Posted on 06/20/2009 2:43:51 PM PDT by GoldStandard
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 when 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.
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.
“I suppose it could well help cover up something much more sinister”
Socialism is sinister...
That’s sure enough true... though my reference was to something being pushed through now whilst our attention’s divided...
“What kind of ally permits fifteen of its citizens to commit mass homicide by slamming hijacked civilian jets into office buildings?”
Damn you rabscuttle. How dare you point out the obvious. Course you did miss one opportunity to rattle the cage. Like when no planes were allowed to fly except one. That would be the one carrying OBL’s family members out of the country to safety abroad.
So the question is, what sort of leadership would allow family members of a known terrorist, especially one who was a suspect in the murder of thousands of people, mostly Americans, and on American soil, to escape without even a debriefing? Surely one or more of them had a little insight to offer regarding their relative OBL.
Maybe it’s just me, but when someone commits mass murder like OBL orchestrated on 911, I would like to interview the relatives before flying them off to some safety net where interviews for discovery may or not be allowed.
Please bear with me. I am but a student seeking knowledge and truth. But if this flight occured as has been reported, then I can only begin to imagine the intelligence lost. The question then becomes, why was this allowed? If the answer is because the fed.gov couldn’t protect them, then I understand since the fed.gov can’t protect any of us from anything. Herein lies the dilemma since this entity continues to pretend and behave as if it is our only salvation from terrorism. Yet it couldn’t guarantee the protection of OBl’s relatives. So it swiftly got them the hell out of the country.
Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy and irony in this?
Transcript
AND NOW, FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America?s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
Totalitarian administrative absolutism is our new form of government though most are unaware of that...Our Republican Democracy ended as every preceding one did.
Romes Imperial asperations put an end to her Republic...This end of this Republic began with the centeralization of Government to Washington DC following the Civil War. We are no longer the United States of America that John Quincy Adams was addressing that July 4th in 1821.
Be well.
Bravo... VERY nice find! Thanks!
[i]Once again Ron Paul gets it right. Meaningless resolutions are do gooder feel gooder exercises which amount to nada.[/]
I agree. It’s interesting how we complain about all the U.N.’s resolutions, but when the Congress does it, well, that’s another ballgame. Congress needs to stop wasting our time and money.
Based on your own foolish statements throughout this thread, if left up to appeasing isolationists, such as yourself, the blood thirsty forces of the Axis would have enslaved the whole world.
ROTFLMAO...you mean to tell me that having a foreign policy that was advocated by the Founding Fathers is being “isolationist”? That choosing AMERICA FIRST is a slap in the face to the rest of the world? That protecting our borders, language, & culture is irrational & close-minded? That is what I am proud to say that I am.
So therefore, it's America's role to police the world, put our troops in harms way & base them on every continent & spend trillions of foreign aid $ in order to make sure that doesn't happen, correct?
Tell ya what...let's put this on an INDIVIDUAL level, rather than a federal one, OK? Starting TONIGHT, I am going to assign YOU the sole responsibility of protecting your neighborhood. Go out & start patrolling the streets, watching every house.
You say you can't afford to do it? Well, then....borrow the $ from your kids; I'm sure they will be glad to pay when the bill is due.
Your insane rantings reflect the illegal narcotic you promote. Recall this, nobody is above the law.
For I am NOT ashamed of my snoking of pot.
“...something being pushed through now whilst our attention’s divided...”
So was I. And that something is socialism.
“.you mean to tell me that having a foreign policy that was advocated by the Founding Fathers is being “isolationist””
Don’t expect an honest answer to this question.
The legal and moral relativists in this forum don’t care about the law, the constitution, principle, original intent, the founding fathers, wisdom, truth, decency or anything sensible with regards to foreign entanglements.
I agree... but Zero’s been doing that since day one. I’m wondering what specific item’s being snuck through under cover of Iran...
Oh... and maybe we can all send at least a picture of a (Coke) Zero for Zero...
Well, if one happens to believe that our public institutions, media, government etc are infested some of the most wicked men (and women) ever to set foot on this planet, then just about anything is possible, isn’t it?
Exactly correct... I don’t hold that ALL of them are evil, per se, but the end result is the same if they hold their tongues when they should speak out... for it is well said that all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men (and women) to keep silent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.