Ron Paul smeared by article from APEM - World Student Press AgencySubmitted by paulbot77 on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 11:30
"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!