0 votes

Ron Paul smeared by article from APEM - World Student Press Agency

"Ron Paul votes against human rights for Tibet"

This article is an overt smear and does not even address the real reason Ron Paul would vote against this measure.

If you look at point 6 of Nancy Pelosi's measure:
(6) calls on the United States Department of State to fully implement the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002...

If you look at the actual text of the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002, you will understand why Ron Paul would vote against it. You can find it here: http://tibetanaltar.blogspot.com/2007/07/tibetan-policy-act....

The Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 is riddled with millions of dollars of appropriations, both explicitly and implicitly stated in the text of the Act. Here are some selections from the Act:

"To authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2003, to authorize appropriations under the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for security assistance for fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes."

"(c) Tibetan Refugees in India and Nepal - Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a), $2,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 is authorized to be available for humanitarian assistance, including food, medicine, clothing, and medical and vocational training, to Tibetan refugees in India and Nepal who have fled Chinese-occupied Tibet."

"The Secretary should make best efforts to establish an office in Lhasa, Tibet, to monitor political, economic, and cultural developments in Tibet."

"take all appropriate steps to ensure adequate resources, staff, and bureaucratic support to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Special Coordinator."

These are just a few of the items that stick out of the Act. The Act is worded very generally and there is a lot for interpretation, which means that this Act could cost US taxpayers unknown millions of dollars, much more than is explicitly referenced in the Act.

Ron Paul was against this measure because he rightly believes that the US Constitution does not give the government the power to redistribute your taxpayer dollars in the form of foreign aid, no matter how "well intentioned" it may be.

The author of the APEM article took the opportunity to smear Ron Paul by stating that Ron Paul's opposition to the measure must mean that Ron Paul does not believe in Human Rights for Tibetans. As a strict believer in the Constitution, Ron Paul is a defender of Human Rights, but defending the Human Rights of Tibetans does not mean you have to violate the rights of US taxpayers by redistributing their taxes in the form of foreign aid.

Unfortunately, the article on APEM does not accept comments, so I am unable to post this information to the article. Please redistribute this information as you see fit. Thank you!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


UPDATE II: Congressman Paul’s Communications Director responds:

"Congressman Paul voted against it for the same reasons he has voted against recent measures on Burma and Turkey. In keeping with his non-interventionist foreign policy positions, he feels it is not the place of the US Congress to be making statements such as these about other countries. The US Congress is charged with looking after the freedom of its own people. This is not to say he has no sympathy for the plight of Tibetans, or that private US citizens shouldn’t express their views on the matter. He feels it is just not the role of Congress or the government to do so."

Rand Paul 2016 for Peace

the globalist poster child

I see that these zipperheads are adamant about the oppression in Tibet (hey, I am too. the globalist poster child, China, needs to cease and desist), but I wonder what their position is on American Imperialism.

"We don't have to start a brand new revolution...All we have to do is restore the original Constitution." -Ron Paul


"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy

I Wrote To My Congressman Today

I am very disappointed in your vote of support for the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002. The US Constitution does not give the government the power to redistribute your taxpayer dollars in the form of foreign aid, no matter how "well intentioned" it may be. While the plight of Tibet is a humanitarian nightmare, we have enough nightmares of our own to deal with.

Please limit the fleecing of American taxpayers in the name of goodwill. It is bad enough that the American people have their incomes forcibly reduced by an unconstitutional income tax, but it is far worse that we continue to try and force our will and democracy onto other countries. We ought to mind our own business and continue to focus on the American agenda and not meddle with other affairs.

Thomas Jefferson put it best in 1799. Jefferson wrote, “I am for free commerce with all nations; political connection with none; and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe (or for today Iraq, Iran, China, Russia, etc.); entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance...” In his first inaugural address (1801), President Jefferson urged “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” He held this view throughout his life.

Jefferson was one of the fathers of our Constitution and each political office is takes the oath of office. The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

Why do so many in our government refuse to acknowledge the Constitution?


Razorwind Studios is an official endorser of Ron Paul, and we will live free or die! 14th alternate to MN state!
Look at it again. They put in two updates at the bottom. The second one tells Dr. Paul's point of view.

Wow, responsible journalism, imagine that!

I'm glad to see them follow up and actually post updates to the article. I just wish they had gotten a statement from Ron Paul's staff before they posted the original article. That would have been more objective journalism, instead of the hit-and-run job they originally posted.

The Way I See It

It is China and Tibet's problem, not a problem of the US. None of our money should be used for either side of their problem, just as none of our money should be used for the war in Iraq. Too many times our stolen wages, otherwise known as taxes, are used for purposes beyond the interest of everyday Americans.

It could be used to pay down our national debt, help to secure the frauds of Social Security or Medicare. I think the best idea was one that Ron Paul has suggested which is to leave the money in the hands of the people and not force these taxes in the first place.

The problem is one of China and Tibet and the US should keep its nose out of others problems. Support the Constution, support Ron Paul.

when I see that one or only

when I see that one or only a handful of people vote for or against something, my first instinct is never "Oh my God, those must be terrible people who don't care about others..." My instinct it, "Why did they vote that way? They must have some sort of reason for voting the way they did. Instead of criticizing these people without knowing their reasoning, I'm going to find out why, or at least not judge them.

follow the money

Well said, voice of reason! However, most people aren't like you and I and don't read more into the subject. Many readers of this article would now believe that Ron Paul doesn't care about Human Rights.

If anyone understands Ron Paul's position on foreign aid, then with a quick read-through of the Act these appropriations will standout like a sore thumb. Even with these "moral support" resolutions, somebody always benefits monetarily, otherwise the bill would never see the floor because it would not be lobbied for. You can always get down to the truth of the matter by "following the money".