Ron Paul on the House Iran Resolution

Ron Paul spoke today against the House resolution on Iran.

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.

79 thoughts on “Ron Paul on the House Iran Resolution”

  1. Nice way to use only part of a quote to make your point. Martin Luther King was not refering to the world but only the US. Here is the full quote.

    "Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds".

    "Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]"


  2. Ron Paul is a freaking nut. Standing up for freedom and AGAINST oppression of a People by a clearly dictatorial government is what our founders DID.

    No one is advocating “interference” here.

    Ron Paul needs to get a clue, as do the Paulbots who blindly spout his particular brand of libertarian nonsense.

    1. Hey Alex…

      Don’t be naive.

      When was the last time our house issued resolutions condemning Saudia Arabia or Egypt? – Two of the most oppressive regimes on the planet who the US government happily supports and funds. This has NOTHING to do with standing up against oppression. Also your analogy of our founders standing up to England and our politicians issuing “resolutions” on a goverment which we have no formal ties is nonsense. The Iranian elections are the business of Iranians. Period.

      Yet you say our House is “standing up for freedom” – get real.

    2. Alex Hamil, you need to read some history. Our founding fathers were clearly against intervention in other nations. “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto”. Thomas Jefferson. There are also hundreds of other examples of how they believed we should keep our nose out of other nations business.

      “No one is advocating “interference” here”. Are you nuts. They are advocating interference every time they do anything.

      I’ll ask you the same questions I ask every interventionist, Why is this any of our business? How will this intervention help anything? Where in the Constitution does it say that congress has the authority to condemn any other nations actions?

      When we invaded the nation of Panama we were condemned by almost every nation on earth. Including the UN and the Organization of American states. What good did this condemnation do? Did it stop us or change a thing, no it didn’t.

      We are constantly sticking our nose in everyone elses business without taking a hard look at our actions which have been much worse. It’s this arrogance that is making us enemies around the world. This is why these and other proposals like this do more damage than good. They simply point out the level of hubris and hypocrisy that exists in our nation.


      1. Brad: You missed the point, and are deliberately mischaracterizing me, as well as Jefferson. NO interference is contemplated here. Just an expression of principles. (You know what those are, right?) Jefferson spoke out for liberty here and elsewhere. Read up, sport.

        1. I did not mischaracterize you in any way, nor did I miss your point it’s fairly clear. It’s also obvious that the only history you know came from gradeschool or some other brainwashing instituit. Yes I know what principles are and so does Ron Paul that is why he votes the way he does. Make an intelligent comment or at least try and answer a few of my questions and you may start a debate. Otherwise you just come off as yet another ignoramus. I made a clear case for why I am agaist this resolution and you have done nothing to refute my statements in any way.

          Sticking our nose in anyones elses business is interference, and simply leads to more and more interference. First come the condemnations that lead to yet more sanctions (that hurt the people of Iran) and then the calls for war start. If you don’t know that this is how things work you have been living in a bubble.


    3. If you think the United States doesn’t interfere in other countries then you are not playing with a full deck.

    4. Hey ding dong, don’t you know your government masters are spending over $400,000,000,000 to bring down the government of Iran? Don’t you know your tax dollars are being used for selected assassinations and the killing of civilians? Now you tell us who the terrorists are.

    5. Why is it that you Amerocons feel the need to tell everyone on the planet how to live their lives? Considering what a mess you’ve made of your own country and other people’s country the least you could do is shut yer pie hole!

    6. So you KNOW the complete situation in Iran? How? It has already been shown that the BBC perpetrated a fraud by showing the photo of a pro-Ahmadinejad rally, cropping him out of it, and representing it as an anit-Ahmadinejad rally. What else do we “know” that ain’t so?
      Ron Paul is right, again. Our Congress has no business supporting one side or the other in a foreign dispute that we do not understand.

  3. Why isn’t Ron Paul president?

    Wiser words couldn’t have been spoken here.

    Perhaps Iran’s parliament should issue their own resolution telling the US House to “butt out.”

    I’m also disappointed that Justin Raimondo cannot connect the dots in his last two articles. All of the signs are there: another “color-coded” revolution, English “protest” signs in a predominently Farsi speaking nation, The media “mistaking” some of the rallies for the incumbent for the opposition, not to mention the 400 million spent by the CIA to destabilize Iran. Not just Sy Hersh, but Scott Ritter has also be writing on the attempts to destabilize Iran for years (I remember he stated that special forces were already in the country sowing discontent). I’m disappointed because I’m accustomed to Justin being sharper than this.

    All this talk in the media and progressive blogs about “Democracy” and “Human Rights” is just window-dressing as far as the American elite are concerned. The Americans want the Iranian regime out because they want another Shaw who’ll kiss the emperor’s ring and play nice with Israel. They could care less whether a young pro-western Iranian student can walk down the street in shorts or not.

    Let’s not kid ourselves.

    1. Right on R.C. Freedom Liberty and Demorcracy are being used as a Red Herring, plain and simple.


    2. Why isn’t Ron Paul president?

      The two best answers to that question I can give are:

      1) The system that “elects” presidents is hopelessly corrupt and too firmly controlled by the very Establishment that Ron Paul so firmly fights against that it will NEVER permit anyone outside of its grasp to sit in the Oval Office.

      2) Something approaching a majority of the Amoricon sheeple are too ignorant and unprincipled to either elect or tolerate a president of Ron Paul’s caliber and principles and thus are suffering under the corrupt, brutal, criminal regime that they fully deserve.

      I’m leaning toward number two as the most likely explanation.

  4. Sounding as he usually does like a dental patient after having inhaled nitrous oxide, the Clown Prince of Futility holds forth yet again. When will it be that this schmegeggie finally catches on? No one that runs the police state/kleptocracy of which he’s a functioning part has any interest whatsoever in what he is saying. In the few places he’s noticed, he’s entertainment. Ron Paul would likely have more interest to the United States Congress as a Medicare patient suffering from incontinence than he does as a Congressman. The matters that concern him – war, privacy, etc. – have proven utterly impervious to change and for him to persist in the belief that they won’t in the future simply defines the egoism that has so long characterized the man. As a group, those college sophomores besotted with the psychopathological religion of libertarian “liberty”, the content with which they individually invest the term notwithstanding and there are many such contents, need form a charitable organization devoted to the project of recovering Paul from himself. It’s Grampa’s time for the Sun Room.

    1. Please don’t feed this troll. We have already been through this ignorance once this week and that’s more than enough. John the Moron go away and take your ageism with you.


      1. Yeah. Ignore all positions that are not your own. Hide in a bunker with your fellow tinfoil hat wearing scumbags.

        1. Sorry Alex Hamil but perhaps your new around here and that’s fine. But John has been on this Ageist rant all week (actually for over a year) and I think most of us are sick of it. I know I am. John has already refused to debate me on any subject as he has lost every time.


    2. “have proven utterly impervious to change”

      It is good to know you’ve given up so easily. The Empire thanks cowards such as yourself for their unflinching support and perceived inevitability of its policies.

      And I am sure I am not the only one who sees John Lowell, fart-smelling establishment sycophant know-nothing that believes in nothing but his own hubris and therefore stands for nothing, complaining about the ego of another.

      What a caricature he is, a hollow shell of a person. Completely empty of critical faculties, replaced with his sweet sweet sweet smelling farts.

      1. "It is good to know you’ve given up so easily."

        How absolutely fitting, its Chris of the olefactory Chrises. :-)

        Why yes, indeed, son. I fully suspect that it's time for those with your viewpoint to – how might we say – wake up and smell the farts?

    3. You keep making (among other things) crude references to Mr. Paul’s age. Do you expect to escape old age? You plan on dying young.

      1. Oh, there’s something of an entitlement here, actually, Andy. Paul and I are very roughly contemporary. In my view there is nothing particularly noble about watching someone with Altheimer’s walking about on a country road convinced he’s only minutes away from his city apartment. No less than this am I concerned with someone on the public payroll playing the common scold in circumstances where anyone not suffering from Altheimer’s would find acceptance in the inevitable. Parliamentary means will not bring about the changes Paul seeks. If he’s serious, he’ll need to fashion himself a pitchfork.

        1. I respect Dr. Paul for saying what needs to be said but I’ve felt for a very long time that he’s like the one lone non-cancerous cell in a cancer ridden body. The picture is all too absurd. Either he is a rational, moral, man speaking prophetically what needs to be said or he is a sock puppet there but for the entertainment of the corrupt ruling class so that they can shut up the yapping dogs crying for freedom with their philosophical “bones” tossed their way from time to time. It makes for sad theater but no real change. I believe for change to happen the people of the individual states need to recall their reps and senators, shut down the D.C. offices completely, fire the staff, and say “Its been nice but the party is over… Goodbye” Taking command of your destiny and telling the Feds to “F” off is the only way to put a stop to this. Until then its business as usual.

        2. You make a lot of criticisms John – but you don’t seem to offer any proposals or suggestions.

        3. “The picture is all too absurd. Either he is a rational, moral, man speaking prophetically what needs to be said or he is a sock puppet there but for the entertainment of the corrupt ruling class so that they can shut up the yapping dogs crying for freedom with their philosophical “bones” tossed their way from time to time.”

          There’s a third possibility: That he simply cannot understand how the United States of America might manage without the person and unique vision of Ron Paul. I have always been suspicious of his use of the Republican label, have felt that at core it was manipulative and dishonest and its here that I sense a certain egoism. If Bernie Sanders can label himself and run as an independent, why can’t Paul? Such a step might even legitimate Paul and his predictible hectoring. If Paul were not in some respect a self seeker, he’d more resemble Eugene Debs. I see none of Debs in Paul.

          “I believe for change to happen the people of the individual states need to recall their reps and senators, shut down the D.C. offices completely, fire the staff, and say “Its been nice but the party is over… Goodbye” Taking command of your destiny and telling the Feds to “F” off is the only way to put a stop to this. Until then its business as usual.”

          In my view the mechanisms are mass demonstrations and the general strike. The use of a constitutional remedy only reinforces the idea that there is some vestige of virtue in the present system. We need a new constitution and a wholly new way of doing things. And we can begin with the arrest and incarceration of the entire political/lobbying class.

        4. “he is a rational, moral, man speaking prophetically what needs to be said”, you should stick with that, it’s the real answer. Everything else you say is conjecture based on your own hard feelings, jealousy and prejudice. Everytime Ron Paul is mentioned you show just how bitter you are and it’s not pretty. On many other issues you seem rational enough but for some reason you have a totally unreasonable hatred of Ron Paul. Take a deep breath and a good hard look at yourself and you might realize what it is in YOU that drives this irrational behaviour.


        5. Brad. Are you commenting on Johns “comment” of my comment or is this directed to me? Inquiring minds wish to know. I believe there must be some confusion here.

  5. Whenever I see an vote that is XXX-1 I smile because I already know exactly who the one nay was.

    Anyone paying attention should already know near 100% of the time how Paul will vote before he even does, and why (that whole icky principles thing that politicians hate so much).

    You can look at a vote of 400+ to 1 and know immediately who the 1 dissenting voice was. How many other politicians can you say that about?

    1. It truly speaks volumes about the "character" of the majority of this nation's population that Ron Paul is the ONLY member of either chamber of the Den of Vipers on Crapitol Hill to consistently base his vote on the Constitution and the rule of law (natural law, that is, the sort on which the Founding Document is based, not the positivist pseudo-legal BS that has engulfed every aspect of our lives). That no other constituency in the nation has sent a principled libertarian to Rome-on-the-Potomac should stir feelings of stark, helpless horror in every liberty loving American. It is analogous to David the shepherd boy standing in front of the advancing Red Chinese People's Liberation Army armed only with a slingshot.

      I too have had my reservations about Ron in the past. I have wondered, for example, how it is that the Establishment Majority hasn't resorted to using the "dirty tricks" tactics against him that have destroyed so many other idealistic politicians' careers (or ended their lives) in the past. After some reflection, I have decided that the reason Ron is "allowed" (for lack of a better word) to continue on his current path is precisely because he is a minority of one whose ideas and influence are limited in their immediate impact. The Establishment must maintain at least the thin facade of "liberty" to prop up the sham of "democracy", at least for the time being. All of that could change, however, as the political and economic situation in this country continues to deteriorate and Ron's ideas, based on immutable and proven truths, gain serious traction and are picked up by other candidates for elective office who successfully get themselves elected. This is the point at which things could get dicey for liberty loving politicians who, like Ron, strive to reclaim the America of the Founders.

      One lone Ron Paul the Establishment can tolerate. Five or six (or more) represents a threat to their power that will almost certainly prompt some genuine ugliness that will tear the mask off and expose the current Kleptoplutocracy for what it really is. I sincerely hope that I'm being overly pessimistic and paranoid, but current trends (and past history) don't seem to offer encouragement.

  6. Whenever the US governement and congress show soliderty with the people of a nation ,I start worring about what’s being planned for them!

    1. Me too. This resolution sure will come in handy when making the case to bring Freedom and Democracy to Iran…

  7. “The BBC has again been caught engaging in mass public deception by using photographs of pro-Ahmadinejad rallies in Iran and claiming they represent anti-government protests in favor of Hossein Mousavi.

    An image used by the L.A. Times on the front page of its website Tuesday showed Iranian President Ahmadinejad waving to a crowd of supporters at a public event.

    In a story covering the election protests yesterday, the BBC News website used a closer shot of the same scene, but with Ahmadinejad cut out of the frame. The caption under the photograph read, ‘Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi again defied a ban on protests’.

    The BBC photograph is clearly a similar shot of the same pro-Ahmadinejad rally featured in the L.A. Times image, yet the caption erroneously claims it represents anti-Ahmadinejad protesters.”


    BBC Caught In Mass Public Deception With Iran Propaganda

    (This is was just a little honest mistake by the BBC–much like that whole Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq affair.)

    1. I rarely watch any MSM but I was curious to see their spin and they were doing the same thing on all the major channels. Big surprize right?


    2. BBC “lie and fabricate” something? Horrors! Sounds like a replay of Kosovo, Iraq and now…?

  8. At least they’re discussing a subject that could blow us up in the future rather than which pampered, overpaid athlete shrunk his penis in 2003.

  9. Man, tinfoil hat nuts are here in droves. “why are the signs in English”? Gee I dunno, maybe because Iranians LEARN MANDATORY ENGLISH IN GRADE SCHOOL, have all their public signs in English/Farsi, and because English is a universal language?! We are all aware many Neocon NGO’s tried to put money into anti-regime groups and tribes in Iran, no questions there, but are you guys seriously implying this whole revolution going on is because of some money our government threw into Iran? Does anyone have any evidence that Mousavi is taking backdoor funds from the Endowment for democracy? Is every person in the streets of Tehran a spy for the USA? I mean for crying out loud, Juan Cole at his site/blog has not only documented the election fraud brilliantly, but Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri (practically 2nd to the Supreme Ayatollah himself) has said himself that the elections were a fraud! Are we now gonna now accuse him of being on the CIA payroll? And like many said a few days before, the Neocons want Ahmadinejad so the Iranian nation can continue to be demonized, but then now you guys are saying the opposition is the one the neocons want?! So which is it? This is sounding to me like those conspiracy theorists who say if X happens, it proves their accusation, but they always have a backup accusation in case Y happens, either way the ball falls they have some justification for their conspiracy. And lastly, has it ever occurred that maybe, just maybe, the Iranian people are actually able to pull off a revolt against the government without outside US assistance? You nuts are basically saying “no revolt today happens without some USA interference”. It reminds me of those guys who claim the pyramids were built by extraterrestrials, the unspoken point being that the Ancient Egyptians were too stupid to make them on their own. It’s an insult to the Ancient Egyptians and human intelligence. Face it people, the Iranian government staged a coup, the people are revolting, we should be happy for them, and Ron Paul is right in saying that they can do this without our interference. But remember, the government is the one that is not allowed to interfere because of principles and the Constitution. We as individuals have every right to suggest to the Theocrats in Tehran to pack their bags and GTFO!

    1. So, Jacob your saying that the US has not influenced or tried in any way to influence the vote or the way the media is handling this? I think what your missing is that most of us feel that it is not our business one way or another. The only reason we have for concern is the misuse of US money and influence. As an individual go for it do your best just leave me out of it.

      The one thing I would like to ask everyone who thinks it’s some kind of tinfoil conspiracy is this, will this resolution and media hype help diplomacy in any way? That is after all one of the main concerns of the young educated people of Iran (closer ties with the US). Doesn’t it seem even a little odd to you that we have a president who now claims to want closer ties with Iran and then all this media hype just happens? It seems very convenient to me. However, I am also sure that this is exactly the outcome our government was hoping for.

      If you have not gotten it by now I’ll try to make it as simple as possible, the US government’s intent is to destabilize the Middle East, for profits, for Israel and for empire. So far they have done a bang up job or would you disagree with that too?

      It’s also funny how anyone who questions the government in any way is a tinfoil hat nut job. That’s such a great point for debate. Great job attacking the man instead of the substance.


        1. Jacob what point are you talking about? the tinfoil hat nuts or that you suggest the US is not interfering? I also agreed with you in that you have the right to get involved, but not the government. That’s three points right there and other than some tripe about egypt and pyraminds that was about all you had to say.


      1. Media hype?

        On Saturday when this all started, CNN was showing a re-run of Larry King talking to the American Chopper dudes.

        On Tuesday when Rick Sanchez was making a cringeworthy defense of CNN’s coverage, he himself was talking on his program about “Do we know what we’re eating?”

        Tonight, as it approaches 1 pm in Tehran, with a showdown between the regime and People Power very much in the realm of possibility today, CNN is re-airing tonight’s Larry King (talking about Obama at the Radio and Television Correspondents dinner) and Anderson Cooper (something about marijuana, I didn’t stick around).

        1. Yes Jason Media hype, or do you not know what that means? I don’t watch much MSM but the morning before I wrote this it was the lead story on every channel. We do not spend this type of coverage unless the US is involved. When was the last time they covered the Canadian elections like this and they are right on our border. You are being purposefully ignorant of the facts. The only facts that enter your head must come through the main stream filter.

          Sorry but the US is interfering with Iran and has admited to spending money and even trying to destabilize the government. We have in the past destroyed their government and installed the Shah. We have also destroyed the governments of many other nations. So to act like it’s some type of tinfoil conspiracy is just willfull ignorance.

          You also ignored my questions after I commented on your points and then accuse me of not dubunking any of your points. I guess you believe if you have no defense its best to stay on offense.


    2. I think there are a significant number of Persians who do not like the Iran regime, including one of it’s architects that says things didn’t turn out as they were first idealized (Hossein-Ali Montazeri). Montazeri is no friend of the Neocons because he wants to develop nuclear energy. If the Iranian people want to try to create a freer society I wish them luck.

      I don’t know if there was election fraud. The majority of the Iranian people could be nuts. Americans voted for Bush twice and they tend to vote for similar people but who are better liars. It could be a universal human affliction. The big problem is the Iranian philosopher kings, the Ayatollah’s rule. They control the country not the Iranian President.

      I agree with Ron Paul. The US government has no business meddling in Iran. It would aid the Ayatollahs and drag the US into the mess even more.

    3. Jacob, if you have a point to make, why can’t you just make it without a lot of gibberish?

  10. Really great arguments from Congressman Paul on this issue!

    Exactly what will condemning or supporting either side in Iran accomplish? Not one thing, except to score points politically.

    Just more talk and saber-rattling from the Empire-lovers.

    Good job, Congressman Paul. Your consistency is refreshing.

  11. Alex Hamil you are completely out of touch with the world. The United States (THE CIA) has overthrown democratically elected leaders in the past in many nations, Iran being one of them. It was 1953, the CIA and MI6 from Britain formulated and staged a Coup d’etat against the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mosadeqq. This was our first covert operation against a foreign government and the whole reason was Iran’s oil. The concept of BLOWBACK (BOOK BY CHALMERS JOHNSON) was developed from the negative consequences of this US intervention in Iran in 1953. So yea, it is safe to say the United States is somehow involved in this election in Iran.

    The CIA has staged revolutions and military coups on more than one occasion.Panama, Guatemala for example. Now that you know this, stop posting nonsense about Ron Paul he is a brilliant man who is trying to save our country and return it to a republic.

  12. I tend to like Mr. Paul and have a lot of respect for him. He is sincere in his beliefs and he believes in the Constitution. But I think he is getting carried away. Here he goes too far. As Martin Luther King has so eloquently said, “An injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice EVERYWHERE.”

    1. Does that include the countless injustices inflicted upon the Palestinians too Tim?

      1. Don’t be silly.

        Middle Easterners who support the American Empire are freedom-loving democrats and deserve US support.

        Middle Easterners who stand in the way of the American Empire and its settler colonial ally of Israel are not and don’t deserve US support.

        This is elementary logic 101.

      2. Yes Andy it sure does. The countless injustices perpetrarted against them by their own leaders, by their fellow Arab states that have used them as pawns, and yes by Israel too.

    2. That sounds all good and fine but someone I know tossed this line my way some time ago when we argued over American diddling in Iraq. He burbled something to the effect that if there is a fire and We, meaning the USofA, are firemen, then we must put out that fire! I was stunned by the wide eyed stupidity erupting from his gaping maw. I thought about this for a moment and realized that when I pay taxes for my “local” fire department I expect them to put out fires here at home and not on the other side of the planet and then bill me for it! Dammit!

  13. “It is Ayatollah Khomeini’s boys versus Ayatollah Khamenei’s boys. As Obama observed, in policy terms, there is no great difference.” quotes Pat Buchanan on here. He and Ron Paul are right on this one. The US has its neck full in Iraq and Afghanistan, then there is limited success in North Korea when the US is in real massive debt. We can watch it, and understand it but in the end it is not wise to seen as people pushing for it.

  14. Here is the resolution and why it’s such a joke.

    The House of Representatives expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law; condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

    “The House of Representatives expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law” Which of course mean the opposition, so conversly anyone else is against the rule of law freedom, human rights, and civil liberties. Isn’t that nice vote for the wrong side and you hate freedom and you won’t be embraced (like they care).

    “condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the government of Iran and pro-government militias” However, the violence done by demonstrators who break the law is fine and dandy. Like we would put up with that for even one second.

    “as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones” Of course the fact that we have a MSM that is pure propoganda should never be condemned. Also forget that we already have plans to shut down the internet in times of emergency.

    “and affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections”. Forget that we bomb people daily, torture, hold without counsel etc. and of course have our own rigged elections.

    Like always it’s do as we say not as we do. Rank hypocrisy pure and simple!

    403 hypocrits and one honest man. Well Ron Paul, keep up the good work. We all know your stuck in a peanut gallery but we are listening and we will help you wake up the rest of the country if we can.


    Please also note the wording and how it’s one big sentence. So basically if your an Iranian and you won’t condemn your government then forget our support.

  15. The fact still stands that:

    1. Overwhelming evidence shows the President and supreme Ayatollah of Iran are engaged in a coup
    2. Whether or not any foreign money or intelligence wanted to destabilize Iran, what we are seeing now is way out of their hands and in the hands of the Iranian people (The govt can’t even run the post office, you seriously think they can overthrow Iran?)
    3. Ron Paul and President Obama are correct in keeping the US out of this since the Ayatollah wants any excuse to use foreign meddling.

    1. What overwhelming evidence?

      Nothing like people with no evidence of anything claiming it is overwhelming.

    2. Overwhelming evidence shows…

      Please provide the readership with links to this “overwhelming evidence.”

      Thank You

  16. Jacob…

    The US DID overthrow the Iranian government in 1953, so it’s certainly not as impossible as you make it sound. I think controlling the resources in that region are more important to them than running the post office (btw, not a good example as the US postal system is actally one of the services that actually runs relatively well!).

    A coup? Nonsense. At least in the traditional sense. In the case of Iran, a coup would constitute the overthrow of Khamenei and the Guardian Council NOT the ceremonoial presidency.

    The president of Iran does not control the Military, foreign and domestic policy or the security apparatus. A Mousavi victory would not change anything. Don’t you and the other protesters in the street know this? Mousavi, the incumbent and the other guys running all had to be hand-picked by Khamenei and/or the guardian council. IF any of these guys offered any of the change that the marchers would like us in the West to believe, then they likely wouldn’t even be allowed to run. These coup claims are silly since whoever holds the cermonial position of “president” will have little power to do much. Even the overly praised Khatami had no women in his cabinet. The Ayatollah and the Guardian Council would have none of it. Btw, what about the Iranian people who have been holding marches for Ahmadinejad? They consititute the Iranian people as well or don’t they? From reading various media stories (especially gatekeeper Juan Cole), you certainly don’t get this impression. I agree with you that we should stay out of it, not because of how the ayatollah may use it, but becasue IT’S NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS. As an atheist, I don’t care for theocratic governments at all, but nonetheless, it’s up to the Iranian people to get their own house in order.

    1. “A Mousavi victory would not change anything”

      So then why is the opposition being arrested and silenced?….

  17. Umfortunately that fool Moses dropped the stone tablet handed him by Jehovah and lost the eleventh commandment when he accidentally stepped on the burning bush. The fragment has been found by a Bedouin, named Ali roaming the Sinai, and it says, “Thou shalt mind thine own business.”

  18. The differences between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are essentially those between a populist and an internationalist. Ahmadinejad wants the oil wealth of Iran to be distributed mainly to the mass of the people (much like Saddam did in Iraq); Mousavi has more western attitudes -to join the international community, Iran must allow international development and globalism – i.e. the wealth of Iran must be allowed to “flow up and out”. Naturally, the western press sees Ahmadinejad as Hitler and Mousavi as Thomas Jefferson.

    1. Another difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is that of image. Ahmadinejad has a lousy haircut and a cheap suit (think Dennis Kucinich), whereas Mousavi has that chic, flowing look (think Hamid Karsai, figurehead of Afghanistan).

  19. Its always the chickenhawks, and neocons who are out in front in condenming others and wanting to do something to prove their loyalties.

    Where in the US Consitution is it written that the USA has the right to determine the RIGHT KIND OF regime for any nation? And if not satisfied not only spend billion of taxpayers dollars to undertake regime change but in the process have over 5000 of its military personnel die and some 100,000 crippled for life?

    The US at this time is facing massive unemployment, people are losing their homes, kids going hungry while the people and their lobbiest friends in DC are sending millions of dollars everyday of the year to Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey and others.

    And it seems that Ron Paul is the only voice qestioning the rationale of such decisions. I for one support Mr. Paul’s kind of America.

  20. Some Iranians are more skeptical about American’s motives. First of all America was responsible in overtrowing a democratically elected president during the early 50’s. Responsible in intalling the Shah that treated Iranian people more harshly than the mullahs. Supporting Saddam during Iran/Iraq war. Not too long ago McCain was singing bomb,bomb, bomb Iran? Democracy be damned that is just smokescreen. What IS really their motives?

    1. I think that the West is always looking for good dependable “bagmen” in the Mid East – guys who will take a bribe and deliver up their countries by keeping the locals subdued while western interests (oil companys, Israel, US military) can go about western business of looting or colonizing. We do have a first class bagman in Egypt now, and always have had one in Jordan. But that Islamic Revolution and Arab nationalism has screwed things up for the West. Iraq, Iran and Syria have come under the influence of these Muslim clerics or nationalistic populists who just can’t be bought. Iraq had to be straightened out the hard way and Iran may be worse. Israel particularly has run into bad luck. Netanyahou really needs a Palestinian stooge to step forward and make a deal selling out his own people. But, try finding a dependable stooge in Hamas.

    2. What the USA really wants, is not a “free” Iran (it had that in 1953), but one that will accept American hegemony and not defy the Israeli lobby. That is why countries like Saudi Arabia – rated the least free country in the world by FREEDOM HOUSE – are never bothered by Washington.

      1. Andy,
        Saudi Arabia is perfect for our needs – they give us oil and recycle our dollars. The royal family could become cannibals and our leaders would still stroll hand-in-hand with them in the moonlight.

  21. Ron Paul’s mission, however futile it may now appear to be, is educational. He is clearly trying to raise the American public’s awareness to the fact that an out of control government is a mortal threat to our life, liberty and property. Is it his fault that this message is, at best, poorly received in the minds of the government worshiping masses?

    I am all for employing mass civil disobedience, torchlight demonstrations and general strikes as tools to strike fear in the heart of the ruling class. The threat of physical encounters with enraged constituents will undoubtedly do more to make politicians pay attention to our pain than will lawsuits. But before any of this can happen, the masses must wake up to the fact that the people with guns – the government – are not their friends. Ron Paul is the messenger sounding that alarm.

  22. This resolution is useless and only encourages further crackdowns on the demonstrators. Ron Paul is correct. Enough said.

  23. Two things:

    1) Why doesn’t the rest of Congress just literally die and let Ron Paul run the show? Rainbows would beam across America and puppies would fall out of the sky into the waiting arms of every little boy and girl across the land. If only…

    2) Call me a blasphemer, but I think we need to dump the rhetoric of referring to our “Founders”, for in this modern age, our general populace is so ignorant of the events surrounding the founding of this nation that I don’t think there’s enough relevance in that reference to make a connection. We need to in effect re-educate people in the principles of freedom by asserting and discussing the merits of non-intervention specifically and a philosophy of liberty more generally. Once people are given the tools to think properly by educating them in our essays and speeches they will discover the origins of the laws and principles of this nation on their own. Just a thought…

    1. Abraham:

      Good points, especially “[w]e need to in effect re-educate people in the principles of freedom by asserting and discussing the merits of non-intervention specifically and a philosophy of liberty more generally. Once people are given the tools to think properly by educating them in our essays and speeches they will discover the origins of the laws and principles of this nation on their own.”

      The only problem is that contemporary American society is in the terminal grip of two pernicious traits: laziness and selfishness. In order to truly guide “the People” back to the qualities that enabled liberty to flourish in this country for at least a few decades following independence, some antidote to these two traits must be found. Otherwise, John and Jane Q. Public will continue to see the State as their only lifeline and salvation and no progress can be made toward re-establishing freedom as the status quo.

Comments are closed.