Just Two Congressmen Voted Against a Pro-UN Resolution on Iran

Article audio sponsored by The John Birch Society

Based on how Congress voted, it would be easy to assume there are no longer any problems in America. That is because just two members of Congress, both conservative Republicans, voted to put “America First” and defy the bipartisan establishment by voting against a warmongering resolution targeting Iran. Among other concerns, critics said House Resolution 676, which purports to be about “supporting the rights of the people of Iran to free expression,” legitimizes the United Nations and inches the U.S. government closer to another disastrous Middle East war.

In typical fashion, the House of Representatives, which seemingly never hears of a war anywhere that it does not want to send your children to die in, voted 415 to two in favor of the scheme. But despite the overwhelming support by the establishment wing of both major parties, critics are still sounding the alarm about the measure. And while the regime in Iran may indeed be nasty and oppressive — in fact, many of the governments installed as a result of U.S. interventionism have been brutal — America’s founders warned against going abroad seeking monsters to destroy.

H. Res. 676 was ostensibly aimed at “supporting the rights of the people of Iran to free expression, condemning the Iranian regime for its crackdown on legitimate protests, and for other purposes,” according to its title. Buried among those “other purposes,” the controversial resolution calls on President Trump to “use targeted sanctions” against Iran — something non-interventionists such as former Congressman Ron Paul have long viewed as a hostile act at minimum, and potentially even a precursor to or declaration of war.

Even more troubling, the House measure passed last week calls for “emergency sessions of the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council to condemn the ongoing human rights violations perpetrated by the Iranian regime and establish a mechanism by which the Security Council can monitor such violations.” Of course, the UN and its discredited “Human Rights” outfit are autocratic organizations composed of dictators, gangsters, mass murderers, and largely corrupt and autocratic regimes. Neither the UN nor the overwhelming majority of its member states have respect for individuals’ God-given rights.

The resolution’s language on the UN is one of several problems that led liberty-minded Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to defy the bipartisan “consensus.” Massie (shown at right in photo) voted nay, despite his support for citizens anywhere seeking to stand against authoritarian regimes. “While I fully support the brave efforts of the people of Iran (or of any nation) in their efforts to reclaim their government, I could not support this particular resolution,” explained Massie, who has almost a perfect constitutional voting record as measured by The New American magazine’s Freedom Index.

“First, I support getting the United States out of the United Nations, yet H. Res. 676 calls for the Administration to ‘work to convene emergency sessions of the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council,’” said Representative Massie, a co-sponsor and leading promoter of the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 193) to get the United States out of the UN and evict the UN’s headquarters from U.S. soil. “I have consistently voted against resolutions such as this one that rely on the United Nations or otherwise endorse its legitimacy.”

The interventionist tone of the measure was problematic, too, the conservative lawmaker continued. “Second, this resolution contains a reference to the ‘murderous Assad regime,’ which lends further support to the notion that the United States should involve itself in Syria’s civil war,” Massie was quoted as saying in Breitbart. Indeed, the establishment has been seeking deeper U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war for many years, even if it meant using propaganda and supporting jihadist terror groups on the ground in violation of U.S. anti-terror laws.

Echoing concerns expressed by former Congressman Paul throughout his decades of principled statesmanship, Massie warned about provisions in the measure demanding “sanctions” against Iran. “Finally, while I support restrictions that prevent our own government and government-funded companies from providing military equipment to regimes such as Iran, I never vote to support sanctions that could potentially harm innocent civilians,” Massie concluded. “The text of H. Res. 676 issues a vague call for ‘sanctions’ against Iran, so I could not support it.”

The only other congressman to vote against the scheme was Representative Walter Jones (R-N.C.; shown in photo at left). Jones is another constitutionalist, whose most recent score on the Freedom Index was a 100 percent. In a statement quoted by Breitbart, a spokesperson for Jones said the North Carolina Republican voted against the bill because he believes Congress ought to deal with America’s problems before going around meddling in other nations.

“Congressman Jones believes America has its own problems, and we need to be focusing on those first, instead of other countries,” Jones Communications Director Allison Tucker said in an e-mail statement. “He has voted this way on similar resolutions in the past, dealing with the Congo, Ukraine, South Sudan, and Russia.” In other words, Jones believes in the “America First” philosophy articulated by President Trump and supported by the American people at the ballot box.

Jones and Massie both serve on the Advisory Board of the Ron Paul Institute, which issued a stinging rebuke of the resolution warning that it was moving America down the road to overthrowing Iran’s government. “In short, the resolution is another step in the process of fabricating justifications for the U.S. attempting to overthrow a foreign nation that poses no threat to the American people,” wrote Adam Dick in an analysis for the non-interventionist organization. “And included are justifications rooted in the ‘democracy promotion’ and ‘humanitarian intervention’ policies pursued by the Obama administration and since embraced in the Trump administration.”

Some analysts have expressed concerns over potential meddling in Iran’s internal affairs by Western intelligence agencies. Indeed, top Iranian officials have even claimed that the protests sweeping Iran were created by the CIA in collaboration with authorities in Israel and Saudi Arabia. Ironically, the U.S. government’s long and well documented history of overseas meddling is being exploited by the autocrats in Tehran to discredit the protests, portraying the people in the streets as toadies and useful idiots of the “Great Satan” and its allies.

Whether the CIA or other foreign intelligence agencies were involved or not, it is clear that the ostensibly Islamic regime enslaving the people of Iran is oppressive and brutal. Dozens of protesters have already been killed. But there are oppressive governments all over the world — many of them installed by the U.S. government — and there is no way debt-laden American taxpayers and the U.S. military could possibly address even a tiny fraction of them. In fact, America’s Founding Fathers would have been horrified by the idea that the government they risked their lives to create was now pretending to be a global policeman and waging illegal wars all over the world.

In a historic Independence Day speech, then-Secretary of State John Quincy Adams articulated his vision of America’s role in the world. “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be,” he said. “But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”

“She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom,” Adams continued. “The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”

In his campaign for the presidency, Trump seemed to understand that it was not an appropriate use of American money and power to dictate to other countries. On Twitter, he simply warned the regime that America was watching. Whether he will be persuaded by the congressional resolution and globalists around him to demand UN action or impose sanctions on Iran remains to be seen. Ironically, though, while Congress and warmongers in both parties were constantly warmongering against Iran during Obama’s term, the former president rewarded the Iranian regime with huge infusions of cash — and he even considered military cooperation with the terror regime.

In the end, U.S. lawmakers ought to quit obsessing about what goes on in other countries that do not represent a credible threat to the United States. Once Congress has solved all of the domestic issues plaguing the United States — especially the $20 trillion in debt and the estimated $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities foisted onto the backs of Americans by Congress, much of it from illegal wars and interventions — perhaps, then, U.S. lawmakers can worry about how to solve Iran’s problems. Until then, they should stick to their oath of office and follow the non-interventionist advice of America’s Founding Fathers.

Photo of Rep. Walter Jones (left) with Rep. Thomas Massie: AP Images

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe but has lived all over the world. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook. He can be reached at [email protected].