"My point is, if another country does to us what we do to others, we’re not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule – in foreign policy. Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want to have them do to us" -Ron Paul

The war-crazed conservatives in the crowd at one of the Republican presidential debates recently held in South Carolina booed and jeered when Ron Paul called for a golden rule in U.S. foreign policy. "We endlessly bomb these other countries and then we wonder why they get upset with us?" added Dr. Paul.

Naturally, the bloodthirsty warmongers at Frontpagemag.com consider Paul’s foreign policy to be absurd, dangerous, and clueless.

But just for a minute, let’s suppose a few things –

Suppose that a presidential candidate in another country said that the U.S. president needs to be taken off this planet. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that a presidential candidate in another country said that the U.S. president would go to hell if he died. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country said that the U.S. president needed to step down. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country forbade its citizens from traveling to the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country imposed sanctions on the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country had a secret program to develop nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country insisted that it had the right to build over 1,000 military bases in foreign countries. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country insisted that it had the right to station hundreds of thousands of troops on foreign soil. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country insisted that it had the right to build bases and station troops on American soil. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country spent more on defense than all the governments of the rest of the world combined. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country claimed it had the right to assassinate anyone in the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the intelligence agencies of another country insisted on infiltrating the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies to spy on them. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country spent a trillion dollars on defense, most of which was really for offense. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country said that the United States must get rid of its nuclear weapons. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country bombed American soil. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country invaded the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country occupied the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the president or secretary of state of another country said that the United States needed a regime change. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the intelligence agencies of another country flew drone planes at will over the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

You know exactly how Americans would feel about these things. So why is it that foreigners aren’t expected to feel the same way?

It is U.S. foreign policy that is absurd, dangerous, and clueless. Ron Paul is the only sane voice that one will hear in the remaining Republican presidential debates.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on February 6, 2012.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Suppose We Followed the Golden Rule

Economist, Mises Institute scholar, and friend Bob Murphy gives his perspective on Romans 13, pehaps the first of several posts on his blog?

Shaun Connell presents a Biblical case for libertarian government.

Judge Andrew Napolitano asks: What is a just war?

Jon Utley at American Conservative magazine (my favorite “conservative” publication) talks about Evangelicals, Ron Paul, and War.

President Obama invokes Christianity to support his policies. Impressively bad on all fronts.

This week on LCC, Doug Stuart reviewed two books for us:

• An Evangelical Social Gospel?
• Hijacked: Responding to the Partisan Church Divide

I found this picture hilarious. If you don’t get it, don’t worry about it, it would take a while to explain…

Here’s another picture, HT George on Facebook:

Awesome.

Have some relevant news and links you want to share? Post in the comments below. I read every comment and respond more often than not. Let me know what you’re thinking!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week: War, books, and Romans

Mike Slaughter and Charles Gutenson wrote Hijacked: Responding to the Partisan Church Divide to both acknowledge and correct a growing problem in the Church. Not only is the divide creating disunity within the Church, it is causing a significant number of younger Americans to reject the church because of the close relationship between partisan politics and religion. Throughout much of the 20th century, the Church’s liberal/conservative polarization was related primarily to theological issues rather than political, Democrat/Republican concerns. Only in the 1980s did theological “liberalism” (or “conservatism”) and voting primarily Democratic (or Republican) become integrally connected.

The Christian Right contributed greatly to this new polarization. Popular Christian televangelists, radio hosts, and pastors began influencing their audiences in such a way that seemed to reclaim a form of “American civil religion that associated America as a nation established by God, advocating our form of democracy as ordained by God and the U.S. Constitution as Spirit-breathed” (pg 29*). Forgetting Jesus’ warning in Matthew 20:25-26 regarding the nature of Christ-followers versus the nature of the Gentiles, this “awakening movement born with such hope and possibilities for diversity, unity, biblical justice, and Holy Ghost revival began slowly to fall back into a church subservient to Caesar” (pg 29). Slaughter and Gutenson claim, “As followers of Jesus we are not to define nor are we to divide ourselves according to the ideologies and platforms of Caesar. The two extremes of rigid conservatism and relativistic liberalism can destroy Christ’s mission in the world through his church” (pg 31).

The authors focus heavily on assessing the need to remember the important distinctions stated in the popular saying, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” They spend time discussing not only what doctrines and beliefs are essential, they devote an entire chapter to how we come to embrace doctrines that are essential or non-essential. Using a two-axis diagram, they demonstrate that a conservative theology does not automatically imply a conservative political party, nor does a liberal theology indicate a liberal political party. Christians can be conservative on some (or all) theology, but vote Democrat. Instead of viewing the options as a simple dichotomy, it’s best to view the nuanced perspectives among both conservatives and liberals as the complex array of options they really are.

The most indicting criticism in the book warns Christians of the danger of living inside an “ideological bubble.” (We will discuss the use of the terms in a moment.) The advent of the Internet has given us access to an ideological bubble of our own choosing, despite the availability of any viewpoint we can imagine. We have an infinite smorgasbord of choice at our fingertips: 24-hour television news, websites, blogs, Facebook groups, YouTube channels. It’s all there for us to pick and choose our tastes. Add this to a second major problem—the seduction of sound bites—and we’ve got a recipe for trouble. Bring these sound bites into the church, and we produce Christians with an appetite not for theological depth but for tasty nuggets of truth: “We want preachers who can give us catchy phrases that capture our imaginations and that move us emotionally; whether or not the catchy phrases are particularly accurate becomes quite secondary in the process” (pg 48). When the Church’s diet of theology is served on a tray of sound bites, its no wonder our political beliefs are so messed up and often divisive.

Hijacked proposes several ways to get back to the essential call to love each other. This is what Jesus expects. Both individuals and local churches have a responsibility to work hard against the tendency to divide, because the more we divide and spend our time on “our side,” the more the Church becomes split into an “us” versus “them” mentality.

Hijacked is short and fairly practical. One of the most exciting parts of the book was the repeated references to the Church being a unique community whose agenda is to serve the Kingdom of God:

• “The church must stand in prophetic tension with Constantinian political systems and never underwrite or accommodate itself to a partisan political world order including American democracy” (pg 22).
• Quoting Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon: “…the main political task of the church is the formation of people who see clearly the cost of discipleship and are willing to pay the price” (pg 30).
• “As followers or Jesus we are not to define nor are we to divide ourselves according to the ideologies and platforms of Caesar” (pg 31).
• “The people of God’s kingdom are meant to be the visible demonstration of heaven’s redemptive purpose on earth Through this community of faith, God is creating  Kingdom culture that is markedly different from the political alliances of earthly kingdoms” (pg 98).
• “As followers of Jesus, we represent an alternative party, the party of the kingdom of God” (pg 101).
• “The church stands in prophetic tension with all earthly political systems and becomes corrupted when used in a supportive role for political ideologies of any flag or color” (pg 106).
• “The community of Christ is called to pursue an alternative path from the political power structures of the world” (pg 107).

A survey of the quotes listed above are share a common tenor with Christian anarchism, in particular resonating with Greg Boyd’s Myth of a Christian Nation. Libertarian Christians would likely feel at home with the above statements and the meanings behind them. When our passions for the Kingdom of God become primary in our social commitments, political alliances will inevitably take a back seat.

After the focus on how the Kingdom of God is an alternative way of life, it was a bit disappointing to see no mention of the community of Christians who believe that to be involved in social justice one doesn’t need to participate in Caesar’s kingdom. With the exception of a brief N.T. Wright quote at the end regarding the Church’s extra-political efforts, there is no mention of the historical view and legitimacy of “conscientious objection” to Caesar.

Related to this absence, discussion about the nature of the State was also lacking. While they acknowledge that our political arena is akin to Caesar’s domain, no comments are given as to why playing this domain is like playing with fire. It would seem that a book dedicated to avoiding the divisive nature of politics would include at least some mention of the legitimate movements away from political engagement (a good resources is Electing Not to Vote, endorsed by Greg Boyd).

Hijacked doesn’t get into the definitions of ideology and ideologue, but I would be amiss if I didn’t say something about the authors’ use of the word. In private exchanges and his former book, Gutenson has an unfavorable opinion toward ideology. It seems to me that his definition of “ideology” is rather vague and perhaps even internally contradictory considering the fact that he wrote a book promoting a particular viewpoint, namely a book about “Kingdom values.” A quick lookup of the definition of ideology seems to point to something much less unpalatable: “the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.” If the ethics of Kingdom of God as presented by Jesus isn’t a guiding set of beliefs for the Christian, I’m not sure what is! Furthermore, an ideologue is somebody who “zealously advocates an ideology.” Again, not undesirable. To be fair, it’s likely that Gutenson and Slaughter want Christians who engage in the political arena to be cognizant that their view may indeed be wrong. Gutenson personally said to me that he was not against people acting and voting on their convictions.

Hijacked addresses a problem most of us would admit exists, yet we would all hesitate to admit we are part of the problem. So, let’s admit it: at some level we are all part of the problem. As much as I wish to believe my libertarian ethics, theology, and politics are an alternative “third way” that allows more freely the work of the Kingdom, even I am not exempt from being stubborn at times. It’s no fun being convicted of that, yet if we are all honest, we’ll find ourselves guilty.

Check the book out on Amazon. It’s definitely worth the time.

*The copy I’m citing from was printed for promotional use only, and may or may not correspond to page numbers in the final publication.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Hijacked: Responding to the Partisan Church Divide

Tim Suttle, pastor at Redemption Church in Olathe, Kansas, has made a concerted effort to bring into view both emphases of the gospel. In his book, An Evangelical Social Gospel?, Suttle recounts his own personal journey from a Christian faith emphasizing the effect Jesus has on our personal lives to the embrace of a faith that embraces both the “personal gospel” and the “social gospel.”

Suttle maintains that the individual aspect of the gospel isn’t to be cast aside, but to be held as merely one aspect of the gospel. Suttle suggests that our Western culture has become individualized to a point where even the message of the gospel has adapted so well that this individual aspect has become the whole message. He writes, “Evangelicals have been formed in this narrative of individualism so it should be no surprise that the gospel we tell in America should have an individualistic bent. But, the story of individualism is not synonymous with the story of Christianity. When the story of individualism and the story of God are conflated, the gospel ceases to be good news to everyone” (pg 13). In contrast, Suttle declares that the Bible “tells about a God who has always been concerned about all of life” (pg 15).

Suttle draws heavily from Social Gospel preacher Walter Rauschenbusch, an early 20th century Progressive who learned early in his ministry that the gospel isn’t just about individuals going to heaven when they die, or having a better life for themselves here on this earth. After experiencing the suffering and misery of Hell’s Kitchen, a poverty-stricken area of Manhattan, Rauschenbusch discovered that the message of personal conversion lacked power. Not the power to save individually, but the power to bring people together and toward God. It wasn’t good enough that rich Christians oppressed the poor. Such a gospel didn’t satisfy, and Rauschenbusch believed it didn’t do justice to the gospel of Jesus. To Rauschenbusch, the whole gospel incorporated more than just individuals. It incorporated society.

I was expecting Suttle to lead the reader gradually so as to shift the importance of the individual gospel message to the social gospel message. Refreshingly, Suttle is clear about where he stands: “I believe that if our concept of the gospel doesn’t include both of these messages, then it is something less than the true gospel found in Scripture, and thus lacks the power to transform the world” (pg 26). He starts in the Garden of Eden and points out four directions in which our humanity was fractured by what many theologians call “the Fall”:

1. The human relationship with God—they hid from God
2. The human self-relationship—they saw they were naked and ashamed
3. Humans’ relationship to each other—blame-shifting occurred instantly
4. Humans’ relationship to the created order—increased pain in childbirth and a cursed ground

If our gospel doesn’t restore all four types of fractures, it is only partial good news.

In just over 100 pages, Suttle’s book explores the nature of the image of God, the dangers of what he calls “individualism,” the nature of sin, and the solution of corporate salvation. Critical to the book is his hardcore commitment to the subtitle of the book: “finding God’s story in the midst of extremes.” He does a superb job.

As a Christian trained in theology and sort of an armchair philosopher, I had a few moments of frustration throughout the book. One was a statement about individualism vs. collectivism: “What makes us human is our participation in humanity” (pg. 35). What followed were a few paragraphs that felt a bit jarring. Suttle makes the case that “the social relationship temporally and logically precedes any awareness of our own existence. In other words, if I was (sic) the only thing in existence, it would not be possible for me to even discern my own existence” (pg 35). To put a finer point on it, he says, “Human ontology—our very being—is predicated upon community. Community comes first” (pg 36). The essence of his point is that to be fully human we must participate as humans in community. Though I agree with his conclusion, I would argue that individualism gets a bad rap due to its confusing nature. Most of us think of individualism as a self-centered way of viewing the world. Norman Horn says it best in his article highlighting the beliefs of Edmund Opitz:

The concept of individualism is often lost in the modern church. One frequently hears in religious circles that “individualism has no place in the life of the church,” but this constitutes a misunderstanding of the word itself. At its core, individualism means the individual is responsible for his own actions, in particular before God, and thus individual liberty is necessary for living out the dictates of conscience. Opitz would agree that one cannot be in Christ (Galatians 3:28) without the body of Christ—the church—but many Christians take this much too far and find themselves promoting collectivism rather than community. Individualism is not social atomism: “We have no inclination to be hermits; we are social creatures, and we achieve our full humanity only in association, in mutuality, and in community.” Voluntary action is the very essence of community, and thus the collectivist is actually acting against the spirit of community he seeks to promote.

Suttle’s understanding of individualism is really criticizing an atomistic view of humanity. Atomistic individualism is antagonistic to life and contrary to the spirit of the Kingdom of God. It would be inappropriate, however, to throw out individualism by arguing that individuals do not or cannot exist apart from community. A Christian individualist is not one averse to community, nor is he self-absorbed. A Christian individualist emphasizes the moral worth the individual, something I’m absolutely certain Suttle affirms. It’s about recognizing that each individual is God’s image in the world, representing unique aspects of the Creator-god in their respective communities.

Another interesting point is that Suttle spends a lot of time talking about the social elements of the gospel message, yet spends little time talking about particular manifestations of society itself. As a libertarian, one quote from Rauschenbusch that stood out to me was, “When [Jesus] took God by the hand and called him ‘our Father,’ he democratized the conception of God. He disconnected the idea from the coercive and predatory State, and transferred it to the realm of family life, the chief social embodiment of solidarity and love” (pg 41, quoting Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel, pg 175, emphasis mine). Suttle cites examples of social sin and its horrible outcomes, and he is convincing in his argument that sin can be social and not just personal. Though it was probably beyond the scope of his book, Suttle does not talk about the nature of the State and its predation on the poor—something most libertarians (even non-Christian ones) would consider to be a “social sin.” Suttle would find some decent company in the midst of libertarian Christians with the following:

Our vocation as human beings is to organize our common life together in such a way that we image God to all creation and bear witness to the in-breaking kingdom of God, so that when all of creation looks at us and sees the way we live together—not just as individuals—it will see past us to the greater reality that is the reign and rule of God. (pg 44)

To Suttle, the good news of the Kingdom of God is beyond our individual destinies and more about embracing God’s reign on earth. He demonstrates in various New Testament passages (Mark 1:14, Luke 8:1, Luke 9:1-12, Acts 3:19-21, Ephesians 1:9-10, Colossians 1:19-20, 2 Peter 3:10-13, and Romans 8:19-23) that God’s saving action is not a destruction of the cosmos but a renewing of it. In a statement clearly drawn from the language and theology of N.T. Wright (a favorite theologian of mine), he succinctly describes the gospel:

The good news is that the future of God has come rushing into the present through Jesus Christ. Heaven has invaded earth in the person of Jesus Christ, who prayed, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” (pg 84)

He ends the book on a refreshingly (and perhaps ironic) pastoral note. By describing the Kingdom of God as a rival narrative, he asks, “What story are you living in?” If our world’s narrative is highly consumeristic, we will tend to view ourselves as mere containers, which implies that we keep God’s blessings for ourselves. Instead, we ought to view ourselves as funnels through which God is the source of all our life, our gifts, talents, resources, abilities, passions, and income. Instead of leveraging these to keep our containers full, a fully human experience lets these flow freely through our lives into the lives of others. The original promise to Abraham comes to mind: “you will be blessed to be a blessing throughout the world.”

Suttle’s book has a few shortcomings, and I have a few gripes about his beliefs about society. Suttle is probably more sympathetic to the Progressive movement than I would be. He probably rejects libertarianism. Nonetheless, he has made a significant contribution to the Great Conversation about life and faith through his work.

Interested in learning more? Check out the book at Amazon.com.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

An Evangelical Social Gospel?

David Theroux at the Independent Institute has written an excellent article called Secular Theocracy. You will see many references to C.S. Lewis in the article as well.

It’s funny that after my Washington Post article, I have seen a number of new articles popping up at notable websites such as Relevant Magazine talking about Christian libertarianism. Unfortunately, they rarely seem to link to LibertarianChristians.com or even to the Washington Post article. But more importantly, Christianity and liberty are being talked about together like never before (at least, perhaps not in this generation). This is an exciting development and I think I can safely say that LibertarianChristians.com is a contributor to this trend.

Now for the sad news. We are told that justice should be blind, but we know it never is. Sometimes, though, you cannot help but be mortified by the American justice system. This is what we learned about justice this week:

Run the file-sharing website MegaUpload: get up to 50 years in prison.

Rape and murder one woman: 20 years.

Murder 24 civilians: demotion… and maybe 3 months.

And people wonder why we criticize the State.

Let’s close with a quote from Murray Rothbard:

"The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, ‘Limit yourself’; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week: On Secular Theocracy and Sentencing.

Ron Paul is clearly the only candidate not running against Barack Obama or against the other GOP candidates. He is running to promote liberty and a restoring of the Republic to the Constitution. He does criticize Obama, but more importantly he describes our social problems as stemming from something greater and more problematic.

Yet one thing doesn’t seem to be clear to Ron Paul supporters: Ron Paul is not the hope of America, or even the world. Bleeding Heart Libertarian Matt Zwolinski cautions Paul’s supporters into being overly excited about a Paul Presidency, and has taken considerable heat from it. In short, he said that the time supporting Ron Paul could be better spent. Maybe, but that’s too sharp a dichotomy for me. Elections are for a season. Supporting institutions like the Institute for Humane Studies can continue beyond the 2012 election cycle. Call me crazy, but I’m 100% sure Ron Paul won’t run for president again. So let’s seize the day. And if we have enough time and money, we can do both.

But Zwolinski hints at a deeper point that he doesn’t quite explicitly say: Ron Paul is not the ultimate solution to our social problems. To be fair, I truly, honestly, deeply believe that no Ron Paul supporter believes a Paul Presidency will usher in the New Millennium (or something like it). I’m an enthusiastic supporter of Paul (if you don’t believe me, check out my Facebook). Yet as a Christian I am reminded that the hope of the world doesn’t rest in worldly institutions, as much as they need dramatic reform. The hope of the world doesn’t rest in the administrations of men. It doesn’t come through mere human efforts.

A Ron Paul White House would yield tremendous positive results for society and the world. Fewer nations would be threatened by our military. Diplomats around the world might begin to trust our nation. Children will have their fathers return from foreign lands. Fewer troops will suffer from psychological disorders. The importance of sound money will become center stage in the national conversation. Those changes are truly needed. Let’s not underestimate or devalue those outcomes.

But the hope of the world doesn’t come through the actions of one administration. It comes from the members of society who are committed to change, starting from the inside out. Those individuals will shape the world around them. God’s will done “on earth as it is in heaven” will happen when the love of Jesus is demonstrated throughout society. When followers of Jesus funnel their gifts, talents, resources, abilities, and passions for the good of the world, they become God’s image to mankind so real hope is present.* And even though we are ardent supporters of Ron Paul, this thoroughly hope-filled belief is the true position of LibertarianChristians.com.

Perhaps former presidential candidate Barack Obama said it best: “We are the change we’ve been waiting for!” 

—–

* It’s far too easy to ignore the virtue of suffering, something Western Christians avoid at all costs. When we suffer along with our fellow human beings, we bring ourselves closer to each other and to God in a way unlike any other. True “social justice” (whatever that phrase implies) requires it, otherwise change is anything but real. But that’s for a future article…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ron Paul is NOT Obama

His previous videos are primarily educational, and while his newest one does educate, it’s extremely practical. As a response to a left-liberal video called The Story of Broke (same creators as The Story of Stuff), it sets an example of how to talk about public choice problems and the knowledge problem while at the same time agreeing with much of the critique of our current system. It’s simple, and brilliant. Add to that the amazing production effects (seriously, there are sharks in this video!), and it’s a wonderful 4-minute video.

Check it out:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Story of Broke Response

Korea shows all that is wrong with U.S. foreign policy.

After World War II, the United States and its allies — against the wishes of most Koreans — divided the country at the 38th parallel. After North Korea invaded the South in 1950, Harry Truman intervened with U.S. combat troops in a “police action.” The result was the senseless death of more than 36,000 American soldiers for Truman’s foolish policies, for the United Nations, for the failed diplomacy of World War II, and for the division of Korea in the same place it was divided before the war started. Since that time, a day has not gone by when the United States has not had thousands of troops stationed in South Korea, some no doubt the grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in the Korean War. There are at least 25,000 U.S. soldiers currently in Korea. There are also more than 35,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan.

There was no U.S. declaration of war against North Korea. On five different occasions, the United States has declared war on a total of eleven other countries: Great Britain in 1812 (the War of 1812), Mexico in 1848 (the Mexican War), Spain in 1898 (the Spanish-American War), Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1917 (World War I), Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1941 (World War II), and Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania in 1942 (World War II).

Only a few Republicans in Congress dared to object to Truman’s clearly unconstitutional intervention in Korea. Most notable was Sen. Robert Taft, who maintained, “The president is usurping his powers as commander in chief. There is no legal authority for what he has done. If the president can intervene in Korea without congressional approval, he can go to war in Malaya or Indonesia or Iran or South America.” The Korean intervention set a terrible precedent, for no declaration of war has ever been issued since, even though the United States has been involved in many military conflicts since then, some of them being major wars, such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The personal army

But not only was there no declaration of war in Korea, there was not even a congressional authorization to use force. Such a resolution has been issued eight times in U.S. history: under Eisenhower in 1955 and 1957 to defend Formosa and check Soviet expansionism in the Middle East; twice under Kennedy in 1962 in response to the threat of Cuban communism and the crisis in Berlin; the infamous 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution under Johnson; under Bush the elder in 1991 when he ordered the first U.S. invasion of Iraq; and twice under Bush the younger for launching the Afghanistan war in 2001 and the Iraq war in 2002. The lack of any congressional authorization for the Korean conflict shows that U.S. foreign policy is really at the whim of whoever is the president. Americans are expected to support or demonize a country at the word of the president.

The lack of any congressional input in the decision to go to war in Korea signals the beginning of the U.S. military as merely the president’s personal army, as Jacob Hornberger has pointed out:

Thus, as a practical matter the troops serve not as a defender of our freedoms but instead simply as a loyal and obedient personal army of the president, ready and prepared to serve him and obey his commands. It is an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to deploy to any country in the world for any reason he deems fit and attack, kill, and maim any “terrorist” who dares to resist the U.S. invasion of his own country. It is also an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to take into custody any American whom the commander in chief deems a “terrorist” and to punish him accordingly.

The misuse of the military since the Korean War is so prevalent and wide-ranging that the majority of what the military now does has nothing to do with the defense of this country and everything to do with intervening in foreign countries. The U.S. military performs most of its duties outside the United States providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation-building, spreading “goodwill,” launching preemptive strikes, establishing democracy, changing regimes, assassinating people, training armies, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, “opening markets,” maintaining no-fly zones, occupying countries, and, of course, fighting foreign wars.

The U.S. military should be engaged exclusively in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not attacking, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any purpose other than the actual defense of the United States perverts the purpose of the military.

The misuse of the military results in needless deaths of U.S. soldiers. The most unnecessary job in the world is that of the Casualty Assistance Calls Officer, who must go knocking with a message that no military family wants to hear. In addition to the more than 36,000 soldiers lost in Korea, there are the more than 58,000 soldiers who lost their lives in Vietnam, and the more than 4,450 soldiers in Iraq and 1,750 in Afghanistan who paid the ultimate price fighting in those places. Every one of those deaths was unnecessary and preventable and can be charged to a reckless and meddling U.S. foreign policy.

Where the boys are

The continued U.S. military presence in South Korea with thousands of troops at 87 different sites (if you include golf courses) is but a small part of the U.S. global empire of troops and bases. According to the Department of Defense’s “Base Structure Report” for FY 2009, there are 716 U.S. military bases on foreign soil in 38 countries. Yet, according to the expert on this subject, the late Chalmers Johnson, that number is actually closer to 1,000 because “the official figures omit espionage bases, those located in war zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and miscellaneous facilities in places considered too sensitive to discuss or which the Pentagon for its own reasons chooses to exclude — e.g., in Israel, Kosovo, or Jordan.” This same report lists the DOD’s physical assets as “more than 539,000 facilities (buildings, structures and linear structures) located on more than 5,570 sites, on approximately 29 million acres.”

But not only does the United States have thousands of troops in South Korea, Japan, Germany, and Italy decades after World War II and Korea, there are, according to the DOD report titled “Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country,” U.S. troops stationed in 147 countries and 11 territories in every corner of the globe. That means that U.S. troops have a presence in more than 75 percent of the world’s countries. All told, there are more than 300,000 U.S. troops in foreign countries — not counting the 50,000 troops in and around Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom or the 100,000 troops in and around Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Those numbers would be even higher were it not for the thousands of DOD contractors.

The United States is committed to the defense not only of South Korea, but of many other countries as well, thanks to various security alliances and bilateral agreements. That, in spite of the warnings of Washington and Jefferson to stand clear of permanent and entangling alliances.

The real issue about Korea, as Congressman Ron Paul recently explained, is that “the American taxpayer is still forced to pay for the U.S. military to defend a modern and wealthy South Korea.” According to the CIA, the economy of South Korea is 34 times larger than the centrally planned economy of its northern neighbor. South Korea has twice the population of North Korea. Per capita GDP in the South is 15 times what it is in the North. North Korea faces chronic shortages of food and fuel and its “industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of underinvestment and shortages of spare parts.” It makes no sense, financially or otherwise, for the United States to guarantee the defense of South Korea against a country where malnutrition and poverty are the rule rather than the exception.

Korea shows all that is wrong with U.S. foreign policy: disregard for the Constitution, departure from the wisdom of the Founders, unaccountable presidential power, misuse of the military, a global empire of troops and bases, callous disregard for the lives of American soldiers, meddling in the affairs of other countries, and wasting billions of dollars taken from American taxpayers. U.S. foreign policy is hopelessly interventionist — no matter which party controls the Congress or the White House.

Originally posted at The Future of Freedom Foundation on January 18, 2012

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Korea Shows All That Is Wrong With U.S. Foreign Policy

David Neff at Christianity Today wonders if an evangelical meeting to anoint a presidential candidate is a bad idea.

Three articles at Antiwar.com caught my attention this week: Who Wants War With Iran?, Blood On Whose Hands, and Another Reason Not to Go to War So Often.

William Grigg writes about the current crop of presidential candidates who think state murder is a “moral enterprise.”

I mentioned this article yesterday but I would like to highlight again Anthony Gregory’s piece on LRC about why the left’s excuses for not supporting Ron Paul are ridiculous.

Doug Bandow writes in the Huffington Post about that perennial question, Who Would Jesus Vote For? Should we even ask?

Ron Paul Schools Santorum:

I heard about Word Dynamo from my colleagues at UT, and I have to say it is super fun. If you enjoy wordsmith-ing around, you’ll love this site.

If you have interesting news you would like to share, make sure to post in the comments below!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week, January 15-21, 2012

Throughout the twentieth century, opponents of U.S. intervention in foreign wars were smeared as isolationists.

Conservative and Republican opponents of Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, although they may argue and fight among themselves, are all agreed on one thing: Ron Paul is an isolationist and espouses a dangerous foreign policy of isolationism.

Actor and conservative activist Chuck Norris insists that “Texas Representative Ron Paul’s bent toward being an isolationist who wants to bring home every one of our 572,000 troops abroad makes the anti-terror, pro-military hairs on the back of my neck stand.”

Speaking in South Carolina just before Christmas, Newt Gingrich “sharply criticized Mr. Paul for what he said were his isolationist views on foreign policy.”

While stumping in Iowa the week before the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum “urged Republicans to carefully study Mr. Paul’s isolationist foreign policy views.”

Tune in to the leading conservative talk-show hosts or read the comments posted by their followers on right-wing websites and you will hear and see Ron Paul regularly described as an isolationist.

Okay, so what would an isolationist America look like? What if the United States really retreated from the world stage, avoided engagement with the rest of the world, and actually did isolate itself from every other country?

Under a real foreign policy of isolationism, the United States would refuse to participate in the Olympics, refuse to make treaties, refuse to issue visas, refuse to allow foreign goods to be imported, refuse to allow U.S. goods to be exported, refuse to allow foreign students to study at American universities, refuse to allow American students to study at foreign universities, refuse to allow foreign investment, refuse to extradite criminals, refuse to exchange diplomats, refuse to allow cultural exchanges, refuse to participate in disaster-relief efforts, refuse to allow travel abroad, refuse to engage in diplomacy, refuse to deliver mail to or receive mail from foreign countries, refuse to allow emigration, and refuse to allow immigration.

Under a real policy of isolationism, living in the United States would be about as bad as living in East Germany, North Korea, or Myanmar.

Is that the kind of America that Ron Paul envisions?

The last time Ron Paul ran for president, he made it perfectly clear that he espoused anything but isolationism:

Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off-limits to them.

American citizens would be free to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities.

No one has ever accused Dr. Paul of changing his position.

Why, then, is Ron Paul accused of being an isolationist? When his critics hurl this epithet at him, they know full well that he is not an isolationist at all. Here is Rick Santorum on Ron Paul’s “dangerous” foreign policy: “One thing he can do as commander in chief is he can pull all our troops home. He can shut down our bases in Germany. He can shut down the bases in Japan. He can pull our fleets back.” According to Santorum and his fellow conservative and Republican warmongers Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and the Weekly Standard, Ron Paul is an isolationist, not because he wants America to be isolated from the rest of the world, but because he wants to terminate the empire, stop fighting foreign wars, close the foreign military bases, cut the bloated military budget, end foreign aid, halt all offense spending, bring all the troops home, limit the military to the actual defense of the United States, and stop being the policeman of the world.

The foreign policy of Ron Paul is a foreign policy of noninterventionism. In a speech on the House floor several months before the United States invaded Iraq, Paul made his case for a noninterventionist foreign policy of peace, prosperity, and liberty:

A proper foreign policy of nonintervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade, and open travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas.

We should avoid entangling alliances and stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations — no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances that we should avoid include the complex alliances in the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO.

The basic moral principle underpinning a noninterventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on nonviolence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risks financially and militarily.

Ron Paul is merely echoing the foreign policy of Thomas Jefferson, who said,

No one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another.

We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe.

I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment.

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.

A noninterventionist foreign policy is a policy of peace, commerce, travel, cultural exchange, diplomacy, neutrality, and free trade.

A noninterventionist foreign policy means no preemptive strikes, invasions, occupations, bombings, threats, sanctions, embargoes, foreign aid, assassinations, imperialism, meddling, bullying, regime changes, nation building, entangling alliances, spreading democracy, NATO-like commitments, peacekeeping operations, forcibly opening markets, policing the world, and no foreign military bases.

It is a sad day for America and Americans when not supporting an aggressive, belligerent, interventionist, and meddling foreign policy means that you are an isolationist.

Is Ron Paul isolationist?

Is France isolationist because its navy doesn’t patrol our coasts? Is Canada isolationist because it doesn’t have military bases below the 49th parallel? Is Germany isolationist because it doesn’t have tens of thousands of troops stationed in the United States? Is Brazil isolationist because it doesn’t kill Americans with drone strikes? Is Russia isolationist because it doesn’t build military bases in scores of countries? Is Moldova isolationist because it doesn’t send its soldiers to fight foreign wars? Was Ronald Reagan an isolationist because he pulled U.S. troops out of Lebanon?

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. It is practical, sane, moral, just, and right. It is the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers — and Ron Paul.

Originally published at The Future of Freedom Foundation on January 17, 2012.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Is Ron Paul an Isolationist?