8 thoughts on “Rand Paul on Foreign Law and US Sovereignty

  1. This is the example of why we need more like Senator Paul.Maybe Romney should listen and get rid of the globalist republicans around him.

  2. It is another push toward one world government, no borders, no freedom, and the ability of the “party” to find a law to use to go after their enemies.

  3. Representative Paul is quite correct. The actions taken against Gibson Guitar Company are reprehensible and are in no way legal under American law.

    As one with a great deal of manufacturing experience, I can tell you that the rosewood fretboard blanks that were delivered were indeed finished according to the engineering specifications laid out in Gibson’s purchase order. They were to undergo another operation at the Gibson factory. There is nothing unusual about this sequence of events. This would be the equivalent of prosecuting any machine shop for working on a piece of foreign-made metal delivered to them.

    Everyone who is responsible for this outrageous action in the Gibson case should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to send a message and serve as an example to anyone else who would twist the plain meaning of our laws and our Constitution.

    1. .






      若是鄧小平 – 可能早就打完了





  4. This is a perfect example of the abuse of the “Treaty Power Clause” overriding the Constitution itself.

    This is also why our Founders erected a “wall of separation” between “federal” international law authority and the common-law State governments and the citizens in them.

    This is also a prefect reason why we must get purselves out of the UN which is a global instrument founded upon “world law”, what the American Revolution was fought to get rid of.

    1. .

      Whatever the reasons for holding on to Diaoyu Islands, Japan claim to ownership is weak.

      There are books, reports and maps from the 15th century, during the period of the Ming Dynasty, that establish in no uncertain terms that Diaoyu Island is Chinese territory.

      The book Voyage with a Tail Wind and the Record of the Imperial Envoy Visit to Ryukyu bear testimony to this. Even writings by Japanese scholars in the 19th century acknowledged this fact.


    2. The Japanese government claims that there is no dispute on the sovereignty of these islands, and that they belong to Japan when they first discovered these islands in 1884.

      However, there are many records that show that these islands have been part of China for more than 600 years since the Ming Dynasty, that Chinese fishermen on and off have been using these islands as temporary shelters, and many international maps (including Japanese maps) over the last few centuries have listed these islands as part of China.

      Based on analysis of official Japanese government documents (by both Chinese and Japanese scholars), Japan actually tried to secretly steal these islands from China in the late 1880s and early 1890s. When Japan defeated China after the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, these islands came under the control of Japan.

      When WWII ended, according to the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, and the 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the Diaoyu Islands should have been returned to China, just like Taiwan and other territories that Japan had stolen from China.

      It is important to note that the principal author of all these three documents was the USA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *