STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Ron Paul Believes Benghazi Hearings Needed Broader Focus
By Daily Bell Staff - October 28, 2015

House Benghazi Hearings: Too Much Too Late … Last week the US House of Representatives called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to appear before a select committee looking into the attack on a US facility in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. The attack left four Americans dead, including US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. As might be expected, however, the "Benghazi Committee" hearings have proven not much more than a means for each party to grandstand for political points. In fact, I would call these Congressional hearings "too much, too late." – Ron Paul Institute

Dominant Social Theme: Political coverage must always declare a winner and loser.

Free-Market Analysis: The mainstream media's obsession with keeping score when it comes to politics often distracts even the most knowledgeable political observers from considering the underlying, more important issues. This is just as true, surely, in Europe as it is in the US.

Ron Paul is, of course, concerned particularly with the US and that is where his editorial is aimed. He calls the Benghazi hearings "too much, too late." What he means is that the probe into Benghazi has been overly extensive and doesn't address the real problem, which is why the US went to war in Libya in the first place.

For Ron Paul, and other constitutionalists, the US's constant overseas military interventionism is a fundamental national problem, one that must be addressed before other national problems can be solved. The "fog of war" erodes private enterprise and strengthens central government. From Ron Paul's point of view, it leaves the Constitution in tatters.

Here's more:

Why no House Committee hearing before President Obama launched his war on Libya? Why no vote on whether to authorize the use of force? Why no hearing after the President violated the Constitution by sending the military into Libya with UN authorization rather than Congressional authorization?

There are Constitutional tools available to Congress when a president takes the country to war without a declaration or authorization. At the time, President Obama claimed he did not need authorization from Congress because the US was not engaged in "hostilities." It didn't pass the laugh test, but Congress did next to nothing about it. …

Why were there no hearings at the time to discuss this very important Constitutional matter? Because the leadership of both parties wanted the war. Both parties — with few exceptions — agree with the ideology of US interventionism worldwide.

Secretary Clinton defended the State Department's handling of security at the Benghazi facility by pointing out that there are plenty of diplomatic posts in war zones and that danger in these circumstances is to be expected. However she never mentioned why Benghazi remained a "war zone" a year after the US had "liberated" Libya from Gaddafi.

US militarism has certainly left the US worse off in part because so many serious issues are off-limits that it is very difficult or even impossible to have a serious discussion about politics or policy. If one cannot broach issues in the first place, then how are they to be resolved?

The Benghazi hearings might have been a place to bring at least a quasi-serious discussion. Instead, the media covered it like a sports contest, evincing more interest in the outcome than the substantive erosion of the system itself.

Here, from the New York Post:

Hillary wins — theatrically — in Benghazi hearing … Biden needed Hillary to stumble — instead she finally shined … After nine terrible months during which she made weekly gaffes and single-handedly elevated a gadfly socialist into a rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton has had a fortnight any presidential candidate would relish.

Thursday, after clobbering her rivals in a debate last week and thereby keeping Joe Biden out of the race, Clinton went before the committee investigating the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi in 2012 — and had an unmitigated triumph.

… Simply as a matter of political theater, over the course of many hours of testimony, Clinton performed brilliantly. She assumed a calm, deliberate demeanor with her opening statement and never surrendered it.

This approach to politics makes a serious conversation almost impossible. And there is another issue as well. Anyone who has followed the Clinton machine is well aware of its corruption and ruthlessness.

In the current environment there are certain figures above the "law." Ms. Clinton may well win the Democratic nomination for president and it is certainly possible if she does, that she'll actually win the presidency. But this would be a further disaster for the tattered remnants of what the US once was.

It seems fairly clear from the historical record that neither Clinton is overly concerned with "governance." What they want is power and the means to wield it in order to create additional cash flows for their "foundation."

After Thoughts

No matter who wins the election, the fundamental course of the US is set and probably can't be changed. The corruption is endemic, militarism is rampant and polls are now emerging that show people might prefer a military takeover to traveling down the path that the US is headed. More citizens than ever before are surrendering their citizenships and seeking to sever their ties with the US.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Bolt Upright

    NWO needs Hillzilla to maintain their course of world wide control. Aside from that, BRICS are doing their best to unseat the dollar as the go to fiat currency used for oil. Benghazi is a distraction. Nothing more. imo

    • Impending Sky

      The elite interests are guaranteed whichever way the election turns. Left, right, Bernie, Donald, Jeb, or Hillary: ‘What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?’

      • Bolt Upright

        Agreed. It’s the “Golden Rule”…..those with the gold, make the rules.

  • FauxScienceSlayer

    The NWO banking crime syndicate issued a position paper, ‘Project for the New American Century’ by their NEO CON think tank is Sept 2000, calling for a New Pearl Harbor. They proclaimed that Russia and China would remain suppliers of raw material and slave labor, and that world hegemony required the overthrow of seven middle east countries. The WTC & Pentagon false flag attacks allowed the Afghan invasion, the “Bush-Blair Smoking Gun Memo” just released shows the Iraq staging. The CIA then began a gun running “Operation Zero Footprint” through Qatar and Kuwait to supply weapons to CIA proxy armies in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Syria…see:

    “Intel Expert, New Doc Confirms Hillary Gun Running Op” by Dr Jerome Corsi at WorldNetDaily

  • Jim Johnson

    Whoever Chairs such hearings should curtail the grandstanding that goes on while asking each question. Enough already. This is a very important tool meant to hold the inept and corrupt accountable. My heart goes out to the families of these poor folks literally sacrificed for these so-called representatives. Find and elect good people before perversion sets in permanently.

    • The system, of ‘the state’, is only a system of perversion. ‘The state’ is based on a monopoly of violent force, a right which no individual can legitimately or morally hold and therefore no collective of individuals can hold. No matter what percentage of people say they want a monopoly of force to be placed in the hands of ‘the state’ it is a perversion of morality and of legitimacy. So therefore, being a permanent condition, ‘the state’ has this fundamental perversion at its very core.

      The only way to eradicate the perversion permanently is to reject the belief in the morality and legitimacy of ‘the state’. The belief in ‘the state’ is irrational. It is not ‘as if’ belief in ‘the state’ is some kind of religion, with ‘the state’ an all powerful by imaginary God. It is a religion! And it is a false religious belief too, of cause, because the God, ‘the state’, does not exist. ‘The state’ only appears to exist because of all the people who believe it to exist and act as though it exists but as soon as those people stopped believing in the existence of the God of the state, poof! It would be seen to have never existed. So we can accept ‘the state’ does not exist. We can accept ‘the state’ only appears to exist whilst people believe in it and act as if it is real.

      We can also see that; as a religious belief, the religious belief in ‘the state’ is not one people just come around to understand and accept, it is a belief that is rooted in indoctrination. About the only thing that ‘the state’ is really good at is indoctrinating the public into unquestioning belief in the legitimacy and morality of ‘the state’ and in the necessity and utility of ‘the state’ too – the process is fundamental to the schooling system and much else besides. The belief in the state is so deeply indoctrinated, so widespread, so all encompassing across human society, so unquestioned and so apparently fundamental to almost everyone’s perception of humanity that it is nothing less than being a cult. A religious cult. A religious cult belief in a false God.

      So my point is Jim that your wish to find and elect good people is not the solution, has never worked, will not work and cannot work. How can the all powerful cult of ‘the state’ always make sure that: people who are not good people, ‘bad people’, (or good people who turn bad) do not get into, (or remain in), positions of power to then abuse that power. The power allowed by ‘the state’, having an apparently legitimate and moral right to use force, is a power most attractive to ‘bad’ people. Good people, really good people, do not want that power strongly enough to fight their way past the clamouring of ‘bad’ people, the corruption, the lies, the aggression, the compromises necessary to gain and hold effective ‘state’ office. ‘The state’ is a bad person’s game. To stop the perversion from setting in permanently the only solution is to bring about an end to the religious belief in the cult of ‘the state’. Nothing less.

      • Impending Sky

        “The only way to eradicate the perversion permanently is to reject the belief in the morality and legitimacy of ‘the state’.”

        If we are too accept private property ownership, then it follows that the owner of the property can make use of it as he wishes. For me the farcical features of the state begin with the notion of publicly held property and institutions.

        As a thought experiment, consider a privately held state in the form of a monarchy. While the out-lands might offer pure anarchy or other alternatives, the monarch would rule within his privately held realm. Participation within would be purely voluntary and subject to contractual obligations between individuals. As the division of labor would enhance the value of the realm, the monarch would have incentives to offer agreeable terms.

        In this way, a market could be formed where the best policies in government would prevail. Individuals would choose the state that best suits them, or find their own solutions elsewhere.

        Nothing within the above seems contrary to the ideals of the anarcho-capitalist canon. Perhaps you can find some inconsistency here. I welcome you to do so.

        As much as I am tempted to rail against the state in every form, I think it is erroneous to do so. I suspect that it is possible for a state to exist on a voluntary basis as long as the farcical notion of public property is dismissed.

        If we accept the above, it would still be possible for the monarch to form a republican government limited to certain duties or even sell out his state completely via shares and joint ownership.

        In the past, I have been tempted to lambaste pleas for good governance as absurd. “We might as well ask for a benevolent king” While it might be unlikely, it may not as impossible as it seems for us today.

        Today’s grandiose, egalitarian claims juxtaposed against the inconsistent reality of the modern mega-state and all of its totalitarian trappings has undoubtedly clouded the issue. The unfounded premises of what we experience in governance are so topsy-turvey, so far removed from reason – that it is tempting to dismiss government entirely as an impossible endeavor.

        But we needn’t limit our vision to the frame of what has been offered previously.

        It is much easier to negate and dismiss something than to envision an alternative. Harder still to bring that vision forth into a working solution through practical means. However, clinging to negation because it offers a relatively safe environment where nothing must be ventured does not advance the initiative.

        I am willing to risk being ‘wrong’ if it means we can move beyond this endless flogging of a strawman vision of the state. We know what is wrong. We can easily identify the shortcomings within the current system. The question is: what can we offer?

        • The phrase ‘public property’ is indeed an oxymoron, a nonsense, (one in which also an important ‘something’ of the nonsense of ‘the state’ is relieved).

          In GB, where I live, not only is ‘public property’ actually ‘Crown Property’, (a status nonetheless distinct from the personal property of the Queen herself, such as Windsor Castle), additionally ‘The Crown’ is considered the ultimate owner of all property. So, for example, if a property is found to have no owner it ‘reverts’ to The Crown.

          I consider it proper that the owner of land should be entitled to make whatsoever demands they should prefer of those who, duly informed, choose to be within that property’s boundary. That could included everyone calling the owner the King, establishing an elite group amongst favoured tenants and such. A ‘King’ could even require that a tax was payable on all tenant’s income and spending – if such a system could be made to actually work.

          It would not be permissible for anyone, including a self proclaimed King, to obtain property through force nor to force people to move in and then remain on their land, their realm, or suffer conditions if they did not wish.

          Within ourselves, our minds, our bodies and the product of our labour we all are sovereigns too, so whilst a self-proclaimed ‘King’ can demand people within their realm act as though they are they are the only sovereign if the ‘subjects’ are of clear mind they know that whilst they may be required to act in such a way, in that estate, it is not true and they can move.

          This proposition is only apparently so quizzical when it is a question of scale. If the King’s realm is a large island we can see it to be very much like a ruling monarch and if it is a modest building on the edge of town we see it is very much like an eccentric boarding house.

          I call not for the end of ‘government’ although I presume that with the end of ‘the state’ the specific management system of ‘the state’ will be dispensed with too. That does not mean there would not be systems of governance, every organisation beyond a certain size employees some such system.

          An individual employs self-governance and a group of self-governing individuals have a system of governance which is perhaps only the combined effect of their individual self-governance but that is their system of governance none the less. Every functional system must employ a system of governance of some type and form – be self regulating. There will always be systems of government in human society but the duties and appearance of systems of government in a stateless society will surely just be something unlike those of ‘the state’.

          ‘The state’ is a different entity to a government. The government of a ‘state’ derives its supposed power only from ‘the state’. It is the authority of ‘the state’ that is illegitimate and immoral and its implementation unnecessary and of no proper utility. A government without power is only able to govern by voluntary subscription – more like an association of some sort or other. Government then is simply ‘the system by which affairs of human society is conducted’ whatsoever that may be.

          If all property can only be that which belongs to individuals, sovereigns within their property if you like, and the system of governance best suited to optimising any and all property is the self-regulation of the individuals who are owners of property then I think we can derive that such a system of governance will be the one that is both best for individuals and the optimisation of all property.

          • Interesting, thanks.

          • Impending Sky

            “It would not be permissible for anyone, including a self proclaimed King, to obtain property through force…”

            “This proposition is only apparently so quizzical when it is a question of scale.”

            This is the problem for liberty in the modern era as I see it. You can be arrested for entering Antarctica ‘illegally’. Vast tracts of unimproved, ungoverned territory are claimed by modern states as to prevent competition. Uninhabited lands are tabooed for the stated reasons of environmental protection and sea bird habitats. Places as remote as S. Georgia are claimed and remain unused. Even useless low tide seamounts are claimed by mega-states which have no legitimate use for further territory.

            Perhaps in an earlier time when a frontier was still available, liberty minded people might have simply moved away from the sources of hegemonic governance. Today nothing is left unclaimed. Sabres are currently being rattled over China’s use of minor islands.

            On the other hand, Honduras is selling off at least part of its ability to govern in the form of ZEDEs. Perhaps as this trend develops other failed states may be willing to part with portions of their territory.

          • A stateless society is not by any means, de-facto, a society without a legal system (an arbitration system). Independent arbitration services will be able to offer judgements over matters, and establish a tested common law, which will then allow individuals to act with legal confidence.

            Just sticking a flag in to the ground will likely be judged not sufficient, by an arbitration court, to support a claim of ownership of land. Taking good title through inheritance or purchase is probably going to still be the most common means of acquiring property. Usage, or homesteading, will be an other legal means for having a valid claim to land. If land is claimed to be owned by a first party and that ownership is to be challenged by another party, staking a claim, the first claimant is likely going to have to show a court both: 1. good title and 2. exploitation/usage. That usage can be argued to be as a wilderness nature reserve, or some such, but it will likely need to be an evidenced assertion.

            Generally property that is not exploited in some demonstrable way could be up for adoption if you can get a court to agree with your claim and defend any further appeals attempted against that judgement. It is not so different in the UK today. If I maintain land or live in a building for ten years, without challenge, I can claim title and, if successful, that title awarded is as good as if I purchased the property.

            If some clown wants to pay an Inuit tribal elder for a tract of ice covered land in central Greenland and for thirty years never does anything to care for or utilise that land: does he own it? If between times the Inuit tribe demonstrate they continued to exploit the land in every feasible way: to hunt across the land, live close by, manage wildlife, lead expeditions and assist scientific research; when it then comes about that natural gas reserves are found there the Inuit tribe are going to have a good case that they have the best claim to rights over that land.

            If the clown can show he sold the Inuit annual hunting licences, rented the areas to them where they built their settlements, had studies carried out to direct wildlife management programs and paid for the proscribed work to be undertaken, commissioned local services for assistance with leading his client’s expeditions into the landholding and requested that any other such activities were duly referred to his offices for permissions, then he will have maintained a good title.

            The Royal Family in GB can likely prove better title to the land, rivers and sea bed of the Crown Estates than any other party, (with the exception, perhaps, of holders of freehold titled land within their curtilage). So if it was that ‘the state’ in the UK ended, the Crown could well argue that: everything still belonged to the Royal Family, as proven by descent. The Royal Family may need to consent to allowing property that was sold with a ‘freehold title’ was not reasonable to retain; but even so: if there were no heirs to an estate on the death of the freeholder, the Crown could then well argue they had better title to the land then any other party.

            It could be argued that Royal Family land was obtained by illegal force but it would have to be proven precisely who the true heirs to the title to the stolen lands then would be, that their original title was true and correct, for those parties to demonstrate better title to a court of arbitration. (An argument just that the Norman Invasion caused ‘the people of North Wales’ to lose their land on Mount Snowdon would not be sufficient).

            It is true that the Royal Family could argue that they did correctly own full title to the land of GB and that they were therefore entitled to dictate the terms of usage for people who chose to operate within the curtilage of their estates (state). Instead of openly ‘spelling-out’ to the population the true nature of the arraignment they are ‘subjects’ of, and then risk being violently overthrown by revolution, the British Royal Family have greatly distanced themselves from the process of Government and generally from the working processes of ‘the state’.

            And what is interesting in respect of America is that title to the land of America is dependent upon that assented in the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which means that the tile upon which ‘the state’ in American depends is only based in that which was granted by the British Royalty – much like the ‘freehold title’ of privately ‘owned’ property within GB itself. That means the property of America could prospectively, in the right circumstance, legally revert to the British Crown. So watch it OK!

      • Blank Reg

        This explains the Fermi Paradox quite well.

  • michaelrivero

    The hearings were underfunded and constrained to only focus on the attack itself. The email server was the equivalent of the stained blue dress in an older cover-up, wagged at us all to conceal government-sanctioned drug running. The email server distracts from two far larger scandals, the US Government providing weapons to ISIS and Al Qaeda (now fully exposed and documented) and the still open question of whether Hilary was selling US secrets using her weak private server as the delivery system and her charitable foundation to collect and launder the payments!

    • Michael Rivero is the founder of WhatReallyHappened.com

    • Praetor

      Correct. The name for the largest criminal organization on earth, Government!!!

  • Praetor

    Political coverage must always declare a winner and a loser. Winners, government criminals, losers, ‘we the people’. History has shown, those who assist the criminals in government ‘in any form it takes’, those that worship at the tit of government always lose in the end. All criminal empires decay, and become dust in the wind, and human action of we the people will trample that dust into a better future. This criminal government of the techno age is no different than the criminal government of the bronze and stone age or any other age, this age just means more ruins to visit on vacation and ask, what happened to this society, they seem so smart. Lets hope the vacationers will be living in a time, where they have learned, government, is at the root of all evil and depravity!!!

  • Bruce C.

    Ron Paul may think the Benghazi hearings needed a broader focus but I think they needed a narrower one. As it was, just that one little incident was so complicated that most people lost interest. I would also add that the concern over the deaths of four Americans who were basically in the military just seemed hollow. Why doesn’t that sort of thing happen every week somewhere in that region? Given how many people die every day, how can the death of four be such a big deal? That’s why the investigation seemed so blatantly political and intended to undermine Hillary. The focus should have been on proving that she lied and was “incompetent”. Granted, most people don’t care about that any more, but just for the record in case some do. The fact that so much other, “broader” questions came up distracted from that, even though they weren’t broad enough. Also, remember that Congressmen are basically losers – or incompetent lawyers – which is why they don’t practice, so they don’t even know how to question people properly. That’s probably why she laughed at the prospect of the hearings.

    • I recommend focus narrowly on the MI6 and CIA combined operation to export Libyan based rebels and weapons to Syria with the intention of causing civil war so to overthrow Dr Bashar al-Assad (the Hansom) perhaps – that would be despite that his father and presidential predecessor Hafez al-Assad was a prize CIA asset, but then so was Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Tony Blair no doubt too

loading
Sign up now and join our exclusive international network for free-market thinkers
Privacy Assured: We will NEVER share your personal information.