Posted by Anthony Gregory on 06/03/09 5:10 PM   [Newer: The Latest Obstruction to Fed Transparency ] [Older: Ron Paul Interviewed By Scott Horton on the Economy]

Ron Paul's Statement on H Res 489 Regarding Tiananmen Square, June 3, 2009:

I rise to oppose this unnecessary and counter-productive resolution regarding the 20th anniversary of the incident in China's Tiananmen Square. In addition to my concerns over the content of this legislation, I strongly object to the manner in which it was brought to the floor for a vote. While the resolution was being debated on the House floor, I instructed my staff to obtain a copy so that I could read it before the vote. My staff was told by no less than four relevant bodies within the House of Representatives that the text was not available for review and would not be available for another 24 hours. It is unacceptable for Members of the House of Representatives to be asked to vote on legislation that is not available for them to read!

As to the substance of the resolution, I find it disturbing that the House is going out of its way to meddle in China's domestic politics, which is none of our business, while ignoring the many pressing issues in our own country that definitely are our business.

This resolution "calls on the People's Republic of China to invite full and independent investigations into the Tiananmen Square crackdown, assisted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross..." Where do we get the authority for such a demand? I wonder how the US government would respond if China demanded that the United Nations conduct a full and independent investigation into the treatment of detainees at the US-operated Guantanamo facility?
The resolution "calls on the legal authorities of People's Republic of China to review immediately the cases of those still imprisoned for participating in the 1989 protests for compliance with internationally recognized standards of fairness and due process in judicial proceedings." In light of US government's extraordinary renditions of possibly hundreds of individuals into numerous secret prisons abroad where they are held indefinitely without charge or trial, one wonders what the rest of the world makes of such US demands. It is hard to exercise credible moral authority in the world when our motto toward foreign governments seems to be "do as we say, not as we do."

While we certainly do not condone government suppression of individual rights and liberties wherever they may occur, why are we not investigating these abuses closer to home and within our jurisdiction? It seems the House is not interested in investigating allegations that US government officials and employees approved and practiced torture against detainees. Where is the Congressional investigation of the US-operated "secret prisons" overseas? What about the administration's assertion of the right to detain individuals indefinitely without trial? It may be easier to point out the abuses and shortcomings of governments overseas than to address government abuses here at home, but we have the constitutional obligation to exercise our oversight authority in such matters. I strongly believe that addressing these current issues would be a better use of our time than once again condemning China for an event that took place some 20 years ago.

Heroically, he stands up for non-intervention and against hypocrisy on this resolution that passed 396 to 1.

Posted 06/03/09 5:31 PM gmassi001 Des Moines, IA

Dr. Paul makes me proud to be a part of C4L! Once again, He has stood up and spoken the truth! It will be a GREAT DAY in America when we have more Statesmen in the House of Representatives like Ron Paul, and a lot less politicians!

Posted 06/03/09 5:33 PM David Elton Seattle, WA

He was the only one that can see through this??? Preposterous! This is a microcosm of why the world hates us. We walk around on this self-proclaimed moral highpoint, and then we turn around and completely contradict it, but that doesn't stop us from pointing fingers. Who's behind this thing? Why are they spending their time worrying about China? Makes no sense.

Posted 06/03/09 5:48 PM Isomies Mechanicsville, VA

Right on target, once again.

Posted 06/03/09 5:53 PM jnanzar Orem, UT

396 to 1, Dr. Paul makes me very proud to be part of this movement

Posted 06/03/09 7:18 PM tb54701 Eau Claire, WI

The Congress is full of hypocrites, or they absolutely just push the yes button on these types of votes,,,what a waste.

Posted 06/03/09 7:23 PM hash3m Seattle, WA

"...to meddle in China's domestic politics, which is none of our business, while ignoring the many pressing issues in our own country that definitely are our business." -Ron Paul Obviously, the U.S.A. government has no legal right or moral authority to rob citizens and spend the loot overseas. That's a given. But by what reason does Ron Paul claim that Congress have ANY legal right or moral authority WHATSOEVER?! I don't remember appointing any of them to represent me or to act on my behalf! This is an outrage!

Posted 06/03/09 7:23 PM JGLang86 Burlington, VT

I still can't swallow how many bills and resolutions are passed without congressmen even having access to read the proposed legislation. That is not democracy, that is not a characteristic of a free republic. I am a 22 year old white male with no college education and I can understand that easily. I wonder how many members of Congress would sign their employment contracts without reading them. If they had no idea how much they were agreeing to work for and what they can and can't do as congressmen. The belligerent hypocrisy exhibited by career politicians in this country brings tears to my eyes. Nothing is more insulting to me as an American to bestow the honor upon these men and women only for them to completely disrespect that honor in the manner with which they vote.

Posted 06/03/09 7:44 PM UP4Liberty Upper Pottsgrove, PA

I would rather be the one person with the perspective of TRUTH - than one of 396 who voted in favor of an UNCONSTITUTIONAL piece of legislation. Why do we continue to allow these a**holes to keep up this charade?

Posted 06/03/09 7:58 PM fadestyle Walnut Bottom, PA

what the heck is going on? why doesnt members of congress get sued for blatant hacking of the constitution? isnt violating the constitution a form of treason? they are the ones that took an oath to uphold it.

Posted 06/03/09 8:05 PM hash3m Seattle, WA

@fadestyle: "isnt violating the constitution a form of treason?" Isn't the constitution itself in violation of the natural rights of free individuals? Check out "No Treason. The Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner. He's witty, and right. No government has authority -- with or without a constitution. They are always a group of criminals who exercise power via the threat of violence. http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6

Posted 06/03/09 8:27 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA

Education and Ethics Wednesday, June 3, 2009 Human Rights Hypocrisy By The United States. China can easily condemn voluminous human rights violations by the United States. It is unfortunate that the world is confusing the United States (a Constitutional Republic) with the unConstitutional coup that has usurped all the vital duties assigned to the American Republic. As a consequence other nations like China can easily identify gross violations of international law perpetrated by the 'United States.' It pains me to hear the name 'United States' used when describing the economic terrorists that are in charge of the unConstitutional coup. It causes my stomach to sour when other nations point out the imperialistic destruction of life and property and liberty caused by the 'United States' all around the world. Added to the revulsion is the sickening hypocrisy coming from the mouthpieces of the unConstitutional coup - and forced down the throat of the pathetically weak Congress - condemning the violations of human rights in China twenty years ago.

Posted 06/03/09 8:38 PM TakeBackVermont Hartland, VT

Someone needs to pass a bill that requires a certain amount of time before voting on these bill so that the congressmen have time to read them! This is just absurd that they are shoved through like this. Like maybe a week, or at least 24 hours, during which the bill is published and available to all.

Posted 06/03/09 8:41 PM MrsKimBenton Jacksonville, FL

He just makes me thankful. One man willing to state the obvious in a room full of the oblivious.

Posted 06/03/09 8:55 PM yadranko Hong Kong, Hong Kong

This text puts me to tears and makes my stomach sick at the same time. I'm in tears because I've just read the words of a saint. And I'm in sick and in rage because of the means it was put to vote and ofcourse the outcome of the vote. What kind of congressmen have Americans elected to represent them, why do you put up with this hypocricy? I can't believe that that those men and women in Congress really represent the good, hard working, freedom loving American people. I'm starting to believe that nothing but a catastrophy and a revolution will save America.

Posted 06/03/09 8:59 PM NathanjBond Oviedo, FL

@hash3m: Why do you participate in this group? I'm glad you have so much faith in Lysander Spooner's wet dream, but nothing is perfect and people are rotten (whether in government or not). All we can do is do our best to make it better and fight our battles. There is no perfect ideology. Campaign for Liberty's premise is to get us back to constitutional government. If you think the constitution itself is such an abomination why do you chose to participate in this collective? I understand your unwavering dedication to complete and uncompromised individualist anarchism, but your pretentiousness is only counter productive by my account (not to mention exceptionally annoying). I actually enjoy these sorts of conversations that you seem to be constantly initiating, but this venue just doesn't seem like the appropriate place to me. I'm not saying this isn't a place for ideas, it plainly is, but it's also a place of action, and for action to be effective we need to be united by a goal. It seems to me, it's a goal you don't yourself believe in and I have to question whether you're helping us or hurting us. I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm just asking the question. Then again maybe it's just me, I never really post here, I'm not trying to make an enemy, I'm just a regular fellow. whatever.

Posted 06/03/09 9:10 PM TimWhite Cheshire, CT

This is why i LOVE ron paul!

Posted 06/03/09 9:28 PM rjweaver402 Thomasville, NC

I agree with you NathanjBond. hash3m, when I read over what Lysander Spooner wrote, it occurred to me that his arguments for how seemingly terrible the Constitution was, are very relative to his OPINION on in no way make what he says true. Especially the first part concerning the Constitution dying along with those who created. Also, his assumption on the very first sentence about We, the people of the United States, is about as weak and relative as it gets throughout his piece. Spooner makes more bogus connections and assumptions than I have ever seen by any body, concerning the Constitution. He would be perfect for today's time and would most certainly have been #1 on any past or present Presidential cabinet, especially in by current standards. If you agree with Spooner, that is your right, not only given by God (which I am in no way saying you should believe in God or whatever), but also by our Founders through the Constitution. You shouldn't be rideculed for it but, I wonder, why you are interested in being on here, aside from providing a different view? No one person in this world is perfect but I have to say, in my opinion, that the Constitution was about as good as you could have gotten in a founding document.

Posted 06/03/09 10:07 PM sean57 Hollywood, FL

Those 396 representatives need to lose their jobs. Period. I look forward to the 2010 elections.

Posted 06/03/09 10:48 PM Fritz Elgin, SC

Another page written for A Foreign Policy of Freedom! Not only as Dr. Paul points out, that it is ridiculous to be voting on a bill before it can be read as well as illegal and hypocritical to be castigating China about its human rights history, it is also laughably stupid to be doing this at precisely the time the current administration is prostrating itself and our country in front of the Chinese to get them to keep buying our debt. Also, why in the name of our national sovereignty are we invoking the United Nations on this or any other resolution? The whole thing is just asinine! That Dr. Paul was the only 'no' vote on this bill is not surprising but still extremely disheartening nonetheless. And the band played on ...

Posted 06/03/09 10:50 PM BrendonDeMeo North Chelmsford, MA

Yadranko, I know. The pain you feel is the burden freedom loving American's must carry just as the Founders did, because things have gone too far. It's hardly better than colonial British rule. The Constitution is openly ignored, it is irrelevent to the politicians on both sides of the isle save ONE man, and 396 Congressmen need to go. I used to think there were some good men and women in congress and if we only get rid a lot of the bad ones we were fine. Now I realize that just about all of them must go. The same with the senate, and the method of electing senators and presidents we onced used must be restored.

Posted 06/03/09 11:00 PM MRoCkEd Cheshire, CT

Hero

Posted 06/03/09 11:06 PM kingramon0 Rochester, NY

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." (John Quincy Adams)

Posted 06/03/09 11:25 PM DanSteely rochester, NY

Who is the genius that came up with this one? He should have sent a copy of his proposal with Geitner to use in his stand up act over there. I'm sure they would get a kick out of it.

Posted 06/03/09 11:26 PM BillNM Carlsbad, NM

I think hash3m is here because we are about as close as he is going to get to folks that are apt to understand his position. I don't know if he is looking for the ideal but unattainable society or not, but will read his recommended literature and see. People muck stuff up and that makes for bad situations. As the Apostle Paul said in speaking of the Mosaic Law, "The law was spiritual, but became weak when mixed with the flesh." In other words, people screwed it up. And people have screwed up the best of our principles as well. This resolution is just one more incident of people mucking stuff up.

Posted 06/04/09 02:48 AM Two-if-by-Sea Wakefield, MA

what bothers me here is that i always read on this site and elsewhere how Ron Paul is starting to gain recognition; how HR1207 gains so much momentum; how the GOP is returning to its libertarian roots- and then you get a classic "Dr. No" scenario where Ron paul is the only guy who says no! where are all the supposed ron paul sympathizers? i guess washington hasn't changed at all and i've had a valuable lesson learned in beieving that it had for even a second.

Posted 06/04/09 05:53 AM Cantator Findlay, OH

@Two-if-by-Sea: It's sad, isn't it ? When I watch Dr Paul's excellent statements to Congress I often wonder how many Congress critters are actually there hearing him (I don't dare suggest that they're actually *listening* to the great man). Not many, I think. And after all, they don't go to Washington to get any wiser, that's fairly evident. <rant> Yesterday I received a notice from my bank. They're raising the interest rate on my credit card because my account isn't profitable enough for them. I've been making payments ten times the size of the minimum, thinking I was doing a good thing. Ha, the joke's on me. Now I'm compelled to pay off the whole amount this month, just to avoid the rate hike. I should have borrowed from the Mob. </rant>

Posted 06/04/09 07:08 AM hash3m Seattle, WA

@Nathanjbond: I participate here because I believe limiting government is a noble step on the path to abolishing it. It's my conviction to remind people that limiting government is not the end, but a means to the end. No matter how you word it, government is an illegitimate group of criminal invaders, and if anyone should recognize this it should be a campaign supposedly for liberty. @rjweaver: Lysander was not the only person do demolish the social contract theory. Especially condemning were the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Cato Letters, Benjamin Tucker and ultimately Murray Rothbard. Obviously, the reason for limiting government is because it exercises power which is has no authority to. I say, government has no authority, no right, period. @BillNM: At least we're discussing now! Right? At worst, its better than seeing a page full of comments all reading "I'm a sheep. I blindly swallow anything labeled LIBERTY." I love discussing liberty because my knowledge is grounded in the most hardcore libertarians this side of the solar system. A movement requires ideas, honesty, and discussion to root out the inconsistencies. In that light, I'm one of the few active members here. It's funny to note too how I am practically the 1 out of 396 here, and how I tend to be the only one genuinely interested in liberty.

Posted 06/04/09 07:25 AM jwfox1965 Las Vegas, NV

"the reason for limiting government is because it exercises power which is has no authority to. I say, government has no authority, no right, period." - hash3m This is of course perfectly accurate, however LIMITING government is the very reason for the inception of the social contract (in our case the U.S. Constitution), the government has no authority until such authority is granted by the consent of the governed. Is the U.S. Constitution perfect? far from it, however I am hard pressed to think of anything in existence that is superior, that doesn't mean we the people can't come up with something better but until we can at the very least hold our government to the chains set forth in the existing Constitution we have little hope of devising and implementing something superior to it. The current state of affairs has taught me one thing, the biggest mistake that the founding fathers made when creating the document was that they failed to be specific and thorough enough when defining exactly which powers were to be granted to the federal government, however it's hard to fault them since being able to see 200 years into the future wasn't an ability any of them claimed to possess.

Posted 06/04/09 08:45 AM Spencer Rocky Mount, NC

I do admire the man's courage. It is interesting to comtemplate what honest historians will say 100 years from now about the behavior of our politicians. I have a rule. I vote for an incumbent only if he is a true Patroit. I'm 63 yrs old and have voted for only one incumbent in my life-Jesse Helms. I refuse to vote as if it is a popularity contest. I think more Americans are thinking the same way now and pray the trend continues.

Posted 06/04/09 08:53 AM treyfu Jersey City, NJ

"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth." - Gandhi

Posted 06/04/09 09:51 AM justinb Oklahoma City, OK

ronwroteemall, what on earth are you talking about? Nevermind, thank you for removing that ridiculous comment.

Posted 06/04/09 10:48 AM dignityofhumanity Albany, NY

Does anyone know how many bills have been voted on where Dr. Paul is the lone dissenting vote? There seems to be quite a few.

Posted 06/04/09 11:09 AM NathanjBond Oviedo, FL

@hash3m: I understand what you're saying entirely, and am naturally inclined to agree with your feelings, however I'm afraid ultimately I can't. I believe some level of government is a necessary evil, which OF COURSE is inconsistent with being a believer in liberty. I'll be the first to admit it. However, as I said before there is no perfect ideology. You're not the only person here "genuinely interested in liberty", I think a lot of the people here at campaign for liberty have probably read Tucker and Spooner, I Just think your end goal is different then the majority. Why? Well on my end it's because I think extremely tiny/limited government is about as good as it gets, flawed as it obviously is. Maybe that makes me a pessimist. Either way, I still think the forums would be a better place for this sort of stuff.

Posted 06/04/09 12:11 PM Champion Of Liberty Pembroke Pines, FL

Thank you Dr. Paul.

Posted 06/04/09 1:18 PM hash3m Seattle, WA

I understand we're getting outside the context of the original post, but until they open the mysterious gates of the forum to the mass bulk of their users, the comments section is all we've got. And I don't think its entirely unreasonable to discuss comments with comments... @jwfox1965: Ignoring that the social contract is an abominable beast of fallacies, and negating that even individuals who expressly refuse to consent still find themselves governed, it is true that the idea of the constitution was to limit government. But given that government is necessarily opposed to liberty, is it not also true that while limiting government as much as possible at all times, we can also focus on the primary goal of abolishing it? Consider the following: "...the State is not, and can never be, justified as a defender of liberty. For the State lives by its very existence on the twofold and pervasive employment of aggressive violence against the very liberty and property of individuals that it is supposed to be defending. The State is qualitatively unjustified and unjustifiable." -MR @NathanjBond: At least you admit the inherent dichotomy between liberty and the state, that's more than the director of operations here seems capable of. But I must object to your conclusion. There IS a perfect ideology, and it is perhaps the most simple: a society of voluntary exchanges of unmolested, just property rights. "And, of course, being in a society of voluntary exchanges, each man can enjoy absolute liberty...in a milieu of civilization, harmony, sociability, and enormously greater productivity through exchanges of property with his fellow men. Absolute freedom, then, need not be lost as the price we must pay for the advent of civilization; men are born free, and need never be in chains. Man may achieve liberty and abundance, freedom and civilization." -MR

Posted 06/04/09 2:26 PM ReturntheRepublic Valley City, ND

I think hash3m has the right of it. Liberty is essentially the ability to do what you want w/out harming others, and if you want to join some governmental structure you have the right to do that, but people who don't want to should not be forced into it. There was a great article on LRC on monday that covered this: http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff300.html Will that happen? Probably not in my lifetime. And I honestly don't think a completely anarchical society would work, at least not at our present time. Some one some where will try to get a group of people together to prey on others and those other people will band together for mutual defense essentially creating their own government. That's why I like the idea presented in the LRC article over pure anarchy.

Posted 06/04/09 3:06 PM hash3m Seattle, WA

@ReturntheRepublic: Ironically, Lew is a strict anarchist and one of the most consistent, fiercest opponents of the state today, greatly due to his close relationship with Murray Rothbard. Your theory of the violent group is indeed the most common objection to eliminating the state. I would love to challenge it and help change your mind if you are willing to talk through PM. Concerning the potential of complete liberty any time soon, consider this quote by William Lloyd Garrison on slavery (just switch 'slavery' for 'the state'): "Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

Posted 06/04/09 4:10 PM ticsani Boca Raton, FL

Same old nosey intervention internationalists trying to pass themselves off as, Oh so...pure and righteous! In other words, criticize all you want about some other gov't; just watch what you say about your own gov't policies. Political grandstanding by silly politicos locked in claptrap.

Posted 06/04/09 8:35 PM Sarah Denhof Grand Rapids, MI

Thank you again Dr Paul. This reminds me of a great quote... "If everyone's thinking the same, no one's thinking." 2010 is only six months away! Then they will see the full force of this campaign.

Posted 06/05/09 02:40 AM NathanjBond Oviedo, FL

@hash3m: The society of voluntary exchanges and unmolested property rights always sounds too good to be true, and in my mind it is just that. I think humans are too evil for me to believe in it entirely. The ideology may be consistent, but that doesn't make it work. On that note I agree with ReturntheRepublic. One thing I am curious about however, what "director of operations" here at campaign for liberty has you so agitated? That just seemed like a cheap shot to me. Let's hear the beef so he can defend himself!

Posted 06/05/09 06:31 AM hash3m Seattle, WA

@NathanjBond: If it seems too good to be true, then you probably don't know enough about it. PM me why specifically you don't think it would work, and I'll basically explain why you're wrong (in a nice way). The contractual society will work incredibly well, better than anything conceivable under government. In fact, Rothbard and others believed that ever since the Industrial Revolution, liberty MUST triumph eventually. "Absolute freedom, then, need not be lost as the price we must pay for the advent of civilization; men are born free, and need never be in chains. Man may achieve liberty and abundance, freedom and civilization." The state is literally, simply, a violent invading, murdering-stealing-enslaving "middle man". It's not only unnecessary, it is necessarily counter-productive to humanity. BTW I was referring to Director of Operations Andrew Ward. We've been talking through PM.