by Ron Paul
President Obama announced his choices for key national security posts this past week, and there has been both celebration and gnashing of teeth in Washington and around the country. There is widespread belief that either or both of these nominees will have an immediate and profound effect on US policy. However, this belief is really just a mistaken over-emphasis on personnel over policy. We should not forget that cabinet secretaries serve the president, and not the other way around.
Many who object to our continued foreign policy of endless war and empire overseas feel encouraged by Obama’s choice of Senator Hagel to head the Defense Department. Hagel has shown some admirable willingness to advise caution overseas. He is seen as unenthusiastic over the prospects of a US war on Iran, which is certainly to be welcomed. But let us not forget that he did vote for the war against Iraq, he has expressed support for multi-lateral sanctions on Iran, and last year he wrote in the Washington Post that, on Iran, he supports “keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force.”
Nevertheless because he does represent a more moderate voice in foreign policy than the neo-conservatives can tolerate, they are dragging his name through the mud. In choosing Hagel, then, we can hope the president is signaling that he will pursue a less aggressive foreign policy in his second term. But we cannot count on it.
At the same time, the president has chosen John Brennan as Central Intelligence Agency director — a man who is considered the author of Obama’s destructive drone warfare policy, and who as such has been in charge of the president’s secret “kill list” that has already claimed the lives of three American citizens. He claimed in 2011 that there were no collateral deaths from the US drone attacks on Pakistan, which is simply not believable. We also should not forget that as then-CIA director George Tenet’s right hand man during the Bush presidency, Brennan was certainly involved in the manufactured intelligence and lies that led the US to attack Iraq.
The real problem is in placing too much emphasis on the person the president hires to carry out his foreign and defense policy, as it ignores that policy itself. If the president has decided to continue or even expand US military action overseas through more covert warfare and use of special operations forces, which seems to be the case, it will matter little who he chooses to carry out those policies. If the president decides to continue to provide support to rebels in Syria who have dubious ties to Islamic extremists, to continue to meddle in the internal affairs of countless countries overseas, to continue to refuse to even talk with Iran without preconditions, and so on, we will not see a return to foreign policy sanity no matter who occupies what position in the president’s cabinet.
So we should be optimistic that the president may see the wisdom in pursuing a foreign policy that is truly in our national interest, but we should always keep an eye on the policies over the personnel.
Processing your request, Please wait....
ron paul supporter mark willis facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mark-Willis-for-RNC-Chair/4089… We asked ron paul supporter Mark Willis, Maine’s Republican National Committeeman to step up and challenge Reince Priebus during the January 25th RNC Officers Election during their Winter Meeting in Charolotte, NC. (Jan. 23rd – Jan.26th). Mark replied to us saying: “Let me begin by saying that I am honored to find my name on the short list as a potential candidate next to two great statesmen, Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Jim DeMint. As we all know, these two men have fought the good fight for years on Capitol Hill – lower taxes, less spending, and an overall decentralized Federal Government that would actually abide by the Constitution. Sadly, they seem to be two outgoing voices in the wilderness of an out of control Federal Government with few replacements on the horizon. Men perhaps of a different age – principled leaders are hard to come by these days.Therefore, after much deliberation and discussion with my wife Violet, I let Bryan know that due to the fact that no one has stepped up to the plate, I would in fact run for Chairman of the RNC, provided I would receive, in writing, the support of at least 2 RNC members in 3 states (minimum of 6 persons) in order to satisfy the RNC nomination requirements. The election takes place on Friday, January 25th, 2013 in Charlotte, North Carolina.” Since that time we have been working hard to do just that! We have already helped to secure a National RLC Endorsement of Mark Willis’s candidacy and have pushed this story onto the National radar!( Visit our Media Page for full coverage! ) Mark has already done interviews with Nationally Syndicated talk show host Jerry Doyle, Award winning news journalist at Ben Swann and a number of morning radio interviews. The message is getting out and some of the responses are coming in from the hard work that is being done on the ground. At this time we currently have 2 states that have been willing to stand up and nominate Mark Willis for RNC Chair. Maine and Nevada. This means 2 more RNC members from 1 more state is needed to satisfy the nomination requirements. Have you reached out to your states RNC members yet? If you are not sure who they are in your state here is a great starting point: http://www.gop.com/members/ The RNC Election of Officers takes place Jan. 25th from 11-6pm (tentative). We must have the support of 3 states with at least 2 RNC members (State Chair, National Committeeman/woman) written support in order to satisfy the nomination requirements: http://stepdownnow.com/mark-willis-for-rnc-chair/
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am vaguely familiar with this operation, but fail to see the connection…the CIA was running roughshod the world over from the late 40′s through the 80′s…old news. So enlighten me.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Look into operation Gladio and you will find the answer.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When I last read it, Darwin’s “Origin of Species” didn’t address the evolution of the human brain.Did I miss something?And is that really “the only issue that Darwins theory runs into”?I don’t want to be disrespectful,but are your typing fingers attached to your evolved brain?Darwin addressed the holes in his theory in “Origin…”he feared that his theory would be disproved.His fears were unjustified,to date,after 153 years…but who’s counting?….
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…so who did it and why?…
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…as a rule, the words “sane” and “republican” cannot be used in the same sentence, unless you say something like this:”I used to be sane, then I became a republican.” This rule has been in effect since the Eisenhower administration.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
p.s…your statement:”In science very little is proven” is utterly ludicrous.As I said before,science is in the business of proving and disproving its theories and laws.Science has a tendency to correct and modify;religion does not.The theory of gravity is not widely disputed, nor is the theory of evolution…within the scientific community.Apparently,this is not the case amongst Ron Paul cultists.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All things are possible,but many things are unlikely.We know many of the hows and whys of gravity thanks to the scientific method.We do not know all there is to know.There is no shame in this.The quest for knowledge goes on,and the human race is generally improved by this quest. The answers to the mysteries of the universe are not contained in one book.Curiosity and scientific method can solve more than the bible can.So you question gravity?Hold a hammer over your head.Release the hammer.
»crosslinked«
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve noticed that some zealots have trouble picking up on humour.Allow me to reiterate:as far as their thoughts on evolution go,Ron Paul and the others are on equal terms.I’ve made no claims on other aspects of their mental ability.Your statement regarding an intelligent argument for creationism is patently ridiculous…literally mountains of evidence vs. the bible.A rational being will go with the evidence.Find me the bones of a bunny in the same strata as a T.Rex,then we’ll talk…
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Research into Mr. Reagan’s policies, results, and integrity…you may find that your feelings are correct…
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Robin,
It is awful what they are doing to Ben Swann. I didn’t go to his Facebook site, I stay away from these government spying social network sites, I wouldn’t go near them with a ten foot pole. But I got a few articles about what you are talking about.
Alex Jones knew that Ben Swann would be the next target, they always go after the good guys like Ben Swann, Ron Paul, Alex Jones… etc.
By the way Robin, do not miss these two GREAT interviews done yesterday on Infowars:
- Lew Rockwell: Obama Has Gone Too Far
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zPczp5CVn2A
- Kentucky Sheriff Warns of New Revolution if Guns Are Taken
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoWB6sEI2x4&feature=player_embedded
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The evidence for evolution is monumental, that is definitely true. We know that things evolve, we have witnessed aspects of this over even relatively short periods of time. What is not proven is whether evolution is responsible for the human brain doubling in size about 2 million years ago. This is really the only issue that Darwins theory runs into. It just doesn’t make sense, it should have taken much longer for the brain to develop like that. This is why creationism has an argument.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think that’s quite right. Even the theory of gravity is widely disputed. They cannot account for 80% of the the universes mass. They currently blame that on dark matter, but its possible that the calculations used to determine the force of gravity are incorrect. In science very little is proven, and a good scientist will recognize that even scientific theories are open for debate.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What you said was that because they have similar beliefs, that they are intellectual equals. This is a fallacy, although I was unaware that it was in a humorous manner. There is an intelligent argument on the creationist side, it just has far less evidence. You make a good point by saying that I made the assumption that those people were unintelligent. I don’t think those people are even close to as smart as Ron Paul. Obviously there is a large variance in intelligence among religious people.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Again, the term “scientific theory” has a different definition than the word “theory.” A scientific theory and a scientific law are of equal significance in the scientific community. Science is in the business of proving, and disproving scientific theories. Scientific theories are not accepted without evidence.The evidence for evolution is monumental.No one has been able to disprove it for over 150 years.I am open to evidence as is the scientific community,most of whom are “evolutionists”…
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Again, the term “scientific theory” has a different definition than the word “theory.” A scientific theory and a scientific law are of equal significance in the scientific community. Science is in the business of proving, and disproving scientific theories. Scientific theories are not accepted without evidence.The evidence for evolution is monumental.No one has been able to disprove it for over 150 years.I am open to evidence as is the scientific community,most of whom are “evolutionists”…
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…read chapter 18 of “Liberty Defined”…
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The statement is true. Ron Paul has denied the theory of evolution, so in at least one aspect of his thinking, he is on the same level as the previous-mentioned individuals…my original statement was made in a humorous vein, and I never said that Ron Paul or the others mentioned were unintelligent…you made that assumption. To reiterate, Ron Paul thinks evolution is a fallacy, as do Palin, Bush, etc. Ergo, their thinking is equal on at least this particular matter.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I feel like people have made Reagan into something more than he really was.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel are the most sane Republican i´ve seen in so many years beside Ronald Reagen
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
GOOGLE NETUREI KARTA
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And in fact, James’ whole premise is wrong, too. But even if it weren’t, it would still be a fallacy.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Lost in this struggle [between creationists and evolutionists] are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one’s view about God and the universe.”
~Ron Paul, Liberty Defined, p. 104
He denies what, now?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fellow Patriots….Still not allowing me to post the email for Ben’s boss, so please look it up and show your support. Someone has hijacked this site again…They did away with an article that was written in Ben’s defense this morning that I posted. It’s up to us. Spread the word far and wide..
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is a reason they are called theories. They cannot be proven, but they have as of yet to be disproven. They are widely held as facts by most, but an intelligent person is open to seeing them disproven. You sir, are obviously lacking in the category of intelligence.
Personally, I question the intelligence of anyone who believes all plant and animal life evolved from 1 single-celled organism. However, I’m completely open to it being proven some day.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
French Canadian, Still not letting me post about Ben Swann. Look up what they are doing to him and contact his boss in support. Go to his FB site called Full Disclosure to see why many people are trying to get him fired.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
It is not posting on here…Why not?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
lol
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is a ridiculous way to try and discredit Ron Paul. You’re statement is a formal fallacy. Just because Ron Paul believes the same theory as other people, does not mean that he has the same intelligence level of those other people. Ron Paul is an incredibly intelligent individual.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…don’t forget “America’s Funniest Home Videos” to YouTube…or is that devolution?…
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Robin,
Fourth comment on Maddow…lol
Erratum:
I meant: Democide: Government Killed Over 260 Million in the 20th Century, … killed more than 260 million people in just the last one hundred years.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Robin,
This is my third comment to you on Rachel Maddow.
I went to see her last video about gun control vs Ron Paul and Alex jones. If you want my opinion, she is one loose crackpot.
First, Your military is spread all over the world, so how could they fight you?
Second, all active military and veterans who calls on the Alex Jones Show, say that they would stand with the public and turn their back on the government, because they swore an oat to be faithfull to the Constitution. Gun ‘s ban are unconstitutional, period.
Plus, hundred of millions Americans armed, are much more than your total military personnal. And the soldiers wouldn’t come in your house to confiscate your guns with nukes… she is such a stupid stupid, stupid lady that Maddow. Now I know why Alex doesn’t like her.
This loose crackpot shoul read a bit of history and realise theat DEMOCIDE (death by government) are the biggest killers ever… over 93 millions death not including war deaths.
Here is the clip I’ve just watched:
Rachel Maddow Vs Alex Jones & Ron Paul “Guns stop government tyranny”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EZWrcoZ110
Robin, let me know if you read my comments. You ask me questions, but you never come back to me after my answer.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Robin,
Post Scriptum:
Don’t worry if you go on Alex’s site and it doesn’t work. It is always crashing these days, too many people on it. Since the interview with Piers Morgan, I think he doubled his audience. I beleive evry Americans is listening to his show…lol. So try again, it does come back… he hired a few new technicians to cope with the continous overflow of people on his site.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Robin,
I don’t know much about Rachel Maddow. I’ve never listened to her show, except when she had Ron Paul on. It seems, she was kind of nice to him. But Alex Jones don’t seem to like her very much… so I really don’t know. Can’t answer you on this.
I hope you are following Inforwars.com and the Alex Jones Show these days. It is awsome. This is where the WAR is on. Alex is really fighting hard the Gun ban and he has amazing guests.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Which is YOUR stupid opinion.. Nobody gives a single fuck about your stupid btw..
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0