Ron Paul pulls another 'Rosa Parks' vote
"Ron Paul votes against human rights for Tibet"
http://studentpa.info/spip.php?page=message_apem
I emailed the student paper:
"You print an article about Ron Paul being the sole vote against the “human rights for Tibet”, but unfortunately you presented only one side of the story. Ron Paul is a compassionate champion of freedom and had one very good reason to vote ‘no’. It’s not Constitutional. If Americans felt that we should be the world nanny and police at the same time, then we should change the constitution to allow us to do that. I’m betting that this is the motivation for Ron Paul’s vote.You probably would have written a similar article when, in an analogous situation, he voted ‘no’ for Congress to give a medal to Rosa Parks. It’s simply not in the constitution for Congress to spend taxpayers money on this type of expenditure. But Rosa Parks was a hero in Ron Paul’s eyes, and he offered $100 out of his own pocket for the medal, asked the others in Congress to do the same but guess what? No takers. No surprise.You do your readers a serious disservice by printing such an article without providing both sides of the story. Would you please rectify this problem, for the sake of fair journalism?Thank you very much."
Wow Americans just don't get
Wow Americans just don't get it. Where do we get off thinking we can tell other countries what to do. We just don't have the authority. Also we need to stop our mass killings in IRAQ. Lets lead by example, stop being hypocrites.
Another Point
Ron Paul upholds the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits the U.S. Congress from making any law abridging the rights of those in Tibet or anywhere else. So such a resolution is not necessary with respect to the actions of the U.S. Their rights are already protected under our jurisdiction.
The rights that we humans have are inalienable. Ron Paul works to stop the U.S. from depriving ANYONE in the world of these rights to the degree that he has the duty to do so in his capacity as a member of Congress.
I'll let students respond to the article, but this is a point that could be made.
Afterthought: Hoping that some powerful benevolent entity will come in and save us must be a very common hope. I'm sure many hope the U.S. would exercise its power to their advantage, just as many of us hope that electing Ron Paul (or Obama or Hillary) will do the same.
How's that workin' for ya?
When Ron Paul talks about respecting the citizens of other countries to stand up for themselves and decide what they want, he really is respecting them and freeing them to free themselves.
IMissLiberty
IMissLiberty
Good For You
Great post, right on target. We need to challenge the conventional flawed logic at every opportunity, and roll this crap back.
Their headline is patently absurd. What Ron is voting against is our governments right to issue such statements in the first place. Totally went over the heads of the liberal crowd running that site. Perhaps we should suggest an alternative, more accurate headline:
Ron Paul Votes Against US Govt Meddling in Foreign Affairs.