bobbyw24
07-08-2009, 07:04 AM
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/109065
The Ron Paul Influence
Sean Scallon July 07, 2009
Itīs never easy to be your own man.
Especially in Congress.
Thatīs because so many people want to own you, people with access to power, influence and money.
But ever since he first came to the House of Representatives in 1974, Ron Paul has done his best to be his own man, even if that means being on an island when it comes to so many votes.
Votes that would seem to be on the surface no brainers to vote yes.
Votes like the resolution recently passed by the House on a 405-1 vote offering moral support and encouragement to the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran protesting the Islamic Republicīs handling of and likely fraudulent outcome of its recent presidential election.
Who could possibly be against all those young kids who are being beaten, tear gassed and in some cases shot in the streets of Tehran?
And yet there was Ron Paul casting the dissenting vote.
Paul made his vote not in favor of the current ruling regime or against the protestors.
He made his vote because he feels, like George Washington, the nation should avoid all foreign entanglements. The U.S. should not meddle in the affairs of Iran or any nation for that matter. Too many times and too often this has happened and the results have ranged from unsatisfactory towards U.S. interests to downright dishonorable and disgraceful.
Especially Iran. The tortured history between the two nations that stretches back to the 1953 overthrow of the government of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh is but one example of such U.S. foreign entanglement.
So Ron Paul voted alone while so many others fell over themselves to offer praise and support for the demonstrators. Itīs a nice gesture but also quite cheap. It doesnīt require the U.S. to do something, anything when those protestors are being beaten and killed by Basilj and Revolutionary Guard thugs.
And yet Ron Paul was not alone. One other person agreed with his foreign policy views and acted accordingly to set U.S. policy in similarity to those views.
The President of the United States.
Barak Obama was saying largely the same things Ron Paul was when he said the U.S. wants a peaceful resolution to the election dispute in Iran but not be directly involved in order to do so. He does not want the U.S. to be "foil" in the hands of the ruling regime that would use such intervention to fire up the cause of Iranian nationalism and weaken the cause of the protestors, making them look like U.S. stooges and patsies.
Ron Paulīs thoughts exactly. Not bad for someone who was thought to be on the "fringe".
Of course no one in the White House or the State Department would admit to this as you would expect (although Secretary of State Hilary Clinton did have nice words for Rep. Paul at a recent Congressional hearing). But they donīt have to because one can see for themselves how what Obama has done and what Paul probably would have done if he had been elected president were largely the same.
Isnīt it amazing that single dissenting voice in the House has more influence on U.S. foreign policy than all the would-be Jimmy Carters in House GOP caucus like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) all so concerned about human rights?
This debate only shows the rot within the Republican Party when it comes to foreign policy. Its politicians are led around by the nose by the carping voices of political losers and outcasts like the neocons baying for Iranian blood. Theyīve been reduced to trying to score petty political points in looking "tough" for the cameras. Yet most citizens know that sympathy is one thing. Doing something substantive and concrete is quite another. Too many times the U.S. has encouraged political movements in places like Hungary in 1956, Cuba in 1961 or in Iraq among the Kurds and Shiites to rise up against oppressors only stand by helpless as such movements are brutally repressed.
Dishonorable and disgraceful meddling.
Even Ronald Regan, while sympathetic to the Solidarity movement in Poland in the early 1980s, could only watch as Polandīs communist government, under orders from their Soviet masters in Moscow, arrested union leaders and sprayed water cannons on demonstrators.
Someday those demonstrators will be the ones in power in Iran. The Islamic Republic may very well survive because it had guns and the demonstrators only had Twitter. But its legitimacy among its own people, especially those 30 and younger, has been badly damaged. No doubt change will come to Iran and relations with the U.S. will get better and the prospects for peace in the region will improve because of it.
And it will happen because the U.S. resisted being pulled into an internal dispute over an election and did not alienate Iranians with a heavy handed intervention as it did in 1953, an intervention that led to the blowback of a revolution 26 years later that badly damaged U.S. interests and led to 52 Americans being held hostage for 444 days.
And it will be because Barak Obama changed course from the hectoring, heavy handed and utopianistic policies of its predecessor and followed the wise course on foreign policy set down by our Founding Fathers.
The policies that Ron Paul has stood by all through his career in public service.
Even if alone.
Sean Scallon is a freelance writer and newspaper reporter who lives in Arkansaw, Wisconsin. His work has appeared in Chronicles: A magazine of American Culture. His first-ever book: Beating the Powers that Be: Independent Political Movements and Parties of the Upper Midwest and their Relevance in Third-party Politics of Today is now out on sale from Publish America. Go to the their website at www.publishamerica.com to order a copy.
Sean Scallon can be reached at: wiaawrestling@yahoo.com
The Ron Paul Influence
Sean Scallon July 07, 2009
Itīs never easy to be your own man.
Especially in Congress.
Thatīs because so many people want to own you, people with access to power, influence and money.
But ever since he first came to the House of Representatives in 1974, Ron Paul has done his best to be his own man, even if that means being on an island when it comes to so many votes.
Votes that would seem to be on the surface no brainers to vote yes.
Votes like the resolution recently passed by the House on a 405-1 vote offering moral support and encouragement to the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran protesting the Islamic Republicīs handling of and likely fraudulent outcome of its recent presidential election.
Who could possibly be against all those young kids who are being beaten, tear gassed and in some cases shot in the streets of Tehran?
And yet there was Ron Paul casting the dissenting vote.
Paul made his vote not in favor of the current ruling regime or against the protestors.
He made his vote because he feels, like George Washington, the nation should avoid all foreign entanglements. The U.S. should not meddle in the affairs of Iran or any nation for that matter. Too many times and too often this has happened and the results have ranged from unsatisfactory towards U.S. interests to downright dishonorable and disgraceful.
Especially Iran. The tortured history between the two nations that stretches back to the 1953 overthrow of the government of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh is but one example of such U.S. foreign entanglement.
So Ron Paul voted alone while so many others fell over themselves to offer praise and support for the demonstrators. Itīs a nice gesture but also quite cheap. It doesnīt require the U.S. to do something, anything when those protestors are being beaten and killed by Basilj and Revolutionary Guard thugs.
And yet Ron Paul was not alone. One other person agreed with his foreign policy views and acted accordingly to set U.S. policy in similarity to those views.
The President of the United States.
Barak Obama was saying largely the same things Ron Paul was when he said the U.S. wants a peaceful resolution to the election dispute in Iran but not be directly involved in order to do so. He does not want the U.S. to be "foil" in the hands of the ruling regime that would use such intervention to fire up the cause of Iranian nationalism and weaken the cause of the protestors, making them look like U.S. stooges and patsies.
Ron Paulīs thoughts exactly. Not bad for someone who was thought to be on the "fringe".
Of course no one in the White House or the State Department would admit to this as you would expect (although Secretary of State Hilary Clinton did have nice words for Rep. Paul at a recent Congressional hearing). But they donīt have to because one can see for themselves how what Obama has done and what Paul probably would have done if he had been elected president were largely the same.
Isnīt it amazing that single dissenting voice in the House has more influence on U.S. foreign policy than all the would-be Jimmy Carters in House GOP caucus like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) all so concerned about human rights?
This debate only shows the rot within the Republican Party when it comes to foreign policy. Its politicians are led around by the nose by the carping voices of political losers and outcasts like the neocons baying for Iranian blood. Theyīve been reduced to trying to score petty political points in looking "tough" for the cameras. Yet most citizens know that sympathy is one thing. Doing something substantive and concrete is quite another. Too many times the U.S. has encouraged political movements in places like Hungary in 1956, Cuba in 1961 or in Iraq among the Kurds and Shiites to rise up against oppressors only stand by helpless as such movements are brutally repressed.
Dishonorable and disgraceful meddling.
Even Ronald Regan, while sympathetic to the Solidarity movement in Poland in the early 1980s, could only watch as Polandīs communist government, under orders from their Soviet masters in Moscow, arrested union leaders and sprayed water cannons on demonstrators.
Someday those demonstrators will be the ones in power in Iran. The Islamic Republic may very well survive because it had guns and the demonstrators only had Twitter. But its legitimacy among its own people, especially those 30 and younger, has been badly damaged. No doubt change will come to Iran and relations with the U.S. will get better and the prospects for peace in the region will improve because of it.
And it will happen because the U.S. resisted being pulled into an internal dispute over an election and did not alienate Iranians with a heavy handed intervention as it did in 1953, an intervention that led to the blowback of a revolution 26 years later that badly damaged U.S. interests and led to 52 Americans being held hostage for 444 days.
And it will be because Barak Obama changed course from the hectoring, heavy handed and utopianistic policies of its predecessor and followed the wise course on foreign policy set down by our Founding Fathers.
The policies that Ron Paul has stood by all through his career in public service.
Even if alone.
Sean Scallon is a freelance writer and newspaper reporter who lives in Arkansaw, Wisconsin. His work has appeared in Chronicles: A magazine of American Culture. His first-ever book: Beating the Powers that Be: Independent Political Movements and Parties of the Upper Midwest and their Relevance in Third-party Politics of Today is now out on sale from Publish America. Go to the their website at www.publishamerica.com to order a copy.
Sean Scallon can be reached at: wiaawrestling@yahoo.com