Click here to view the video on YouTube.

The assassinations of Abdulrahman Al-awlaki and Anwar Al-awlaki, two U.S. citizens killed by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen, carry extremely dangerous implications for individual liberty, due process, and severe abuse of government power. We cannot let these incidents slip through the cracks.

Share/Bookmark

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

People commonly criticize Ron Paul as being “anti-Semite” or “anti-Israel,” without taking the time to investigate Paul’s foreign policy and what benefits it would have to Israel. Paul proposes that Israel should control its own policies without the U.S. intervening every step of the way. What Israel does with its neighbors with regard to treaties, trade, and diplomacy is Israel’s business.

The United States, Paul says, should trade, talk, travel, and befriend Israel, but that friendship doesn’t equate to government foreign aid subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. Israel should not be dependent on the U.S., because this threatens their national sovereignty and independence. Paul stresses that Israel should be working toward self-reliance.

Is this a radical view? Perhaps it is a bit unconventional when compared to other Republicans and Democrats. But Paul is hardly anti-Israel or anti-Semite. Paul wants to treat all other nations, including Israel, as we ourselves would want to be treated. Trade, talk, travel, and befriend all those who are willing, but don’t overstep your bounds and prop up phony governments and tyrannical regimes under the guise of humanitarianism. Israel is a capable nation, and it can certainly survive and flourish without subsidies from U.S. taxpayers.

Share/Bookmark

General David Petraeus has stated his belief that the Afghanistan War will last longer the Iraq War. These are somber words considering the Iraq War isn’t close to a conclusion.

Today is the ten year anniversary of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. How many more lives and resources have to be lost before we recognize that this is not a war for peace or security?

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Share/Bookmark

Let’s stop for a moment and consider what decreases cost and increases efficiency better than any government agency, regulation, or bureaucrat. Competition. Look at the technology industry over the past 15 or 20 years as a great example.

In the early 1990s cell phones and computers cost a bundle, were limited in their capabilities, and were largely a luxury item. These are some of the items that have escaped much of government’s grasp and intervention over the past couple decades, and look what happened. Competition flourished, prices decreased relatively quickly (and continue to decrease in many areas of the industry), and the features on cell phones and computers have reached incredible levels. This was not thanks to the government trying to manage the industry and set the standards for consumers. People choose for themselves, competition is free and open, and prices greatly decrease while the quality of the items reach new highs everyday.

The problems with inefficiency in Detroit will not be solved by more government intervention, bailouts, and special treatment. Nor will it solve our dependence on foreign oil. Competition in the market will solve these problems in a far more efficient, reliable, and less costly manner.

The first step is to let the Big 3 go bankrupt if necessary and reorganize into a viable business (or businesses). There is nothing with GM, Ford, or Chrysler that justifies preventing their bankruptcy by bailing them out with taxpayer dollars, and continuing the parenting treatment. They can grow up, accept the consequences of dumb mistakes, and readjust like everyone else. Yes, it would be painful for a year or two, but they would be required to come back with a smart business plan, efficient vehicles, and the ability to compete against the stronger Japanese automakers.

This would do much more good in the long run than the government’s endless involvement in the industry. Government limits consumer choice when it prevents an inefficient business from failing and subsequently readjusting to what consumers prefer.

If it is dependence on foreign oil you’re worried about, why not open up competition there as well? It makes little sense to ban nuclear power, heavily limit coal production, prevent a good deal of domestic oil drilling, and complain that we are too dependent on foreign oil. Why don’t consumers, communities, and states choose for themselves which energy sources are worthwhile, instead of the federal government? Give people the power of choice.

There is not one ideal energy source for every person, community, state, or country. Energy should not necessarily be treated as such a national issue, because at the heart of it energy needs start at the local level. Just look at some of the major problems caused by the federal government’s involvement in energy: a costly foreign policy partially built around the prospect of oil, the numerous subsidies to fund inefficient corn ethanol and E85, and even with the cries against CO2 we are prohibited from expanding the one major energy source that does not emit any CO2, nuclear power.

Choice of energy would tear down our need for foreign oil. It makes little sense to put the control of energy in the hands of the federal government, which can’t come close to taking into account local energy needs, preferences, and sensibility. Plus, it is the general governing, such as energy policy, that is constitutionally a state issue. The Rule of Law can’t simply be ignored when it is inconvenient for the government’s agenda.

A level playing field comes best with the free market. People should be free to make their own decisions (through their communities and state governments, if need be) with energy. Oil, nuclear power, coal, solar power, wind power, biofuels, and many other sources all have their ups and downs, and it is ridiculous to think that the federal government can effectively manage and distribute them. Give the market the ability to explore and innovate current energy sources as well as the new alternatives popping up.

The auto and energy industry will likely see increased intervention by the federal government in their affairs, while free and competitive choice slowly slides to the back of the room. People don’t have the influence they once had with their own decisions, because the federal government has apparently given itself the power to choose which businesses can fail, which products we can and can’t use, and even the power to take taxpayer dollars and hand it to private corporations.

More individual freedom and choice will hardly run our situation further into the ground. Rather, it is the choice and freedom of these industries that will further expand their sustainable development, efficiency, and promote the interests of the people over the long run.

Share/Bookmark

It was the Treaty of Versailles that played a major part in the popularity and rise of Adolph Hitler in Germany. For starters, the U.S.’s national security was not threatened during WWI, yet we still felt the urge to get involved in the mess in Europe. The Treaty of Versailles was essentially created by all major countries involved with WWI, except Germany, in an effort to promote peace in Europe. The U.S. took a large role, as well as France and Britain, in creating and finalizing the Treaty.

In short, the Versailles Treaty brought enormous pressure and devastation upon Germany; forcing the country to reduce its army size, give up land, and pay for many of the rebuilding efforts in Europe. This is not to downplay Germany’s role in the war, but the Treaty did not give the German people a warm and fuzzy feeling about the outside countries dictating the rules to Germany. Adolph Hitler took advantage of the anger and resentment felt by Germans by uniting the country, partly by downplaying and attacking the outlines of the Versailles Treaty and the people behind it. Hitler came to power in 1933.

In 1930, Herbert Hoover and the U.S. Congress enacted the Smoot-Hawley Act, raising tariffs to record levels on thousands of items. Incredibly high tariffs led to decreased trade, and other countries enacted similar policy to retaliate and show resentment to the U.S. for heavily limiting trade. The U.S. was in the midst of starting a period of protectionist economic policy worldwide, after getting much more involved in world affairs in WWI and the Treaty of Versailles.

Ever since the Versailles Treaty and Smoot-Hawley Act, the U.S. has struggled to find the balance between forceful intervention overseas and domestic protectionism. Both policies are costly and counterproductive in the long run, but today we fail to recognize the dangers of foreign and domestic intervention.

Foreign intervention is simply built on bad principles. We do not carry the right to occupy other sovereign nations because we are a superpower. We do not have the moral authority or the constitutional authority to do this. Plus, it is costly in money, lives, and creates resentment towards the U.S., and in extreme cases will backfire in terrible measures such as terrorism.

Protectionism and isolationism are no better. Shutting down trade also leads to resentment, as we saw in the Great Depression, and keeping ourselves out of the rest of the world will greatly hold back the ultimate goals of world peace, friendship, and cooperation. If countries can’t freely exchange goods between each other without putting up a fight, that alone will be the beginning of major long-term problems.

Both interventionism and protectionism are short-sighted policies. Today we accept government-managed trade in the forms of NAFTA, NATO, etc., as free trade, but it is nothing more than a cover for more government interference and control in the marketplace. Pursuing either an interventionist foreign policy or protectionist domestic policy eventually leads to its own brand of isolationism, rarely serving the interests of the people.

As with domestic policy, the U.S. has maintained a very short-term view of how the world works. Truthful, sustainable, reliable cooperation will come by empowering people to trade and travel between countries. Governments have biases and lust for control that always seem to get in the way of creating a lasting and principled foreign policy. At least, this is how history has shown it.

Ever since the U.S. decided to get actively involved militarily in foreign problems, we have seen much bloodshed, war, and violence. The Vietnam War dragged on for years, but only when we pulled out our troops did the country start to recover to be the prosperous and expanding country that it is today. We have been in Korea for sixty years, yet the tension there is still high and lasting today. We continue to isolate ourselves from Cuba, despite the fall of the Soviet Empire years ago and no threat to our national security.

Fire does not disappear with more fire, yet even in many of the smallest skirmishes that occur in the world, violence is seen as the first retaliation. The 20th century saw many governments get forcefully involved in world affairs and it turned out to be the bloodiest period in the records of history.

Despite the high levels of interference from the U.N. and numerous governments (primarily the U.S.), the violence and wars continue unabated. Just look at the ongoing messes we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq is years from reaching a conclusion with U.S. presence. And don’t forget, we have military bases in nearly 130 different countries today.

Just think for a moment. How would we feel if China built several military bases in the U.S.? How would we react if Russia deployed even as little as three hundred soldiers on our soil? We would not accept it without putting up a serious fight. Is is so hard to comprehend that when we build permanent military bases in sovereign nations, sometimes even on their holy land, that it won’t result in serious blowback?

It was in the first grade when I first learned the golden rule: treat others the way you want to be treated. This simple principle that six-year-olds are learning isn’t understood by our own government. Even the people who support military intervention today can’t pretend that these policies won’t have consequences.

Foreign policy is much too dangerous of an area to follow a flawed belief, principle, or argument. A lasting, sustainable, and prosperous foreign policy will come not from government force, but with honest free trade, strong diplomatic relations and discussions, and a relentless pursuit of friendship before force.

Share/Bookmark

The very principle of maintaining an empire, presence, or force outside of your own borders is not one that you’d expect to be followed by a country founded on individual and state sovereignty. Our current principle is worse than this, however. We say that because we’re large we have the responsibility or right to spread our force around the world. This has been the policy followed through history by tyrants, emperors, and kings, not free individuals.

Whether force is spread through trade or military decisions is irrelevant in the long run. When a government uses force to shut down free trade, as many countries (starting with the U.S.) did in the Great Depression, the effects will often be as painful as military force. Individuals suffer, the economy weakens, and freedom is reduced. Sanctions and other trade control methods do not harm the governments they are intended for, but the people within those externally manipulated countries.

The Constitution gives the U.S. no authority to mingle in the affairs of other nations, and certainly not ongoing military occupations and nation building. Today, approximately one quarter of the U.S. military is overseas in more than 150 countries, racking up a bill to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is a weak argument that having all of those American troops constantly in foreign countries adds to the safety and security of our nation.

Ever since World War 1, when the U.S. took a much more forceful role in world affairs, we have had nothing but trouble. The U.S. took it upon itself to lead the charge of an interventionist foreign policy after World War II, which brought about the terrible atrocities of the Vietnam War and an ongoing war in many Middle Eastern countries. It was after WWII that Congress ceased to follow its constitutional duty to control and maintain the decisions of war, and the U.S. has not won a foreign conflict ever since.

Recently, the U.S. has had the problem of getting deeply involved in conflicts that it simply can’t contain or control. Through the CIA we helped arm the mujahideen “freedom fighters” to battle against the Soviets in the 1980s, which backfired largely in the form of two men who we supported and trained, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Those who are our friends one day turn against us years later, in cowardly but deadly fashion.

As Congress has either neglected or forgotten its duty when it comes to military spending, the executive branch has grabbed much of the power of war and military might. Mixing executive power and war is extremely dangerous, and will more often than not lead to the work of tyranny, unpopular and unnecessary wars and entanglements, and a larger disconnect and misrepresentation of the people.

U.S. foreign policy today has become a philosophy aimed not at protecting our own country, but using military force for the benefit of a select few who certainly do not have the interests of the American people in mind. We keep thousands of troops in countries that have not committed any harm to the U.S., have not threatened national security, and represent the furthest thing from a danger to the U.S. War is a terrible thing, but the more it gets into the hands of the executive branch and the more that Congress ignores its responsibility, the higher the likelihood of corruption, influence of special interests, and needless death of American troops and innocent civilians is.

A foreign policy of a nation keen on spreading freedom must support the ideals of non-interventionism and free trade; protect and strengthen our troops by having them defend their own country, and maintain a policy of true free trade with all nations decided by the people, not their governments. People talk about global society and how we’re all one family, then it’s time to act like it. Enough of this nonsense that we need governments or the U.N. to spread these ideals. We are all humans and a few empowered officials cannot spread principles or beliefs through forceful actions, a lasting change will only come from change in the minds of man.

It is time to recognize the fallacies of an interventionist foreign policy. A playground bully seems to best represent our current foreign policy principles: because I am the biggest one, you and your friends must obey my commands or face the consequences of my force. It is ludicrous that because we are the biggest and most successful nation we have the right, duty, or responsibility to use our military for a use other than national defense and the protection of individual liberty and freedom.

This does not make us any friends. It’s come to the point where we bribe, sanction, and occupy nearly every country in the world for one reason or another to our liking.

What message does this current belief send the world?

Let’s say that China passes the U.S. in economic size in thirty or forty years, as has been projected by many economists and investment firms. Does this automatically give them the right to come into our borders, overthrow our government, train our police, control our trade, install new leaders, and give us a new system of government? There is no justification for this belief. Just as a man who is seven feet tall does not have extra duties or rights than a man who is six feet tall, neither does a superpower have the right or duty to intervene in the affairs of all nations smaller than itself.

It is time that we abandon the foreign policy followed in the medieval ages and return to the principles of the Founding Fathers, freedom, and peace. It is neither sustainable or practical to assume that military force can accomplish more long-term change than strong minds and the peaceful exchange of ideas, goods, and discussion between people and their respective nations.

Share/Bookmark

During the Presidential debates between Senators’ Obama and McCain, the main debate on foreign policy was over how to best invade and increase forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The two did their best to separate themselves from each other on the issue, but in the Senate they have both voted similarly on key foreign policy legislation. Whether it be the FISA bill in 2008 granting immunity to telecommunication businesses wiretapping phones under federal order, or consistently voting to continue funding the Iraq War over the years. By looking at their voting records we can see that Obama and McCain have largely seen eye to eye on foreign policy.

Today, the lack of change in foreign policy is apparent. The marines currently in Iraq are beginning transfer to Afghanistan, and more troops are planned to be brought into the country this year. The “Iraq withdrawal” plan has turned into nothing but a cover to continue the occupation of 35,000 to 50,000 “residual force” troops beyond 2010. The body count in Pakistan, from U.S. attacks, continues to rise since late January when the Obama Administration began its operation. Despite protests from the Pakistani government, these attacks are expected to continue increasingly in the days ahead.

True debate on foreign policy has been disregarded and ignored for quite some time. Ever since World War 1, the United States has taken a larger military role in world activities. As we have seen with Obama, McCain, and Bush, the principles have remained the same: continue and increase interventions in the Middle East, keep thousands of troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time, and hardly a thing is mentioned about the countless troops placed worldwide in Europe, Korea, South America, and many other countries.

The core problem with U.S. foreign policy is very similar to the core problems of the federal government’s escalated domestic involvement with the economy. It is a short-term focused approach that does not account for individual responsibility, long-term sustainability, or the effects of blowback tomorrow because of yesterday’s actions.

The principles of domestic and foreign policy that a nation takes are very much intertwined with each other. A government heavily involved in foreign policy will lead to a government much more involved domestically, and visa-versa.

While the effects may not be immediately seen, it can’t be interpreted as a mere coincidence that U.S. entanglement overseas greatly escalated after the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Service were created in 1913. The power to print money and tax private property will lead to an expanded, intrusive government domestically, and in the long run that government will not hold back from expanding overseas.

What is it that we stand for? Democracy? Individual liberty, freedom, and right to one’s life are what we have fought for since 1776; not a majority rule through democracy. No matter how worthy or incredible a system may be, not one political, economic, or social system can be spread through force and sanctions without weakening or completely destroying its reputation.

The U.S. has pursued a foreign policy approach resembling that of a bully, rather than a beacon of freedom. How can we say that spending nearly 20 years in Iraq has spread American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Spreading principles cannot work if it is done through force, whether it be with the economy or dealing with a foreign country. Leading by example, proving that freedom works, showing that free individuals can achieve more than use of military force, will bring about much more powerful, effective, and respected solutions of peace and prosperity worldwide.

Share/Bookmark