A Call to Collaboration

On Saturday, February 4th, members of the Occupy movement across the globe are planning to hold various rallies and marches in their respective cities to protest the growing momentum of U.S. interventions and sanctions against Iran that are building up to a possible declaration of war. Given that U.S. liberty-minded activists are equally passionate about halting the spread of our overseas empire and the unconstitutional declarations of illegal wars, this event presents a historical opportunity for liberty activists and Occupiers to unite for a commonly shared goal. 

 The organizations lending their official endorsement to this cause are strikingly diverse, ranging from the Workers World Party to the Center for a Stateless Society.

I would like to urge all Young Americans for Liberty members to coordinate with their local YAL chapters for a planned collaboration with the Occupy movement on February 4th to show the Establishment that we stand together in solidarity against the unconstitutional wars that are declared without Congressional approval, wars which threaten to bankrupt our nation both morally and financially. According to the Facebook event page, so far every state has an anti-war Occupy event planned in major cities across the U.S. on Feb. 4th, and I am working with my local YAL chapter to engage with our own city's anti-war Occupy rally to be held this coming Saturday.

Rand Paul Disappoints

Rand Paul is good on some things, and not so good on others.

Earlier this week, Paul was detained in Nashville for refusing a pat down after an “anomaly” was spotted during his full body scan. The T.S.A. denies that he was detained citing some Orwellian semantics. His refusal was noble and deserves applause, especially when considering his standing as an American Senator.

But just because Rand is good on some issues of the warfare-police state should not give him a free pass from scrutiny. Case in point: Rand Paul voted for the Kirk-Menendez amendment on December 1, 2011. Equally disappointing is that his vote flew straight under the radar. Whether unnoticed or ignored, antiwar vigilantes failed on this one.

The Kirk-Menendez amendment (#1414) seeks “To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to the financial sector of  Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran.” The amendment’s main focus is on Iran’s oil industry: “Sanctions imposed…shall apply with respect to a foreign financial institution owned or controlled by the government of a foreign country including a central bank of a foreign country, only insofar as it engages in transactions for the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products to or from Iran.”

A Foreign Policy of Peace

The non-interventionist approach to foreign policy is often mischaracterized as nothing more than dangerous isolationism appeasing our enemies. At one point during the most recent Republican presidential debate, the mere suggestion of endorsing peace through the golden rule in regards to American foreign policy was met by a round of boos from the audience. 

The golden rule, taught by many of the world’s religions, is most commonly expressed as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The lesson is that if you treat others with respect, you shall be shown respect in return. Simple enough for third graders, this is mind-boggling for the Washington crowd. And when applied to an interventionist foreign policy such as that of the United States, it can essentially be boiled down to this:  Don’t cause trouble around the world if you don’t want the world causing trouble at home.

It is beyond foolish and incredibly naïve to believe that the United States can go around the world dropping bombs on whomever it pleases without inciting a negative reaction. The fact of the matter is that the United States is resented in many parts of the world simply because it assumes the role of its policeman. If indeed another country, such as Russia or China decided to invade and even occupy the mainland United States, you can bet our reaction would not be all that dissimilar from those protesting America's actions on their lands.

Soldier in Trouble for Exercising Political Speech

A reserve soldier is in trouble after appearing in a campaign event while in uniform:

Cpl. Jesse Thorsen spoke at Paul's post-Iowa caucuses rally to give his support for the Texas congressman and his non-interventionist -- critics say isolationist -- policies calling for strict limits on the use of U.S. military power.

But Thorsen, 28, a reservist who preceded his appearance at the rally with an interview on CNN, was wearing his fatigues, and that is a violation of military code.

According to the Defense Department directive on political activities by military members, active duty forces are encouraged to vote and can sign petitions, serve as polling volunteers, contribute to campaigns and display political bumper stickers on their private vehicles.

However, they may not "participate in partisan political fundraising activities ... rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one's own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement."

They also may not "speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause" or "participate in any radio, television or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate or cause."

Silly soldier thinks he has political rights.