Alternative to Establishment Foreign Policy PoliticsSARTRE, Contributor Essentially, both Democrat and Republican party elites are joined at the hip when it comes to protecting the military-industrial-security complex. The global interventionist foreign policy, that only protects the corporatists and banksters, endangers the unwashed citizens that are constantly used as cannon fodder. People should not be surprised, when blowback comes home to roost, as the result from such caustic imperial hegemony. The departure from our heritage is clear, when viewed from the historic wisdom of our inception as a country. The Case for an America First Foreign Policy by Ralph Raico, sums up well just how far down the rabbit hole the government descended. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. George Washingtons outlook thus involved three main principles. First, we would engage in mutually beneficial, peaceful commerce with the rest of the world, but forcing nothing, as Washington made a point of adding. Second, while trading with them, we would avoid entanglements in their political affairs and their quarrels with other nations. Finally, we would always remain strong enough to defend ourselves from attack. For background on Gary Johnson on his stand of the issues and a YouTube video, Gary Johnson Peace is cheaper. Gary Johnson on Foreign Policy, offers a short summary of his proposals. We can no longer afford to shell out billions in foreign aid Meanwhile, the federal government is spending us deeper and deeper into debt while we shell out billions in foreign aid we can no longer afford and trillions more for foreign wars in which our national interest is just not apparent to me. No foreign aid spending unless it protects U.S. interests Act in US self-interest, but wary of unintended consequences A: I think we should act in our self-interest. As I understand it, I think Eisenhower was a pretty good role model for that. Morally, you can justify almost anything we do by saying that were doing it for the sake of others. I would point to past realities that have unintended consequences. For example, by taking out [the secular regime in] Iraq, we removed a threat to [the religious totalitarian regime] Iran. Johnsons foreign policy viewpoints also include: Given trillion-dollar deficits, America simply cannot afford to be engaged in foreign policy programs that are not clearly protecting U.S. interests. There is nation-building and rebuilding to be done right here at home. Our military should remain the most potent force for good on Earth. To do this, we should resort to military action as the last option and only as provided in the Constitution. AMERICAN MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AFGHANISTAN SHOULD END, our troops returned home, and the focus of our foreign policy reoriented toward the protection of U.S. citizens and interests. Decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, American troops remain scattered throughout Europe. It is time to reevaluate these deployments. The U.S. must make better use of strategic alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests. AMERICA CAN ACHIEVE OUR FOREIGN POLICY GOALS without sacrificing American values. Individuals incarcerated unjustly by the U.S. should have the ability to seek compensation through the courts. Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes. For background on Virgil Goode and details on his stand of the issues and a YouTube view, Constitution Party Candidate Virgil Goode, presents an alternative to the establishment party line. Virgil Goode on International Relations: Virgil Goode on Foreign Policy: Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. Goode adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement: Foreign aid is often more harmful than helpful and should be curtailed. US military personnel should always be under US command. Foreign policy directly affects the ability to defend ourselves from attack. Even so, the sacred internationalist cannon that a global garrison presence is required to defend our own soil is harebrained. Fighting foreign wars, police actions or pre-emptive strikes are wholly outside our own self-interests, for so called victory, never enhances our own existential security. Few will vote for Johnson or Goode for a myriad of reasons. Excluding the destructive mainstream brainwashing tenet that only a candidate from the two clone parties deserves your approval, one needs to ask why the American public continually accepts an interventionist foreign policy and turns their back on the wisdom of our first President, George Washington? What is in the militarist machismo mindset that claims that every overseas adventure is a just war or any foreign intrusion is justified by making the world safe for democracy? Ron Paul articulated the viable criteria for forcing nothing. Johnson favors making better use of strategic alliances, which is more conventional than Goodes position, which sees no sharing of command within alliances of US military personnel. Both candidates recognize that foreign aid and/or nation building are dubious violations of Washingtons great rule of conduct as little political connection as possible. On October 23, 2012, a Free and Equal Debate will engage third party candidates. While none will be sworn in as the next President, several may well have better ideas than the country will be compelled to experience under from the next version of an approved and selected establishment administration. Original article archived here SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundits formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. SARTRE is the publisher of BREAKING ALL THE RULES. Contact batr@batr.org 