Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category
Hypocrisy and Trade
As is common throughout history, when economic woes beset a people and policy makers are aloof to reality, it becomes pertinent to blame the foreigner for the ills of a self-inflicted wound. Such is the case today in the United States with a public debt surging past 16
19th century political cartoon charging Chinese labor with unemploying American labor. Found at notfrisco.com.
trillion dollars, 1.5 trillion dollar yearly deficits, QE1, QE2, Operation Twist, and financial/environmental regulations that are equivalent to committing economic suicide. It concomitantly becomes apparent to federal policy makers to perfect the foul Keynesian economic soup with a dash of trade war hypocrisy.
As of late the artificial devaluation of the Chinese yuan has become the scapegoat of the brainiacs in Washington. They argue that renminbi is devalued by at least 30%, and this devaluation is driving the Chinese export machine as a form of protectionism. This development is also to blame for our rather lopsided balance-of-trade. George Mason’s Dr. Walter E. Williams illuminates the latter charge far better than I, here.
So who are these leaders of the charge against China’s unfair advantage. Why it’s the American version of Cobden and Bright, Senators Charles Schumer and Sherrod Brown, both of whom have been harsh critics of unfair price manipulation. Except when it has to do with domestic tires, or steel. So senators like Schumer and Brown aren’t necessarily opposed to artificial price levels, just those that benefit foreigners at our expense; however, they are in favor of tariffs that benefit select American producers at the expense of all American consumers.
—
Tyler Brown is a graduate student in History from Poplar Bluff, Missouri. He is a member of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty and a contributor to UMFreedom.com.
“Mission Finally Accomplished…Maybe”
Yesterday evening, President Obama made his second Oval Office address to announce the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. The president delivered the news without much fanfare, though a large banner reading “Mission Finally Accomplished…Maybe” might have been appropriate.
One of the main problems with unconstitutional wars is that they never end. Without declaring war, Congress ceded control over the conflict to the executive branch. While Congress does control spending, few representatives are willing to deny military expenditures for fear of being labeled “unpatriotic.” One Congressman who was not afraid to stand and oppose the unconstitutional Iraq war, Ron Paul of Texas, criticized the Presiden’t speech for refusing to call this “end” what it really is – an escalation. An escalation of U.S.-backed private security forces (which will more than double), and American economic support to the struggling nation.
Joe Conason of Salon also did a good job at noting how the President avoided speaking in realistic terms about the true situation on the ground in Iraq and instead opted to employ references to their sunny march towards democracy. With a debt of over $10 trillion, though, the President wouldn’t have gotten much applause for acknowledging the lengthy committment that the United States is likely to have in Iraq.
Such are the trials and tribulations of a government that ignores the Constitution and refuses to operate within its boundaries. Now is the time to end senseless foriegn interventionism, plug the geyser that is federal spending, and advocate a return to a constitutionally limited government that works for its people, not against them, to protect liberty.
Why They Are At War With Us?
Pat Buchanan speaks the truth about the reasons behind terrorism. He argues that while terrorism may indeed be evil, it can nonetheless be explained. Terrorist attacks, the crippling taxes to pay for foreign wars, and mounting numbers of body bags represent the costs of the American Empire. Hopefully, the American people will rise up and demand change.
Read the excellent article here.
How to Tell the Truth (Or Not)
President Obama didn’t provide ‘change’ I could ‘believe in’. He provided change I could be entirely skeptical of. This, kids, is how to tell a lie, and bask in the limelight of public opinion.
As someone commented over at Lewrockwell.com, “apparently they took it to one of the banks he runs now.”
To help differentiate a liar from a truth-teller, I provide the following example of the courage to tell the truth, while everyone around you will attack you for it.
Ft. Hood Shooter’s Beliefs Deemed ‘Outlandish’
The killings at Fort Hood have received an understood amount of media attention, but one thing that Shepard Smith of Fox News stated yesterday bugged me until I had to sit down and articulate it. In opening an interview with a retired coworker of Major Hassan, Smith stated that Hassan had made “outlandish” comments about America’s foreign policy. As the interview continued, the coworker explained that Hassan had expressed that the United States should not be “over there”–should not be engaged in military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the native people should rise up against the aggressors.
I’m in no way advocating the actions of the Major at Fort Hood, but I want a moment to examine what his peers knew of his beliefs, and the way that Fox’s Shepard Smith framed the news segment. Is it outlandish to believe that we should not be involved in pointless wars overseas? They cost American lives, and stretch the printing press of the Fed to new levels, destroying our money even further, and for what? To protect us from a people that don’t have navies, air forces, or a unified standing army? How does having a large occupying force in several nations in the Middle East protect us from a random act of terrorism that would be perpetrated thousands of miles away, here at home? As for the “aggressors” comment, let’s propose a hypothetical. If the Chinese had a standing army on our soil, with the goal of making us change our way of life, would it be “outlandish” for us to resist and attempt to overthrow our aggressors? We overthrew the British empire, after all. Is this not an American ideal?
Hassan was said to have felt promise upon the election of President Obama, that our overseas occupations would end, but was extremely disappointed when he did not deliver. I think that’s a very common feeling among those that drank the President’s anti-war campaign Kool-Aid but were left thirsty and wanting. He has escalated these wars, and shows no sign of changing our foreign policy to something more sensible.
We must see past the propaganda machine of the mainstream media and note that these particular beliefs and frustrations perhaps weren’t so “outlandish” after all.
Hypocrite wins Nobel Peace Prize
With no actual change in foreign policy, President Obama has managed to do something his predecessor could not–dupe the world into awarding him a Nobel Peace Prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee makes the case that Obama has created a “new climate in international politics.” As The Who told us in “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” it’s time we met the new boss–he’s the same as the old boss.
Our foreign policy consists of giving money to nations that do what our Executive Branch wants, and threatening those that do not with violence or sanctions. President Obama, like President Bush, believes in the doctrine of preemptive war, an idea that has been seen as immoral by philosophers throughout history. Under this mantra, nations must be punished for what they might do, rather than ills they have actually committed.
Real effort to promote peace can be achieved through sensible foreign policy. Open, honest dialogue with all nations, entangling alliances with none, and enough restraint to use force only in defense must pave the road to peace if it is to be achieved by an American leader. Proponents of this President’s foreign policy will make the case that we must strike preemptively to promote democracy and freedom abroad. The ideals of freedom cannot be spread through force; they must be spread through good example.
Peace can also be achieved through honest economic policy. A commitment to sound money and free trade would make ours and other nations prosperous. President Obama promotes neither. By ignoring the reality of a nearly bankrupt government, and encouraging the printing of more and more fiat money, the President makes us all poorer, and causes economic turmoil across the planet, which leads to more conflict. By rubbing the fattened underbelly of the central bank in thoughtful appreciation, President Obama dooms us to a worthless dollar.
If we are to promote peace and prosperity, charlatans like President Obama must be recognized as warmongers and destroyers of value. Until then, buckle in for the bumpy ride.
Terror by Another Name
Coming off the heels of the 8-year anniversary of 9/11, now insidiously dubbed “Patriots Day,” I think it important for Americans to seriously question our outlook on terrorism. Indeed, September 11, 2001 was a tragic day for our nation’s history. However, I believe we as a nation should look to the acts committed on 9/11 as a way to connect with the rest of the world, which seems to bare the brunt of all atrocious acts we hear about on a daily basis.
I would first like to point out that I believe it takes a skeptical mind to tackle the true definition of terrorism. Relatively speaking, one person could view a violent act as terrorism while another could view it as honorable. So it is important to understand the motive behind any violent act if we have any hope of entering a peaceful world.
The “War for Peace” Loving Democrats
Not too long ago, Republicans were fervently trying to convince Americans that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were necessary to preserve the safety of our country. Their arguments, however, began carrying less and less weight as Americans finally began expressing their dissatisfaction in ever-increasing numbers. In the former anti-neoconservative America, it seemed Republicans were wondering how to justify two useless and illegal wars. Little did they know the best argument they could create to drum up support for their crimes against humanity was a peace-preaching, closet pro-war democrat named Barack Obama. With a democrat now in the White House, the former anti-war liberals have shown their true colors and gone silent. After all, Obama was for peace, right?
Those under this “peace candidate” assumption had little clue as to Obama’s history on Iraq, not to mention his horrible record on civil liberties. After all, Obama voted to instate warterboarding supporter Michael Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security, voted for bills providing billions of dollars in nuclear weapons producing activities, and voted for the Defense Authorization Act’s increase of funds to prolong the wars in 2005. He even voted to commend the armed services that murdered innocent women and children in an attack that supposedly killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a man who had already been reported killed three times previously. Obama also voted against the Kerry Amendment in 2006, which would have withdrawn the troops from Iraq, and voted for a bill giving Bush another $120 billion to prolong the war in 2007. He also voted for the Patriot Act twice, the FISA legislation, and now supports the State’s Secrets privilege of the Bush Administration, giving him a civil liberties record the crows could feed off of for years.
