PDA

View Full Version : Greg Brannon Statement on Iran Agreement




compromise
11-28-2013, 02:42 PM
http://gregbrannon.com/news/2013/11/25/greg-brannon-statement-on-iran-agreement

Raleigh, NC -- U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Greg Brannon (R-North Carolina) released the following statement regarding the Iranian nuclear agreement announced Nov. 23rd:

"The United States should always negotiate from a position of strength and demand that Iran act on good faith before an agreement is even considered.

The release of Christian prisoners such as American Pastor Saeed Abedini, currently serving an eight year sentence in an Iranian prison, is a good place to start. Full disclosure of their nuclear program is another.

I have serious concerns that this agreement will allow the Iranian regime to keep their nuclear infrastructure intact, which over the long term, is dangerous to the United States and our most important ally in the region, Israel."

CaseyJones
11-28-2013, 03:03 PM
what a neocon

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-28-2013, 04:03 PM
These politicians should just trot out the memo page from AIPAC and CFR for every 'interview'. No need to say anything, just hand the reporter the memo paper. What a bunch of cuckold idiots. For all the posturing, and adulation of Founding Father's never have they even acknowledged the strong Anti-militaristic, anti-jingoistic, anti-adventurism, anti-Standing Army creed of many of them. Oh, it's a different age, bladdy blah blah says the same jargon of the Progressive. Too antiquated, remote, distant, useless. Hey Brannon, how about the USG shut the fuck up and mind its own damn business and stop extorting the taxpayer at trillions of dollars and wasted life, liberty, and property in the name of mercantilism or some Neo-con ideal of 'good'. That's never an option though, because it isn't a redistribution of wealth from the individual American to the Socialist State of Israel upon which their alter of religion foists itself.

Now, this has nothing to do with the agreement per se, but his rhetoric and reasoning. What a buffoon on this issue (Foreign Policy / Militarism / Imperialism / etc.) which is quite frankly a central pillar of liberty. I guess he supports more violence, hegemony, thievery, imperialism...Shame.

mz10
11-28-2013, 04:14 PM
Unfortunately, this issue is so bad for us that if Brannon came out for the deal, he would undoubtedly lose. And Thom Tillis would win. Does anybody want that?

GunnyFreedom
11-28-2013, 04:35 PM
Disappointed, but I understand the fear of staking out a radical opinion on this subject with the way the primary is stacked here. The establishment and the splitters are all trying to pain him as too liberty too pacifist, too afraid of stuff like Iran. It's crap of course, but when all the monkey has is crap he will fling it.

Truth is it's the fear of Iran that's absurd. They are not the strongman that everybody tries to make them into. They really became hated in the US behind Saudi Arabia's urging of America to erode their regional competition. Probably the main reason Saudi Arabia still trades in petrodollars is because we are still making scary noises at Iran.

The problem is the public only sees the surface layer of what's going on over there, and then they move their politicians by what's going on at the surface. Easily 90% or more of the real meat of what's going on over there is not on the surface.

Is Iran a threat? Sure they are. It's important to recognize that the reason Iran is a threat is the US keeps backing them into corners and challenging them 'hit me.'

What if instead of starting a dozen wars and winning them, we led by example and won the peace? America cannot be that city on a hill by force of arms, but only by example. When we fail to set the example, no vast army can make up for it. Any fool with enough money can win a bunch of wars, only a truly exceptional America can bring liberty and world peace by example.

If America wants to spread human and civil liberty around the world, our best approach would be to actually demonstrate human and civil liberty in the United States and show how it leads to great prosperity for everyone. You do that by making wonderful things and winning people over, not by threatening to predator drone their children if they don't comply. It's time to find our way again.

Mr.NoSmile
11-28-2013, 05:17 PM
Unfortunately, this issue is so bad for us that if Brannon came out for the deal, he would undoubtedly lose. And Thom Tillis would win. Does anybody want that?

Given how Hagan beats Tillis in polling, I don't think anyone would get that. Also, there are other contenders besides those two.

mz10
11-28-2013, 07:48 PM
Given how Hagan beats Tillis in polling, I don't think anyone would get that. Also, there are other contenders besides those two.

Do you really think Mark Harris, the trojan horse Establishment candidate, is gonna be a non-interventionist? Brannon is Noam Chomsky compared to the other candidates on foreign policy, he's taking a position here that he has no choice but to take.

What this shows is that we have a LOT more work to do on foreign policy within the Republican Party. All the more reason why going to Tea Party meetings and spreading the non-interventionist message is so important.

Christian Liberty
11-28-2013, 08:55 PM
Disappointed, but I understand the fear of staking out a radical opinion on this subject with the way the primary is stacked here. The establishment and the splitters are all trying to pain him as too liberty too pacifist, too afraid of stuff like Iran. It's crap of course, but when all the monkey has is crap he will fling it.

Truth is it's the fear of Iran that's absurd. They are not the strongman that everybody tries to make them into. They really became hated in the US behind Saudi Arabia's urging of America to erode their regional competition. Probably the main reason Saudi Arabia still trades in petrodollars is because we are still making scary noises at Iran.

The problem is the public only sees the surface layer of what's going on over there, and then they move their politicians by what's going on at the surface. Easily 90% or more of the real meat of what's going on over there is not on the surface.

Is Iran a threat? Sure they are. It's important to recognize that the reason Iran is a threat is the US keeps backing them into corners and challenging them 'hit me.'

What if instead of starting a dozen wars and winning them, we led by example and won the peace? America cannot be that city on a hill by force of arms, but only by example. When we fail to set the example, no vast army can make up for it. Any fool with enough money can win a bunch of wars, only a truly exceptional America can bring liberty and world peace by example.

If America wants to spread human and civil liberty around the world, our best approach would be to actually demonstrate human and civil liberty in the United States and show how it leads to great prosperity for everyone. You do that by making wonderful things and winning people over, not by threatening to predator drone their children if they don't comply. It's time to find our way again.

I agree with this. The question is, as Christians should we even think about supporting candidates who don't? I can't.

GunnyFreedom
11-28-2013, 09:58 PM
Do you really think Mark Harris, the trojan horse Establishment candidate, is gonna be a non-interventionist? Brannon is Noam Chomsky compared to the other candidates on foreign policy, he's taking a position here that he has no choice but to take.

What this shows is that we have a LOT more work to do on foreign policy within the Republican Party. All the more reason why going to Tea Party meetings and spreading the non-interventionist message is so important.

Well, yeah, there's the thing, Brannon even with this statement is an order of magnitude or two the most peaceful minded guy running on this subject. All of the other candidates are arguing over when and how to trigger the war. I think Brannon is mis-reading public sentiment though, I think he could come out a little more Walter Jones'y here without alienating people. I want to see how the primary develops. People are more sick of war than people realize.

GunnyFreedom
11-28-2013, 10:01 PM
Americans are very frightened right now. Anybody perceived as less than 'strong on foreigners' is likely to get a pass. It's why so many passed on Ron Paul. It's because these people do not understand the real strength of a nation, to have it and NOT to use it, and then to lead the world by example.

ETA: and NC some-why is worst than most. :(

jmdrake
11-28-2013, 10:06 PM
Meh...I hope the pastor gets freed and signaling to the Iranians that freeing him now might make a deal with the U.S. easier seems like a good thing to me.

GunnyFreedom
11-28-2013, 10:16 PM
I agree with this. The question is, as Christians should we even think about supporting candidates who don't? I can't.

If he's really a Constitutionalist then he will require a Declaration of War before doing actual war.

GunnyFreedom
11-28-2013, 10:18 PM
Meh...I hope the pastor gets freed and signaling to the Iranians that freeing him now might make a deal with the U.S. easier seems like a good thing to me.

Or Congress and the President could just issue a marque. Ten Million to the man who brings him back alive and unharmed. :-)

GunnyFreedom
11-28-2013, 10:23 PM
Given how Hagan beats Tillis in polling, I don't think anyone would get that. Also, there are other contenders besides those two.

Brannon is also the only contender beating in Hagan. In part because of his 'more peaceful approach.' and I doubt he realises that himself.

Brian4Liberty
11-29-2013, 12:17 AM
Some candidates have not made a statement on this subject. That may be the best course of action.

Brannon's statement can be taken as a criticism of the details of the position that Obama has negotiated. Fine.

That being said, Brannon needs to make sure that he does not isolate his true base.

Bastiat's The Law
11-29-2013, 02:19 AM
Do you really think Mark Harris, the trojan horse Establishment candidate, is gonna be a non-interventionist? Brannon is Noam Chomsky compared to the other candidates on foreign policy, he's taking a position here that he has no choice but to take.

What this shows is that we have a LOT more work to do on foreign policy within the Republican Party. All the more reason why going to Tea Party meetings and spreading the non-interventionist message is so important.

I heard Harris speak and he's a hardcore neocon, he makes that perfectly clear within the first few minutes.

FSP-Rebel
11-29-2013, 12:24 PM
Brannon is also the only contender beating in Hagan. In part because of his 'more peaceful approach.' and I doubt he realises that himself.
I really hope Rand's peeps are in collusion to some extent w/ Brannon's on these things. The last thing we need is for Brannon to follow certain policy advisers that are intent on peeling away his core constituency - the Paul donor base and the enthusiasm that surrounds it. Think Bills in MN

ClydeCoulter
11-29-2013, 01:19 PM
These politicians should just trot out the memo page from AIPAC and CFR for every 'interview'. No need to say anything, just hand the reporter the memo paper. What a bunch of cuckold idiots. For all the posturing, and adulation of Founding Father's never have they even acknowledged the strong Anti-militaristic, anti-jingoistic, anti-adventurism, anti-Standing Army creed of many of them. Oh, it's a different age, bladdy blah blah says the same jargon of the Progressive. Too antiquated, remote, distant, useless. Hey Brannon, how about the USG shut the fuck up and mind its own damn business and stop extorting the taxpayer at trillions of dollars and wasted life, liberty, and property in the name of mercantilism or some Neo-con ideal of 'good'. That's never an option though, because it isn't a redistribution of wealth from the individual American to the Socialist State of Israel upon which their alter of religion foists itself.

Now, this has nothing to do with the agreement per se, but his rhetoric and reasoning. What a buffoon on this issue (Foreign Policy / Militarism / Imperialism / etc.) which is quite frankly a central pillar of liberty. I guess he supports more violence, hegemony, thievery, imperialism...Shame.

^^ My first reaction, also :( ^^

mz10
11-29-2013, 04:32 PM
I really hope Rand's peeps are in collusion to some extent w/ Brannon's on these things. The last thing we need is for Brannon to follow certain policy advisers that are intent on peeling away his core constituency - the Paul donor base and the enthusiasm that surrounds it. Think Bills in MN

Brannon spoke at LPAC, he got Rand's endorsement right off the bat, and SABER Communications is doing his fundraising. All those things together indicate that Brannon's inner circle is the top people in C4L, the same people who make up Rand's inner circle.

lib3rtarian
11-30-2013, 08:25 PM
Brannon spoke at LPAC, he got Rand's endorsement right off the bat, and SABER Communications is doing his fundraising. All those things together indicate that Brannon's inner circle is the top people in C4L, the same people who make up Rand's inner circle.

If you receive the Brannon newsletters, they are very very similar to the ones which used to come out from Ron Paul 2012 campaign, C4L etc. Same style of writing, wording etc. And even the style of "forwarding". (i.e. where they would resend the same email a couple of days later as a "forward" from someone else close to the candidate with a covering paragraph which goes something like "xxxx, did you miss this"?)

Oldsouljer
12-02-2013, 08:12 PM
I'll never agree with you guys on this. There's a fine line between being overly militaristic and being dangerously isolationist, both extremes being opposite of each other and equally detrimental to the strong, judiciously used Defense we must have. I think Brannon's understanding of this is as good as his understanding of the Constitution.

Anti-Neocon
12-02-2013, 10:31 PM
I'll never agree with you guys on this. There's a fine line between being overly militaristic and being dangerously isolationist, both extremes being opposite of each other and equally detrimental to the strong, judiciously used Defense we must have. I think Brannon's understanding of this is as good as his understanding of the Constitution.
What's your point, that Obama's deal was somehow "isolationist"?

Hi Jennifer Rubin, hows life?

Brett85
12-03-2013, 09:13 AM
I'll never agree with you guys on this. There's a fine line between being overly militaristic and being dangerously isolationist, both extremes being opposite of each other and equally detrimental to the strong, judiciously used Defense we must have. I think Brannon's understanding of this is as good as his understanding of the Constitution.

It seems like the people who don't want to have any kind of diplomacy with Iran and simply want to isolate them through sanctions are the true "isolationists."

Oldsouljer
12-07-2013, 05:42 PM
What's your point, that Obama's deal was somehow "isolationist"?

Hi Jennifer Rubin, hows life?

Not even close.

ClydeCoulter
12-07-2013, 06:23 PM
Not even close.

That Obama's deal was NOT somehow "Isolationist"? or that you are NOT Jennifer Rubin? Or both?

Bastiat's The Law
12-08-2013, 08:43 AM
I really hope Rand's peeps are in collusion to some extent w/ Brannon's on these things. The last thing we need is for Brannon to follow certain policy advisers that are intent on peeling away his core constituency - the Paul donor base and the enthusiasm that surrounds it. Think Bills in MN

It's a tough needle to thread. Rand did it brilliantly in Kentucky. He would start almost every speech with saying that he believes in a strong national defense and its one of the few things the Constitutional authorizes the federal government to do. That largely subdued the audience and put to bed any notion that he was a pacifist. Then he would spend the other 99% of his speech extolling the virtues of liberty and people ate it up.