Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want…No principle … can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom … a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle — but only in degree — between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.”     Lysander Spooner

June 19, 2009

I Don’t Ask Congress To Applaud Iranian Protesters, But I’ll Do It Myself

by Brad Warbiany

Congress has voted to condemn the actions of the Iranian government, and as Reason points out, Ron Paul in typical contrarian fashion is the sole “no” vote:

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.

I applaud Ron Paul for taking his usual principled stand. Our Congress does not need to be spending their time issuing Resolutions toothless moralistic statements about America, much less other countries. Even if I were to retreat from my cautious anarchist tendencies and accept that Congress actually deserves real responsibilities, that responsibility is to legislate, not preach.

But a part of those anarchist tendencies is Heinlein’s rational anarchy. All actions are ultimately morally within the hands of individuals. Immaterial of laws or society, it is the individual who is morally responsible for acting rightly or wrongly.

So I don’t ask Congress to speak on Iran. Taking a chance to personalize H Res 560, let me do it myself:

Resolved, That Brad Warbiany –

  1. expresses his support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
  2. 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
  3. affirms the universality of individual rights and considers any government which infringes upon those individual rights to be illegitimate.

Iran is at a very important point. In a mere matter of hours, this may come to a head. The mullahs have signaled that they will resort to violence with a call that any who continue protesting “will be held responsible for the consequences and chaos.” Many people in Iran have said that they’re going to protest anyway.

As I write this in California, it is 10:15 AM in Iran. Much will happen in the next few hours. To those Iranians who are not sure what will happen next, I can only wish you safety and success. I’m not sure you’ll have the former, but if you don’t I at least hope you achieve the latter.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/06/19/i-dont-ask-congress-to-applaud-iranian-protestors-but-ill-do-it-myself/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

12 Comments

  1. And if the US Congress does nothing to support the Iranian protesters how can the United States honestly claim it had anything to do with the overturning of the Iranian Fascist State?

    This will go down in history for decades to come, centuries perhaps.

    And we are on the losing end of it, officially standing on the side of fascism over freedom.

    It’s a very shameful moment for the United States of America. Almost as bad as when Jimmy Carter stood by and did nothing as 2 million Cambodians were slaughtered by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — June 20, 2009 @ 4:21 am
  2. Some Right Bloggers are beginning to suggest that the current Iranian revolution is the inevitable result of George W. Bush’s policies.

    After all, would we be seeing what’s going on today in Iran, if Saddam Hussein hadn’t been toppled as leader of Iraq?

    Hell no! The Iranian Mullhas could still claim that they needed to be in charge to counter Saddam.

    It’s beginning to look like George W. Bush may get his moment in history. He may go down as the most brillant foreign policy President since Reagan.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — June 20, 2009 @ 4:23 am
  3. Amendment:

    Of course, the Congress did vote to back the Iranian freedom fighters yesterday. So, we are on the side of freedom.

    But the “President” Obama has been tepid, and one so-called “libertarian” Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, actually sided with the Iranian Fascist regime.

    But then again, why should we be surprised by Paul’s vote? After all he’s sided with just about every Fascist Dictator around the globe, including Chavez, Castro, Vietnamese Communists and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

    Comment by Eric Dondero — June 20, 2009 @ 4:26 am
  4. Eric,

    This idiotic, toothless resolution plays right into the hands of the Ayatollahs. Now they can run on state TV and have some hard evidence when they blame the demonstrations on the “Zionist, British, American Great Satan cowboys”.

    Of course I’m sure you were hoping against hope, along with many neo-cons that the Iranian people would vote for Ahmadinejad so that you and your fellow fascists would have your war that you really want.

    You don’t give a damn about freedom. All you want is your apocalyptic war.

    Comment by Kevin — June 20, 2009 @ 5:06 am
  5. You know how the “United States” can claim it had anything to do with the revolution that may be happening?

    They can’t. A mealy-mouthed toothless House Resolution won’t do squat.

    But all the individual Americans who have been setting up proxies to help the Iranians on the ground continue access to the blocked internet sites, on the other hand, are doing quite a lot.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — June 20, 2009 @ 7:22 am
  6. Ah, Eric Dondero, is there no end to his stupidity and ignorance?:

    It was the U.S. who introduced fascism to Iran when the U.S. government used an unprovoked terrorist campaign against the Iranian government to overthrow the parliament and install a ruthless dictator.

    The Iranian revolution that introduced a theocracy essentially entailed replacing the U.S. backed fascist dictatorship with a religious one. Iranians view the U.S., like the French view the Germans… If, in 1950, the West German chancellor had started voicing support for a French political movement, what affect would it have on that movement? According to Eric, it would have helped it.

    And incidentally, I like the way he claims that Jimmy Carter behaved shamefully, while conveniently forgetting the fact that the Khmer Rouge were U.S. allies because they were involved in a cold war with the Vietnamese, a war that the anti-communists that Eric has such a raging hard-on for supported.

    And I like how he calls George Bush a foreign policy genius. Notice that the moron who is desperate to end Iranian ithreats to Israel makes no mention of George Bush’s killing of the State department negotiations with Iran, where Iran was asking what it would take to placate the U.S. Oh no! The moment that the little Fuehrer-wannabe from Crawford found out that there were negotiations that might upset his desire for military confrontation, he killed it. Eric reminds me of those Roman lickpittles who would prate on about Calligula’s victory over the sea or Nero’s strategic genius.

    It’s comical how well george Bush played Eric for a patsy. He’s sitting in his ranch, set for life, laughing, while Eric is doomed to live a life of comparative poverty, shivering on street corners collecting signatures for petitions, thanks to the national-socialist state Bush set up. And Eric’s thanking Bush! It’s like some poor brainwashed north Korean peasant thanking the dear leader for flooding his farmland!

    Truly pathetic.

    Comment by tarran — June 20, 2009 @ 7:36 am
  7. If such a resolution would have no impact, than why is it that so many Iranian protesters are commenting to reporters on the street: “Where the hell is the United States? Where’s Obama?”

    They want our support. Let’s give it to them.

    After all, didn’t the French help us in our great time of need? If the French hadn’t stepped in we’d all be eating Crimpets and drinking Tea, and saying phrases like “bloody hell.”

    Comment by Eric Dondero — June 21, 2009 @ 1:22 am
  8. Eric,

    This isn’t about the protesters in the street, this is about the average Iranian who is neutral. The average Iranian, given the history of US involvement in domestic Iranian politics, may not view the US picking sides the same way as you and the protesters would. Besides, if the Iranians need a resolution from the US Congress to demand freedom from their oppressive government, then they do not deserve to be free.

    Also, yes the French did step in and pretty much win the Revolution for us but the French goal was not their belief in liberty (the French absolute monarchy at the time was far less free than the British limited monarchy we fought against), it was more a desire to destroy the British Empire. American independence, to the French, was a means to an end.

    Comment by Kevin — June 21, 2009 @ 6:27 am
  9. And, Eric, given his ignorance of history, is probably unaware that that the financial support the king of France gave to the U.S. rebels so drained his treasury that his government collapsed and caused the economic dislocations that led to the terror.

    Iraq and Afghanistan have had a similar effect on the U.S. treasury. Another intervention, and the U.S. government will collapse; they’re struggling to borrow the 100 billion a month needed to fund their dreams of world domination.

    Comment by tarran — June 21, 2009 @ 7:40 am
  10. tarran,

    Very good point about the bankrupting of the French Empire. Although in fairness, there were other factors involved than just the world war against Britain but the world war was a major factor nonetheless.

    Comment by Kevin — June 21, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
  11. After all, would we be seeing what’s going on today in Iran, if Saddam Hussein hadn’t been toppled as leader of Iraq?

    Hell no! The Iranian Mullhas could still claim that they needed to be in charge to counter Saddam.

    Umm…the Iranians demonstrated against the regime back in the 1990s. Saddam had nothing to do with the support for democracy in Iran.

    Name one thing your hero, George W. Bush, did that supported freedom around the world?

    Comment by Kevin — June 21, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
  12. One may support the protester’s right to demonstrate as a human right, but to say that doing so, is supporting freedom and democracy is unknown.

    Comment by VRB — June 21, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML