by joining in "the war on terror" and actually bombing ISIS and "the Syrian opposition," which prompted the cartel to create false flag events (Paris and San Bernardino) to create an excuse for France to declare war (they did not do this after 9-11) and bring their firepower along with Britain into the war against Syria and Russia.

Obama just reads the teleprompter. There are at least 25 layers of security clearances above him, all controlled by the cartel.



I started with "Just Security"s detailed outline, and it seems as though it's possible this doc could [I say "could"] have been planted by the hawks. Since Trimm gives no synopsis...guess it's up to us to express our doubts. Don't want to be negative, but what can you do? If it's only ISIL, then most of what Russia has done wouldn't be in keeping with such an outline. Which would be in keeping with the bogey man Putin conspiracy...a fav among corporations who would like to see a big ole armageddon with Russia as well. I'm giving up on the outline; all the nuances everywhere are rarely covered anywhere. From the start of the thing, I don't see how it jives for instance with the article today on stopping ISIL's oil sales...at Informed Comment (Juan Cole).


I agree except that it's not just the international banking cartel. It's big banks, corporations like those that control agriculture, pharmaceuticals, media, AND the weapons makers/head honchos of the military agencies. ALL of them profit from not just war, but the terror that lends itself so reflexively to authoritarian top-down government controls.

Just as many of us recognize that U.S. leaders (in service to their corporate sponsors) seek out 3rd world dictators who will keep a tight rein on their people so that corporations like United Fruit will be free to plunder their natural resources, the protocol today is turning the entire world into that same kind of system. Strong-armed rulers will continue to confine citizens' actions--as is currently on display in Paris--using a variety of bogus ("fighting terrorism/National Security") laws and inducements.

I can't believe how insane things have become; nor can I recall which pundit read off the list (with disgust) of all the nations now bombing Syria. As if this bloodbath can do anything but spread further carnage, ruin, despair, and societal dissolution.

It's mortifying.


You know, it seems that the issue about which European nations are bombing one or another given small country must be determined a lot like a mafia determines which individuals are involved in a particular murder, even an otherwise useless one.

An individual is employable for some other thing, but the Family needs to know that he (usually) will be reliable. A relatively safe way of assuring this is to see to it that he is guilty of a serious crime and therefore vulnerable himself. The act effectively if gesturally signs off on other crimes.

So, take England (please!). Think of what-all the country has been guilty of in recent decades tagging around after the US.


The banks own the corporations, including the weapons manufacturers.



Well to be more accurate it the 1 percent of the 1 percent.

I think a few years back there articles posted here or linked to that outlined how cross ownership in Corporations , including all of the types you mentioned , showed a handful of the same had a controlling interest in just about every other Corporate segment.

When broken down yet further these are under the ultimate control of a few hundreds of individuals.


Read all wars are bankers wars. The International banking cartels hide in the shadows and are never exposed except in rare cases, like: General Smedley Butlers War is a Racket.

Why is Assad on the radar screen of the banking cartels and International oligarchs? Because of, like you state: " Syria's strategic geographical location for a pipeline to bring cartel oil to Europe and break the Russian monopoly on the continents oil". And also, Syria controls its own central bank and currency. There are too many other examples to list them here but Saddam was in the process of changing his oil from petro-dollars before Iraq was attacked and one of the first things that were done upon Iraq's regime change was the petro-dollar was reinstated in Iraq.

The same thing happened in Libya when Khaddfi was in the process of changing his oil from the petro-dollar to the Gold Dinar, which would have been potentially devastating to the petro-dollar.


The AUMF of 2001 did not make the invasion of Iraq legal as this author contends. Under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, the United Nations charter is the supreme law of the land in the United States. That charter forbids aggressive war. The allegation that Saddam Hussein represented an imminent threat to the US was false and the invasion of Iraq was an aggressive war in violation of the UN charter. No act of Congress can overrule the Constitution. The neocons are simply arguing that the United Nations charter does not exist.