This time around, he manages to make a rather eloquent and reality-based point, albeit in a generally unpopular and understandable way. In other words, he's taken a stand against the majority of leaders on both sides of the aisle, an unusual feat for any politician. As Bela Lugosi would have said, "You are saying something profound."
The House and Senate have both passed a resolution in support of the Iranian citizens rebelling against the recent elections, and condemning the government for its handling of the uprising. All in all, it is yet another useless feel-good act of legislation that does little more than give representatives an excuse to pat themselves on the back and make another country's struggle for freedom and justice in the face of oppression and adversity about them and their future political campaigns.
Ron Paul, being the free-swinging individualist that he is, wanted nothing to do with it. Not only did he say as much, he went on to express he feelings about our government's arrogance and hypocrisy on the House floor:
I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated whenI'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but I've always been somewhat of a fan. Not because I think he has all the answers to what ails our government, but because he tends to shine when it is him against the world, a character trait I am especially fond of. He could have just voted along with everyone else and voiced his disdain. He could have even voted "No" and simply said that he wouldn't back a useless resolution that benifits American politicians more than it does Iranian citizens.my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.
Image via Wikipedia
Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.
I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
Instead, he stood up called all of his fellow Representatives nothing more than spineless opportunists jumping on a bandwagon that they can safely ride to the next election cycle, while worthy causes that require more thought and dedication are abandoned and ignored on a regular basis.
Say what you like about Ron Paul's political aspirations, but I still like the cut of that man's jib.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=2b9052ac-964f-477b-9d06-5dc9122b6bc1)
No comments:
Post a Comment