Young Americans for Liberty

A couple Wake Forest YAL members are out abroad working on campaigns this summer. Nathan Fox-Helser is working on Mike Vasovski’s campaign, while I (Jared Fuller) am the Volunteer Coordinator for Adam Kokesh’s Exploratory Committee.

It really is amazing what the youth can offer campaigns; the field of liberty candidates really does need us!

Take for instance our tech-savvy attitudes. I recently donated to Adam Kokesh (yes, it was just a little) and uploaded it as my facebook picture. It may not be the most direct form of activism but that, coupled with our ability to engage others to do the same, is what really makes the difference.

So get out there, be a part of it! However you can!

fullja8 Campaigns, Uncategorized Kokesh, politics, Vasovski

During the election, no one drunk on the Obama cool-aid would have thought that he was the potential candidate who, if elected, would lead the US to war with Iran. However, every day that passes, a bit more of President Obama’s “peace candidate” shell is chipping off, and the real man who is at the head of our armed forces is coming more and more to light.

In a recent interview with Newsweek, Obama speaks about the possibility of confrontation with Iran. In response to a question about Iran and Israel, the president said:

I’ve been very clear that I don’t take any options off the table with respect to Iran…What I have said is that we want to offer Iran an opportunity to align itself with international norms and international rules. I think…that will be better for the Iranian people. I think that there is the ability of an Islamic Republic of Iran to maintain its Islamic character while, at the same time, being a member in good standing of the international community and not a threat to its neighbors. And we are going to reach out to them and try to shift off of a pattern over the last 30 years that hasn’t produced results in the region.

Now, will it work? We don’t know. And I assure you, I’m not naive about the difficulties of a process like this. If it doesn’t work, the fact that we have tried will strengthen our position in mobilizing the international community, and Iran will have isolated itself, as opposed to a perception that it seeks to advance that somehow it’s being victimized by a U.S. government that doesn’t respect Iran’s sovereignty.

President Obama, you can’t extend one hand to a country, inviting it to align itself with the international community, and with the other hand have a knife ready to plunge into its throat. What country on earth would respond positively to such talk? Essentially, the US is saying “We’re giving you a chance to show that you are not dangerous, and if you will not show us that you are not dangerous, then we will oh so unfortunately be forced to invade you.” Sound familiar?

Just after this, the Newsweek interviewer asked Obama whether he would discourage Israel from taking unilateral action against Iran. This was Obama’s response:

No, look, I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why. So their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute. They’re right there in range and I don’t think it’s my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are.

In other words - “Israel, it’s open season.”

The best part of the whole interview? Right after Obama made these statements - whose implications are enormous - here is the newsweek interviewer’s next question:

Were you surprised at how quickly your family became part of the cultural iconography?

There you have it folks. The investigative American media.

It’s enough to literally make me sick to my stomach.

engsem6 Uncategorized Barack Obama, Iran, Israel, Newsweek

Not many people have read a certain essay entitled “Renewing American Leadership” written by then-Senator Barack Obama in 2007. However, understanding his views on the use and function of the military may help give us insight into why the “peace candidate” is okay with killing dozens of civilians in air raids in order to kill a few suspected terrorists and has shown no intention of lessening our military presence in the Middle East.

Here are a few excerts from the 2007 essay. He writes:

…Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That commitment is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region — a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah…

…A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace…We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale…

…We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines…

And here is the kicker:

We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability — to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities. But when we do use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others — as President George H. W. Bush did when we led the effort to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991.

I would invite President Obama to consider that it is the very use of force in such situations that is the threat to global stability. But that’s a whole new conversation. Read the entirety of the essay, which goes into several topics not here discussed, here.

engsem6 Empire, Uncategorized Barack Obama, peace, war

The Declaration of Independence had two major purposes - to proclaim the states independent of British rule, and also to explain why these states had made such a declaration (”…a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requres that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

While many hands had some say in what went into this document, Thomas Jefferson’s was certainly the most heavy. Jefferson not only made a statement concerning the specific rational for separation with Britain, but also generally spoke of what actions by a government constitute the legitimate need for separation from it.

So what does this document mean for us today? Is it simply a dead piece of paper? Absolutely not. I concede that Jefferson may have simply invoked these universal principles to strengthen his argument. However, I am of the opinion that he invoked them in part for posterity, so that we might understand why these men did what they did.

Consider some of the statements Jefferson makes throughout the document concerning why independence had been declared:

…to secure these rights (of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed…

…whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government…

…when a long train of abused and usurpations…reduce(s) them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Aside from these general statements, consider some of the specific wrongs perpetrated by King George, and ask yourself if our government is not strikingly similar. For example:

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.

…For imposing taxes on us without our consent.

…For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury.

King George might find himself quite at home were he President of the United States today. The founders would expect nothing less than decisive action on our part in opposition to such a government, and this is exactly why organizations like Young Americans for Liberty and the Campaign for Liberty are so vitally important.

engsem6 Uncategorized

Curious?

engsem6 Education Mises, Mises2012, Rothbard

Oh my, it’s beautiful.

I’ve met Dr. Paul in person, and he’s one of the nicest men you’ll ever meet. But I can tell he just inspired some fear into everyone’s favorite Fed chairman.

engsem6 Uncategorized Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve, Ron Paul

Obama’s plan for more laws increasing oversight on pollution and other environmental issues is something that would not only be destructive to the American economy, but also not in the least useful in dealing with the real problem of pollution (see this article from the Campaign for Liberty). So what is the answer? The free market! Now more than ever, the free market is calling for green energy, and we have another example of that right here at Wake Forest University. Consider this article from the Winston-Salem Journal, of which the following is a segment:

…researchers at Wake Forest University are convinced that they have a formula for a catalyst that could lower the cost of producing biodiesel enough so that it could provide 5 percent of the nation’s needs.
“If we, as a nation, can do that, that’s enough biodiesel to replace the need for oil from a country such as Iraq,” said Abdessadek Lachgar, a chemistry professor at the university and one of two officials supervising the project along with Marcus Wright, a lab manager and investigator in the biodiesel work.
Biodiesel is a renewable, clean-burning fuel that also reduces tailpipe emissions. It depends primarily on feedstock crops.
One goal of the Biofuels Center of North Carolina is developing a statewide industry that would produce at least 10 percent of the liquid fuels sold in the state by 2017. According to the center’s Web site, 15 companies in North Carolina are working with biofuel, including one in the Triad — Gortman Biofuel LLC of Winston-Salem, which produces a 100 percent version of biodiesel.

Now granted, these professors may be using government grant money, I’m not sure whether they are or not. But that’s the big point here. The point is the number of private businesses that are investing in biodiesel! This investment by private business creates a market demand for research by people like these professors. The fact is that there is a market demand for green energy and green products. We don’t need the government coming in and forcing it down our throats! Of course, I am of the opinion that those in power don’t actually care about this market demand, all they really want is tighter control of the American economy, and they will use environmental reasons to claim the “moral high ground” to do so. If you are an environmentalist and you think that people like Obama are looking out for what you care about by planning tighter environmental regulations, think again. Your goal is less pollution and a cleaner environment, is it not? Then take a close look at which of these two systems actually promoted this. Obama’s plan would only send polluters elsewhere or create new anti-environmental lobbies, not only outsourcing more American jobs but also not in the least affecting the true problem of pollution. The only path to a truly better environment for everyone is market demand for such services, which can be promoted through more profitable environmental endeavors like biodiesel and education about environmental issues.

engsem6 Uncategorized biodiesel, environment, environmental policy

“It doesn’t make sense though,” my fairly apolitical friend said to me this morning. “Why would Obama want to hurt the economy by instilling fear into the people of the US?”

Last night, I got into a debate with this friend about the government’s overreaction to the swine flu incidents. She asked this question after seeing an article on the Web site of our local paper, the Winston-Salem Journal, about how fear is spreading much faster than swine flu:

The swine-flu outbreak is unleashing a side effect that the global economy is in no condition to handle: fear…The threat of a pandemic comes just as the world economy is showing the barest glimmerings of what analysts say might be the light at the end of what remains a long, dark tunnel. And now this.

“This is just another negative shock when the economy can least afford another negative shock,” said Jay Bryson, a global economist at Wachovia Corp.

So far, fear of the flu is at least as responsible for the economic disruption as the disease itself.

This is a great chance to reveal the tactics of government to those who are on the line about the liberty movement. This is far from the first time that our government has tried to inspire fear via overreaction in order to gain more power. Just consider the rhetoric of Bush in the years after 9/11, stating that if we didn’t go fight terrorists in the Middle East, they most certainly would come hunt us down at home. Or, more recently, the words of President Obama, telling us that if the government does not act in response to the financial crisis, the results will be horrible, specifically saying that this is a “crisis that at some point we may be unable to reverse. We can’t afford to wait.”

That government gains power by inciting fear is a strong argument to make to those who are unsure of what to think about the government: Aren’t we smart enough to take care of ourselves and ask for help when we need it, instead of having the government mandate ridiculous overreactions to cases like the one we see unfolding before us? Thomas Hobbes was certainly right - fear is a powerful emotion. We should make sure that those in power are not able to use this emotion to threaten our liberties.

engsem6 Uncategorized Fear, swine flu, Thomas Hobbes

…or so says the Ludwig von Mises Institute in their latest Mises Daily, written by Clifford Theis, who asks a simple question - can states secede?

Theis gives a three pronged answer to this question, showing the inalienable right to secede, the international law of secession, and the US law of secession, all three of which give the following answer: YES.

Theis writes:

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America invokes the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that governments are formed to protect these rights and gain their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that when a government becomes abusive of these rights, it is the right - no, it is the duty - of the people to alter or abolish that government.

Read the article in its entirety here.

engsem6 Domestic Clifford Theis, Mises Institute, secession

Just a short 5 days after hosting Ron Paul on campus, Wake Forest Young Americans for Liberty went down to the Charlotte branch of the Federal Reserve to rally against the Federal Reserve banking Cartel. We’d prefer to not slow down at the semester’s end; we hope you won’t either! Oh, and also, Bernanke hitched a ride down there with us as well — in his proper attire, of course.

Additionally, check out our sweet T’s we printed up just for the event! Yeah, we’re staying hardcore to the movement.

fullja8 Uncategorized