philipsantamaria
09-20-2007, 08:49 PM
Dear Editor,
My name is Philip Santa-Maria. I graduated with degrees in English and Sociology/Anthropology last spring. I am in my first semester at FIU College of Law.
My comment is about the U.S. Presidential Race. More specifically, it is about the notion of bringing peace socially and economically on a global scale.
When I first heard Obama speak on energy policy, I thought this was a clean candidate, with bright ideas not spoiled by special interest groups. And, I have to admit, he's a great charismatic speaker. There is no doubt about it.
It seems to me that many supporters of Barack Obama like him because he is a "peace" candidate. He is passionately critical about the Iraq war which sets him apart from other Democratic front runners who have on many occasion “flip-flopped” on the issue. So it is understandable how he has been able to rally the university crowd, and the anti-war crowd.
Of course Obama is not anti-war. He has stated many times that he will act to defend this country if and when attacked, a noble and proper sentiment. So one would gather that aside from catching America’s most wanted terrorist, Obama would technically be a non-interventionist, that is, someone who only declares war when absolutely necessary.
I think enough time has gone by to realize that this isn't the case. What good is it to get out of Iraq if we have commitments with France and Israel to preemptively attack Iranian nuclear facilities with air strikes? What message are we sending to other Middle Eastern sovereigns if we say that we’ll come into your country with or without your permission? Like it or not, Islamic terrorism doesn’t end when Osama’s blood spills. So big deal, we catch Osama. He dies. This won’t stop the anti-American terrorism, and it won’t stop the conflict that has been going on in that region for centuries.
How will he unite Muslims and Jews in this country and in the Middle East if he completely supports AIPAC, the enormously powerful lobbying committee for Israeli foreign affairs? Like Vice President Cheney, Obama is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization whose stated goals include establishing a single world sovereignty. Obama has no plans on fixing the inflation problem, only creating more money out of thin air to fund federal programs which will lead to more inflation and ultimately a recession.
We need a candidate with the foresight to acknowledge these issues. We need a candidate who will understand that we have no right to occupy any country under any circumstances. This is in direct violation of liberty, our most precious natural right.
We need a candidate who is running on a platform that contains two essential policies: a non-interventionist foreign policy and a monetary policy not based on a fiat currency, but rather a currency backed on something finite. The coming recession will destroy the middle class and be extremely traumatic for the poor because of our fiat system propped up by the Federal Reserve, our central yet privately owned bank.
But I think one vital element is missing from the front runners on both sides of the isle. And without this element, I don't believe this country will make it another 50 years as a power. This element is a peace oriented non-interventionist foreign policy. This essentially means withdrawing troops from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq and Afghanistan, and Europe.
This foreign policy is costing us billions a year, billions that could be going to emergency funds, infrastructure, education, we could send it as foreign aid to Africa, or maybe even try to pay off our $9 trillion dollar debt. Instead, we rely on China and Japan to buy our debt weekly at the Treasury.
We shouldn't be involved in the internal affairs of other countries. We should trade and talk to them, and, if possible, be friends with them. We should follow Thomas Jefferson's advice, "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." This is a way to foster prosperity and friendship, instead of singling out countries as EVIL as our current commander often does.
Unfortunately, our foreign policy in the last fifty years has been detrimental to the Middle East, Latin and South America causing religious militancy, socialist uprisings, and immense anti-American fervor.
I think we can agree that the goal of the majority of the American people has always been to have peace.
Fortunately, there is a candidate who believes in peace. His name is Dr. Ron Paul.
My name is Philip Santa-Maria. I graduated with degrees in English and Sociology/Anthropology last spring. I am in my first semester at FIU College of Law.
My comment is about the U.S. Presidential Race. More specifically, it is about the notion of bringing peace socially and economically on a global scale.
When I first heard Obama speak on energy policy, I thought this was a clean candidate, with bright ideas not spoiled by special interest groups. And, I have to admit, he's a great charismatic speaker. There is no doubt about it.
It seems to me that many supporters of Barack Obama like him because he is a "peace" candidate. He is passionately critical about the Iraq war which sets him apart from other Democratic front runners who have on many occasion “flip-flopped” on the issue. So it is understandable how he has been able to rally the university crowd, and the anti-war crowd.
Of course Obama is not anti-war. He has stated many times that he will act to defend this country if and when attacked, a noble and proper sentiment. So one would gather that aside from catching America’s most wanted terrorist, Obama would technically be a non-interventionist, that is, someone who only declares war when absolutely necessary.
I think enough time has gone by to realize that this isn't the case. What good is it to get out of Iraq if we have commitments with France and Israel to preemptively attack Iranian nuclear facilities with air strikes? What message are we sending to other Middle Eastern sovereigns if we say that we’ll come into your country with or without your permission? Like it or not, Islamic terrorism doesn’t end when Osama’s blood spills. So big deal, we catch Osama. He dies. This won’t stop the anti-American terrorism, and it won’t stop the conflict that has been going on in that region for centuries.
How will he unite Muslims and Jews in this country and in the Middle East if he completely supports AIPAC, the enormously powerful lobbying committee for Israeli foreign affairs? Like Vice President Cheney, Obama is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization whose stated goals include establishing a single world sovereignty. Obama has no plans on fixing the inflation problem, only creating more money out of thin air to fund federal programs which will lead to more inflation and ultimately a recession.
We need a candidate with the foresight to acknowledge these issues. We need a candidate who will understand that we have no right to occupy any country under any circumstances. This is in direct violation of liberty, our most precious natural right.
We need a candidate who is running on a platform that contains two essential policies: a non-interventionist foreign policy and a monetary policy not based on a fiat currency, but rather a currency backed on something finite. The coming recession will destroy the middle class and be extremely traumatic for the poor because of our fiat system propped up by the Federal Reserve, our central yet privately owned bank.
But I think one vital element is missing from the front runners on both sides of the isle. And without this element, I don't believe this country will make it another 50 years as a power. This element is a peace oriented non-interventionist foreign policy. This essentially means withdrawing troops from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq and Afghanistan, and Europe.
This foreign policy is costing us billions a year, billions that could be going to emergency funds, infrastructure, education, we could send it as foreign aid to Africa, or maybe even try to pay off our $9 trillion dollar debt. Instead, we rely on China and Japan to buy our debt weekly at the Treasury.
We shouldn't be involved in the internal affairs of other countries. We should trade and talk to them, and, if possible, be friends with them. We should follow Thomas Jefferson's advice, "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." This is a way to foster prosperity and friendship, instead of singling out countries as EVIL as our current commander often does.
Unfortunately, our foreign policy in the last fifty years has been detrimental to the Middle East, Latin and South America causing religious militancy, socialist uprisings, and immense anti-American fervor.
I think we can agree that the goal of the majority of the American people has always been to have peace.
Fortunately, there is a candidate who believes in peace. His name is Dr. Ron Paul.