Ron Paul is no compassionate conservative when it comes to Myanmar

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is proud of what he sees as his truly conservative credentials. He's for smaller government, much smaller. He's for foreign trade but not foreign military involvement. He wants to spend that money wasted on empire-building right back here in these United States of America. He'd also get rid of the Education Department and the Federal Reserve.

His followers, who reverently call him Dr. Paul, like the way he would strictly adhere to the Constitution as he sees it and return more freedoms to the little guy in the face of big government.

Paul fans -- regularly called Paulites, Paultards or Paulunteers -- also see a gentle humility in the weathered but wise hands of the 72-year-old OB/GYN, who reputedly has delivered about 4,000 infants into life in this wondrous world.

But there seems to be another side to Paul. A mean, vicious, cruel and uncaring side. A side that sees millions of humans -- albeit Myanmarese who are not registered to vote in Texas -- afflicted with a historic cyclone, countless thousands of lives lost, devastation everywhere, and that could care less.

This week when a Congressional resolution came up for a vote merely offering "condolences and sympathy" to the people of Myanmar affected by the recent deadly cyclone, Ron Paul, the doting grandfather, the millionaire, was the only member of the entire House of Representatives to vote "No."

The Myanmar resolution, like all those goofy pieces of symbolic legislation, would...

... have done absolutely nothing for the stricken millions. Not even provided one paper towel. It's a cheap publicity trick that elected legislators waste countless hours on each session.

Such worthless resolutions don't even get much publicity anymore. And, to put it in blunt political terms, exactly how strong is the Myanmarese vote around here anyway?

So Paul's symbolic stand against symbolic silliness looks good.

But then along come the sharp-eyed folks over at Radaronline.com, specifically Nick Curran, who finds out Paul's stand against symbolic silliness when it comes to Asians whose huts and hovels were erased by a cyclone is not quite so principled, and that Paul is a whole lot more enthused about dumb statements of sentiment when the silliness is closer to home.

Come to find out that Paul has voted in favor of similar empty resolutions to congratulate the University of Kansas football team for a swell season and winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl, to laud the Louisiana State football team for, golly, winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series and to celebrate the New York Giants for their come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl XLII.

Seriously, what Texas congressman near Houston wouldn't want to get on the official Congressional record wishing all the best to every one of the good folks up in New York City?

Wait till the Houston Texans find out about that one. Or, worse for Paul, some Dallas fans.

By the way, here's the latest update on the situation in Burma.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Photo: Associated Press

Comments

[D]

Malcolm's true neo-con colors are coming out in full force. Don't say I didn't warn ya!

Malcolm, still trying to get some readership whilst you can eh? What happens when this dissappears after the election in November? Who will read your crap then?

[James Beaty]

Ron Paul came out on Jay Leno and said one thing, now he stays out of the newslime liight and plots another.

[Pablo Escobar]

Just when I thought you were finally beginning to understand what Ron Paul is about, you go and prove you haven't learnt a thing.

Let me explain: Dr Paul voted against the Burma resolution because he is sick and tired of the US interfering in other nations. He regularly votes against all resolutions that unnecessarily involve the United States in the internal affairs of other nations. It's called meddling in domestic politics. Obviously, Americans are so used to NOT minding their own business that they don't even think it's unusual anymore. He voted against the 1998 Iraq regime change resolution too.

It has nothing to do with 'caring' or not caring about the Burmese people. Obviously, it's easier to sell your principles and vote with the crowd in Washington, but fortunately Paul doesn't do that.

How gullible you are Andrew. You actually think the politicians shedding crocodile tears for Burmese people CARE about them? They couldn't care less. Mostly, they care about playing politics so that naive journalists like you think they care. Just like they fooled the people they care about the Iraqi people so much that it's worth wasting American money and lives. Grow up.

[raja]

The "small government-big government" talk is garbage rhetoric. It's obvious which one sounds most appealing, but, like all rhetoric, it's very misleading. "Less accountability-more accountability" would actually be more accurate. The twist in that whole idiotic debate is that by breaking down the bridges of accountability and creating more of a disconnect between the government and its people, "small government" ultimately leads, in the long run, to the type of situation that one generally associates with the rhetorical phrase "big government".

[Jay]

I don't know about that... this smells of hypocrisy to me... and maybe a little libertarian roots. Hey, government gives you all the freedoms, and if you have a problem, fix it yourself. If anything is "symbolic" about what Ron Paul did, it's to show that he would choose principles over humanity.

[James Weston]

Its a safe bet that most of the people who voted for this vanity resolution could not find Burma on a globe. For certain, 50% of them do not even have passports.

This article is pure and puerile garbage, and no one is buying it anymore.

[Jenn]

I heard him say he'd rather independent charity groups help, that the government bureaucracy gets too much of the aid off the top of the funds. The American people should decide to give money and not for the tax dollars toward foreign countries as the administration sees fit.
Ron Paul is a kind and compassionate soul. Those who listen to him know it.

[Ryan]

A bill offering sympathy in congress? How is that an issue for Americans? That shouldn't even be up for voting it's just a waste of time.

[dave]

as duly noted, RON PAUL is against all empty lip service, and against forced solidarity - coercion makes it worthless. although the overall consistent stance of the only worthy candidate for PRESIDENT, RON PAUL - for common sense, to oust all silliness from government, is uncontested in this item - there remains the allegation of a double standard, though seemingly 'harmless' by all comparison. but it is perfectly legitimate to hold up RON PAUL to his own ethical standards; so it would be only fair to ask him to comment on this - but to conclude that such alleged inconsistency should be a demonstration of his 'mean, vicious, cruel and uncaring side' is transparent, cheap propaganda. it is rather the authentic affection ron paul harbors for all humankind, that makes him the true champion of the constitution, and continues to win all those millions of honest hearts and minds for him and his cause for liberty, prosperity and peace: to renew the american republic in accordance with her constitutional foundation - to be a perpetual blessing for all humankind.

[TJ]

What would this bill have done except calling their government names and telling us about the devestation. It is not worthy of a vote or to be brought up in congress. If only gives condolences at the very end. This is more of a bill to trash their "junta" and call their constitution a "sham". Let your readers know about their "sham" consitution and "military junta" rulers instead of a hit piece on Paul.

H. Res. 1181

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

May 13, 2008.
Whereas on the night of May 2, 2008, through the morning of May 3, 2008, Cyclone Nargis, the first tropical cyclone to make landfall on Burma since Cyclone Mala in 2006, struck the coast of Burma;

Whereas Cyclone Nargis caused more destruction in Burma than the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004;

Whereas Cyclone Nargis has caused the death of tens of thousands of people, displaced hundreds of thousands, and is anticipated to affect over a million people;

Whereas Cyclone Nargis has caused significant damage to Burma's rice crop, likely worsening the global food crisis and affecting the supply of rice in Burma and worldwide;

Whereas on May 7, 2008, news media reported that the death toll, as accounted by a United States envoy, could reach over 100,000;

Whereas tens of thousands of people remain missing in the storm's wake;

Whereas Cyclone Nargis has devastated major parts of Burma, including extensive damage to Burma's largest city of Rangoon and throughout the Irrawaddy Delta region, Bago (Pegu) division, Karen State, and Mon State;

Whereas initially 5 regions in Burma were declared disaster zones;

Whereas 2 Irrawaddy Division townships, Kyait Lat and Latputda, were almost completely destroyed, leaving several hundred thousand people without homes or shelters;

Whereas fallen trees, demolished homes, downed power and telephone lines, and debris have blocked roads and blanketed the affected area;

Whereas hundreds of thousands of people are in dire need of emergency shelter and clean drinking water;

Whereas Burma's military regime did little to warn the people and is not providing adequate humanitarian assistance to address basic needs and prevent further loss of life;

Whereas despite the devastation, the military regime has announced plans to go ahead with its May 10, 2008, referendum on a sham constitution, delaying voting only in portions of the affected Irrawaddy region and Rangoon;

Whereas the military regime has failed to provide life-protecting and life-sustaining services to its people;

Whereas more than 30 disaster assessment teams from 18 different Nations and the United Nations have been denied permission to enter Burma by the junta;

Whereas the United States, through its Government, the Burma-American community, and its people as a whole, has already extended significant support to the people of Burma during this difficult time, including a $250,000 emergency contribution authorized by the United States Embassy in Burma to be released immediately, and $3,000,000 in additional aid relief announced on May 6, 2008, by the White House; and

Whereas a United States Agency for International Development disaster response team is positioned in neighboring Thailand: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) extends its condolences and sympathy to the people of Burma for the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by Cyclone Nargis;

(2) vows its full support of and solidarity with the people of Burma;

(3) calls on Americans to provide immediate emergency assistance to cyclone victims in Burma through humanitarian agencies;

(4) expresses confidence that the people of Burma will succeed in overcoming the hardships incurred because of this tragedy;

(5) calls for the Burmese military junta to consider the well-being of its people and accept broad international assistance; and

(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people.
Attest:

Clerk.

[spinnikerca]

LOL!

I've read you often enough now, popping up on my 'Ron Paul' google search that I know that you know that Ron Paul simply thinks the limited government of the US should not be passing resolutionsof this sort. He voted against a medal for Rosa Parks, too, but took $100 from his pocket and challenged the other Reps to buy it with their own money.

Regarding football games, those are at least American teams and he very much thinks the US government exists to help Americans. Check out his record in aiding his constitutents. (His principled Constitutionalist position isn't the only reason he won his Congressional primary with 70% of the vote.)

It is kind of funny that people who want to pass these meaningless Hallmark Card resolutions get actually offended at this as if these idiot resolutions had any meaning, to begin with, rather than spending other people's money (ours) and wasting time.

Since you raise this concern, I will read Dr. Paul's comments if he posted them on his web page, though (did you go there to see if there are any posted?). Sometimes when he objects to things you find buried language anyone in their right mind would object to.

Have a good weekend, Malcom.

[Greg H]

Dr. Paul has already made statements pointing out a single phrase in that bill that specifically caused him to vote no on it, a call for "Burma's ruling generals to postpone a scheduled referendum in order to concentrate their resources on disaster assistance." While it is true that this vote took place 3 days before the house passed the bill, it is still a vote on principle, WE HAVE NO BUSINESS TELLING OTHER NATIONS/GOVERNMENTS HOW THEY SHOULD CONDUCT THEMSELVES!

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/ron-paul-warns-burma

[Joe Dean]

It's not our place to fix other country's problems. We can see that whenever we try to "fix" something in another country it ends up being used for imperial expansion and control. I would rather we just mind our own business and stop wasting money on military adventures overseas. We are in the midst of a financial crisis, the middle class is declining and we can not afford to meddle in other country's business any longer.

[J. Adams]

If this is supposed to change my mind and get me to support one of the idiots who DID vote for a non-binding resolution that does absolutely nothing, it hasn't worked. In fact, what it is doing, is showing your comments are either satire, or just completely idiotic. It's amazing how that even "bad" publicity by you folks has backfired every time. Please keep it up!

BTW, He also voted against giving a congressional plaque to at taxpayers expense (something like $500), to Rosa Parks too. He said in congress, that he opposed it not because he didn't agree with honoring a hero, but congress is not authorized to spend the People's money on stuff like that. He countered by offering $100 of his OWN money toward one instead, not one other congressman was interested in chipping in.
Now you tell me comrade, who is putting their money where their mouth is?

[Mike]

I agree 100%. It should be noted that Paul voted against the bill primarily because one line in the bill:

"calling on Burma's ruling generals to postpone a scheduled referendum in order to concentrate their resources on disaster assistance"

This is an unconstitutional interference in the affairs of another country. The Constitution grants no authority for Congress to intervene in the affairs of other nations, except to declare war

Likewise, the Constitution does not stop private American citizens from condemning, supporting, or boycotting foreign nations.

Just because the Constitutionally chartered federal government has no authority to do something, doesn't mean America, as its private citizens, cannot.

[Antonio SJ Musumeci]

Less then 30 seconds on Google News search would have rewarded you with: 'Paul spokeswoman Rachel Mills said the congressman objected to a sentence in the resolution calling on Burma's ruling generals to postpone a scheduled referendum in order to concentrate their resources on disaster assistance. "It interferes with the internal affairs of another country," Mills said. "It's just none of our business."'

The pointlessness of the resolution itself was not the reason for the vote. It was the fact it tried to instruct the Burmese government on what it should do. As minor as it may appear it's only a matter of degrees from other interventionist language we place in other resolutions which represent the actual interventionist actions we take. If you want to stop being to bully you ought to stop talking like one too.

[Doug]

Nothing is preventing you from donating to Burma yourself.
Why rely on the government to do what you can do right now? If you care so much for the people of Burma, please make your most generous donation here: http://www.foundationburma.org/

But please, don't use my money when you donate, and don't take your neighbor's money either. Take some personal responsibility, and allow your neighbor to do the same.

[Stephen Morris]

Ron Paul voted "NO" because it is not his job to spend other peoples money. Especially money that people don't have. Leaving the expense to future generations.

As sad as the coming economic collapse is, at least it will keep this nation from sending bullets to small nations of dark skinned people with natural resources.

Then we can help each other at home.

[joel palmer]

Mr. Malcom ...I suggest you title all your columns about Dr. Paul symbolic silliness .

[Subsunk]

Ron Paul, my own Congressman, is an IDIOT. Always has been. Always will be. And we are just plain stupid for continuing to reelect him.

What an ass he is!

Subsunk

[CD]

Hey Malcolm, you're free to give away your entire life's savings to Burma if you want to. Just keep your sticky fingers out of my wallet. I'll gladly write a check, on my own terms. I don't need the federal government to tell another country how sad we are. We Americans are and will continue to be the most generous people in the world by donating and volunteering for such a worthy cause. I don't need the nanny government to do it for me. Ron Paul is awesome.

[terribly smart]

Good article, Malcky.

[undergroundrr]

Thanks TJ for posting the actual text of this ill-advised statement that congress was voting on.

My wife's question was whether Myanmar passed a similar "resolution" about the US Federal Government's actions in the wake of Katrina.

[acptulsa]

Didn't Katrina prove to your sufficient satisfaction that if we let Americans keep their money Americans do wonderful, generous things with it? Look at how much help New Orleans got even though we're being robbed to pay FEMA to be grossly incompetent. If we were allowed to keep the money FEMA wastes keeping ice cubes frozen years after they didn't get delivered, what could we accomplish?

[Jared Rif]

Hey Mr. Malcolm, as a 21 year old citizen of this country I'd like to ask you a question. Do you believe that any of the three mainstream candidates will brighten the future for my generation? Well, in my opinion the answer is a resounding NO! They'll simply continue to ruin our country by bankrupting it and making my peers and I work until we die in order to sustain a socialized society in which the American Dream will be a forgotten pastime. Ron Paul gives me the opportunity to take care of myself and future family. He'll fight for my civil liberties and let me live MY life. I would just like to thank you for adding to the demise of our country and bashing a man who holds such characteristics as integrity, accountability, and honesty (something you nor any other presidential candidates possess). Thanks again Mr. Malcolm, you're a true red-blooded globalist selling out America and in particular my generation. Truly appreciated! Your Grandkids will be sure to thank you as well!

[newagegop]

The reason thousands upon hundreds of thousands of people die in other countries isn't because those natural disasters were worse, it's because the people live without freedom. The God given freedom and liberty that the western world allows and that Ron Paul understands lays the foundation for everything that has kept us safe from all sorts of calamity. It's allowed for the innovation and invention that builds better weapons and better buildings. Dictatorships that repress freedom killed all those people not the disaster.

No pity letter from us will help. We are standing on the beach watching someone drown and saying we feel bad for them. Should we invade to save them? Would that make you feel even better?

[Gary]

Congressmen are paid big $ to make decisions on spending YOUR money not theirs... so charity is easy for us all. All we gotta do is have $ taken from us and Mt Olympus will use up more time and $ to decide how much of YOUR $ to give away... esp to foriegn regimes that would take the credit for the aid anyway. Ron Paul is right!! Stop meddling, bring everyone home, stop spending, regroup, start addressing the fundamentals of the Constitution... let the U.S. get rich again so that it will have many more years to regress and be stupid once again in the future.

[Stickler]

The phrase is "Could not care less." "Could care less" is meaningless in the context in which many people use it.

[Mark]

Malcolm,

The principle being applied is clear and consistent - "do not meddle in the affairs of other countries." The principle being applied is not "do not pass legislation that makes symbolic statements." As such, Paul's position makes perfect sense - he approves legislation that makes statements about domestic issues, opposes those that lead to meddling in the affairs of other countries.

I am shocked at your inability to understand this and how it lead you to such a vicious, undeserving attack. Very disappointing.

[Rusty Shackleford]

This article is just trying to hurt Ron Paul. If you want to talk about hypocrisy then you should write a whole book on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain.

[paul a'barge]

You can't differentiate between an American football team and a country in Asia?

[althusius]

Another reason for another war. You liberals are just as bad as the neo-cons. I despise globalists!

[Not A Pualtard]

Vote for Ron Paul! Because White Supremacists just don't have enough representation.

[Trespassinthru]

Wow, I didn't know who Malcolm is or what he stands for before reading this and it's hard to believe the Times lets him write for them. I'm not a Paul supporter but it's clear he's got common sense and this Malcolm guy is a nut. We don't need this symbolic crap from hypocrites that helps no one. This is the flag pin lapel crowd who throw thier "patriotism" in everybody's face and then defend bigotry and hatred like they were American values. Luckily, most people are finally getting a clue and socking it to these fakes.

[Paulite]

I have one word for you....

K A T R I N A

We can't even handle our own disasters, what makes you think we can handle someone else's?
Now really, what was your point again?

[MM]

Wow. I sure hope none of you Paulites consider yourself Christians. These are 100s of thousands of helpless people in desperate need of help. I never thought I would see so many heartless, selfish people who are Americans. Can you really be that self-absorbed? I am not a practicing Christian but the church I grew up in taught me to "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" and "love they neighbor as thyself." Our government, at its best, acts on our behalf and if you can't see that these people are in desperate need of whatever help they can get you have lost all sense of humanity.

[swansend]

I believe and trust in Ron Paul! He has not deviated from the US Constitution in all his time in public office. When politicians take an oath to office they swear on a bible reciting an oath to this "piece of paper". I feel that paper is the only thing that binds us together as Americans. What would America be like without it to stand by? I just finished his book "The Revolution, A Manifesto" A great read! Thanks Dr Paul!

[Don]

No elected official will be able to please everyone all the time but Dr. Paul's stand against getting involved in foreign entanglements is clear. No doubt there is precident where a silly piece of legislation such as this led to even more legislation that got us fiscally entangled with some country's foreign affairs and Dr. Paul knows how the capital hill gang operates and he's not leaving a single back door open for them. According to this foolish logic then we must conclude that Paul's desire to do away with the Dept. of education means he could care less about our kids education right? No he simply wants education to be administered at the state level in accordance with the constitution.

Regardless, he is showing the kind of committment to his ideals that is characteristic of strong leaders. Those unable to understand Dr. Paul's ideas are too uneducated and narrow minded to appreciate them but he is correct.

[Frank N Stein]

If you feel the people in Burma require help, YOU can give of YOUR resources to do so. Here's a good story about David Crockett (yes, that Davie Crockett) about the same kind of thing - not yours to give:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/1111/not-yours-to-give/

[Dr Ward Ciac II]

First of all Malc, the phrase is 'couldn't care less'. If he 'could care less' that means he cares. You are parroting the uneducated masses. The other thing Mal, is that Dr Paul is for no foreign intervention. I am sure he's distressed about problems elsewhere, but that's why we have private assistance societies, Malc.

[EP]

Why do the American people need to be "forced" into financing aid for a country that has already made it perfectly clear that they don't want help? It is very possible that smaller non-official agencies would be welcomed. Every American citizen is fully empowered to donate as much of their money as they choose to send aid to Myanmar and they can choose which agency they believe will accomplish the most in real help for these people. Why does the government have to coerce us into helping people?

[Courtney]

First off:

The reason why Paul voted no, was not because he was some uncaring individual, but because there was a section in the resolution which, in Ron Paul's belief, threatened the sovereignty of the Burmese nation.

Secondly:

The difference between this Resolution and the others mentioned was this: the Burmese Resolution was a resolution, that although offered condolences, also tried to direct the nation at the cost of it's sovereignty. The other resolutions mentioned, such as the one with congratulations to the Giants, do not affect the sovereignty of anyone.

Way to try and spin it. Suckah. :P

[Ben Katz]

Looks like the Paultard robot people are out in force in these comments!

So blindly following a crank isolationist who thankfully never had a chance.

[david a. dudenhoefer]

LOL this guy is concidered a writer????

[fazsha]

Malcolm distorted what the resolution said. It was not MERELY offering sympathy, but also criticized the Myanmar government and insisted on referring to it as Burma. What if Iran insisted on calling Israel Palestine? Quit lying to us, Malcolm, we've had it up to here.

[Steven]

I for one DEMAND a retraction of this article to immediately be replaced with an apology to Ron Paul for completely inadequate reporting.

It reads as though you're completely ignorant, and that you've been teetering on the edge of your seat, waiting for the moment when Ron Paul contradicts himself that you jumped at what you thought was your opportunity without checking any facts first.

Honestly, do you really think that Ron Paul would be as callous as you write him to be? Wouldn't your first thought, knowing what you should know, be "Wow, there must be something in that resolution that goes too far"?

Utterly distasteful. Keep spitting on the America that your immigrant parents came to for a new life. The same America that Ron Paul represents.

[Doug]

MM,

Using tax payer money to pay military dictators in Burma, who keep aid from their people does not help anyone but the dictators.

Im not a christian, but as far as i know chairity comes from the heart and is somthing you choose to do.

It cannot be legislated

When you remove the choice from chairity, it becomes theft.

[Joe]

I don't care about the pettiness of whether someone votes for or against a symbolic gesture by Congress. What I despise is the belief by Paul supporters, and others, is that everything can be best taken care of if we leave everything to market forces. This is absolutely false. Our market system allows excesses to accumulate to "bubble" status, when our regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Reserve system,are FORCED to salvage our economy by bailing out our banking or credit system. Left to the market, we would certainly go into a severe "self correction" mode, which would be an out and out DEPRESSION, destroying millions of families. Paul and his so-called "free market" philosophies are BOGUS and and FRAUD. Not to say I do not agree with him on some things, such as government intrusion into our personal habits. My point is there are no idealist philosophies that match the needs of society. We cannot adhere to pure "free market theory", nor can we assume all problems are best solved with statute, prohibition or other form of government control. We have to use BOTH the market and government regulation together,Its not all one or the other. We tend to be led to believe in PURE philosophies, when no single one can provide solutions to all the problems we face.

[Tara]

Mr. Malcolm, hold yourself to a higher standard. With the kinds of problems in this country, we need journalists who will discuss the real issues. You could begin with, "How can you be a presidential candidate and also a U.S. Senator and have no power to assist bringing an end to this illegal war and an end to the waste of billions of taxpayer dollars?"

[Tess]

I agree 100% with this comment that was written earlier by Ryan:

A bill offering sympathy in congress? How is that an issue for Americans? That shouldn't even be up for voting it's just a waste of time.

Posted by: Ryan | May 16, 2008 at 03:33 AM

I am sure that some sort of funding was included in that sympathy bill, but even if it wasn't, I must agree this is not an issue for our Congress to waste their time on, we have more economical, and financial issues regarding starvation, and poverty in our country that Congress needs to address. We as a country, and as citizens cannot save the world, we are drowning ourselves, and are completely bankrupt. If we start taking care of our own first, then the good citizens of the United States would be more apt to donate, and help other countries, without our government thinking they should foot the bill with taxpayer dollars. I just wish our country would stop meddling in world affairs, and take care of the citizens here at home first. I just love it when someone says a person is mean because they do not believe a bill of sympathy is not required, that is a bunch of BS.

[Jenn]

Neocons are control freaks!
Not only do they want to force their aid on other countries, they want to tell them how it's used..
Americans are perfectly able and willing, if they could afford it, send help on their own! Neocons pry it out of our hands and insist that others take it..
You might expect this from a democrat, but a real republican like Ron Paul you can expect him to be about America, for America. He wants us to have a voice and a choice.

[Jeff]

MM,
I too am a non practicing Christian, but that does not determine whether or not I am charitable. I can feel for those in Myanmar and I can give on my own accord. My faith has nothing to do with it, niether do my political convictions. That is the very reason our government should stay out of this. We elect our officials to represent us here at home, and to uphold the rule of law in this land, not some other land that has declaired themselves an independent nation. We as private citizens can give all that we want, but as soon as the goverment gives our money or goods to another nation it becomes a political issue and is no longer charity but theft. I do not tell you how to do with that which belongs to you. I expect the same in return, and somehow in the end we as Americans with good hearts and a helping hand can come together and assist in these peoples need. Government can only get in the way and the proof is in every action they make, just read the paper today-- tomorrow--- and next week if you think I'm wrong.

[PA4RP]

My fellow patriots have responded adequately I just felt the need to add a little bit. It is correct that Dr. Paul voted no because of the last part of the resoultion stating that we had the right to tell their government to forego a scheduled vote on a referendum. We have no right to tell another country how to run their government.
Secondly, what if China Saudi Arabia said that we are not doing enough for the Katrina victims and decided to pass a resolution saying we had to conduct our relief efforts according to their standards. And better yet, that we needed to cease all other activity by our government and concentrate on the Katrina victims. Is it a bad thing to help our own people- of course not- but can you imagine if any country tried to force us to do anything.
Lastly, these compansionate reps voted to spend taxpayers money not their own. It is a lot easier to spend other people's money.

[MM]

To have a government that would not help people in need where ever they are would be reprehensible to me. Whether they happen to be over some man-made line we call a border is not the point. I agree 110% that we have some terrible arrangements with other governments but humanitarian aid is a different issue. If people are suffering we need to help whether it be as individuals or as a government.

[Matthew Garrison]

Ron Paul supports helping others through voluntary action as opposed to theft (taxation). The tax dollars that pay for federal government involvement in foreign natural disaster relief are the same ones that create deadly disasters in the form of unconstitutional, unjustifiable wars. If anything, Ron Paul truly believes that there is goodness in humanity and that without government meddling, people will behave humanely and deal with disasters more efficiently without politicizing these events. I agree with Dr. Paul. The only role of the federal government is to protect life, liberty, and property and to remain constrained by the U.S. constitution.

[Tannim]

Looks like the anti-Paul idiots are out in full force, with Malcolm leading the charge.

First of all, he's called DOCTOR Paul because he is a PHYSICIAN. HE HAS EARNED THAT TITLE! He did not have it bestowed on him as some honorary degree. He earned at Duke Medical School, one of the best in the nation. It's not reverence, it's proper respect--something his denigrators seem to lack in spades!

Second, the reason he voted against it has been explained in the posts. Had Andrew did his homework instead of jumping to erroneous conclusion, in other words, been responsible in his journalism, he would have known that. Instead he choose to pick praising sports resolutions that impact no one and don't intrude government on anyone. The difference is obviously lost on Malcolm since he can't seem to tell the difference between congratulating a sports team and interfering with the internal affairs of a sovereign (albeit dictatorial and despotic) government.

Third, "compassionate conservatism" is a joke, since those with the purse strings attached to it decide whom to be compassionate to. Dr. Paul rejects that silliness, as it only leads to more wasteful government (ala OFBCI, for starters!).

Seriously, Andrew, you've gone badly downhill in the past few weeks. You either need a vacation, a journalism refresher, or just retire. You've gone from so-so to disgraceful.

[Thomas]

Besides being silly, the resolution contained a statement directing the military government to put off the vote on the resolution. It was a little too late for that, adding to the silliness, but in addition this kind of presumption to tell other governments what to do is something Paul shuns.

[Tyler]

When a nation has a 650 billion dollar deficit in one year does it really need to be stated that our government doesn't need to send 3,250,000 dollars to a nation......For the love of god read the whole bill before you pass judgment.

[Chris in Thorofare]

Thats a funny post there Joe, especially considering the artificially low interest rates that Allen Greenspan (head of the fed at the time) ran with for so long caused the inflation bubble.

And afterwards, when everything hit the fan, the Fed printed money and bailed out these big companies WITH TAXPAYER MONEY. That means you take the loss with inflation from printed money (already happening) and future taxes for you and your children.

These businesses under a free market system would bankrupt over making bad decisions. Are you telling me in a true free market other businesses woudn't fill the niche of bear sterns?

Do some research on the great depression, you will find the fed doing similiar things then to disastrous effect. Yes, the same Fed you throw your trust in existed during the great depression.

Its funny that the only time a free market did exist in this country (up until 1913) that the country was quite prosperous. There is surely no free market in this country now to judge, as evidenced by the bear sterns bailout. How can you claim it doesnt work then Joe?

[GC]

I usually shake my head and sigh when I see over-enthused Ron Paul supporters insulting you when, in the midst of writing an overall positive article about Paul, you crack a joke or two at his expense.

Now I'm shaking my head and sighing in your direction. Ron Paul doesn't vote for stupid symbolic gestures when he believes that it contains language that is antagonistic towards foreign nations. That piece of legislation was just that. Paul would surely have had no problem voting for it had it been nothing more than an empty sympathy gesture. What is the point, however, to the empty gesture when the words contained in it could be a justification for the slaughter of American aid workers?

I'm disappointed in you. Had you done your research you would have found Ron Paul's sound, reasoned logic on this votes and many others in the past.

[James]

Ron Paul is about letting the people decide how benevolent they want to be, not forcing benevolence on the people of the U.S. . If you want to personally donate that is your prerogative, and that is what the good Dr. is about. Please let us know how much you've given out of your own pocket!!! Also let us know if RP contributed out of his own...which if you did you would never report on anyway. And people wonder why the media is imploding. HACK!!!

[Jeff]

Joe,

I agree that philosophies on their own are just that, philosophies. But, where we differ is in the application of such philosophies. I our government were to abide by the laws it passed in the early stages of its formation we individuals would be in a stronger possition to take care of the needs of our own. I come from a long line of dirt farmers and mill hands, factory workers and general laborers. Hard work on the part of my family and being taught not to fear the hoe or the backache that comes with it is the biggest reason I have what I have and can do what I do. It's not a philosophy nor was it government that brought me to where I am today. But sure as the sun comes up in the morning, government can take what I have and what my family has and destroy 250 plus years of love and labor with sthe stroke of a pen. Dr. Paul does not say that we do not need a government, just a smaller one that has limitations that prevent it from harming the ones it is meant to protect. Government and poor judgment of some of our fellow Americans has led to this Credit-Housing crisis. Government actually help influence quite a lot the poor judgment. We have to live within our own means and borrow at our own risk. Government lives by these same standards with one exception, I don't expect you or anyone else to bail me out of a bad loan or business deal, but our government expects each and every one of us to bail it out of tough times. As far as the market goes, it is what it is, just a market and if we are free to participate in that market we get to choose what is good and what is bad just by controling it with our wallets. Do you remember the new Coke formula? It didn't take long before Coke became "Classic" again. And with gas prices as high as they are, how long will it be before smaller economy cars dominate our highways again. Everything is a cycle, we need to have the liberty to change with those cycles or we become just another once great but now failed nation/power. Sorry to ramble so much, but that my philosophy in a nut shell.

[TJ]

Paultards!!!! What! Come on man. Why don't you take a piece of that monster pay check of yours and send it over to Asia - you clown.

[Tominellay]

It's clear that Andrew Malcolm did NOT intend to discuss the House Resolution and its ramifications.

[Jeff]

MM,
Humanitarian aid can not come from a government, it must come from the people as individuals acting in accord with a cause. Otherwise it is forced and is nothing short of theft. I have no problem with giving and my family and I do. We give food , money and even labor when we see a need and can do so, but we don't force you or our neighbors to do the same, we may ask but thats as far as it should go.

[David]

http://mises.org/story/2985
The U.S. Government Should Not Aid Myanmar

Although any American is certainly welcome to contribute to the relief effort in Myanmar, no one should be forced to do so via his taxes or otherwise. It is a myth that there would not be sufficient aid to Myanmar without the government being involved in some way. Although I don't often agree with President Bush, he was certainly correct when he recently remarked that "the American people are generous people and they're a compassionate people." There is no doubt in my mind that Americans will give liberally to alleviate the suffering of the people of Myanmar. Many have done so already through donations to various relief agencies. But whether Americans give or don't give, it is still the case that it should be the decision of each individual American.

The case of Myanmar is a test of one's commitment to the freedom philosophy. A free society includes the freedom to be unconcerned, insensitive, or stingy. If the forced looting of the taxpayers for foreign-aid payments has always been wrong, then — cyclone or no cyclone — it is just as wrong now.

[Dan]

Interesting... you want to know why he voted against the bill? Read it. Somehow, I doubt you (or the majority of the representatives in Congress) took the time to actually read the bill, and instead just took it at face value.

If you read it, the bill includes a condemnation of the Burmese government/regime. Of course they're bad, but Ron Paul doesn't believe in condemning and threatening countries... he's all about staying out of foreign problems remember? There's a difference between the legislation cited in the blog and this, because those other bills were concerning things that happened in America, where the Congress has jurisdiction. Congress has no jurisdiction over Burma. Paul likely sees it as an act of aggression/war to condemn and threaten in the legislation. Besides, why should you offer sympathy? The bill/condolences are not going to go to the people of Burma. It's going to be sent to the regime there. Why should we offer sympathy to them if they're inhumane to their own people? What's the likelihood that this message even gets heard by the people if they live under an authoritarian dictator/regime? We have a hard enough time getting food and supplies into that country. You think they're going to open the door for our sympathy and criticism of their government?

I don't think you understand how strict Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is.... basically, if it's not listed in it/word for word, he doesn't think it should be done, not without amending the Constitution.... he makes all those votes for philosophical reasons, not because he's racist.

[paul]

Really? You spend your time and influence writing from any angle to TRY and make Dr. Paul seem like a bad guy... You should be embarrassed, you look like a fool... This country doesn't need to hear this argument. They need to look at who would defend the constitution and the American working man. Not this petty garbage. Who cares how he voted on this issue and past like it. Do you think you proved something? I feel sorry for you dude.

[Scott]

Condolences and sympathy do not help people who are dying. Remember... this is the same Ron Paul who voted against using taxpayer dollars to buy on overpriced medal for Rosa Parks... and then went on to offer money out of his own pocket to pay for it while suggesting others in Congress do the same. Ron Paul is the -only- compassionate conservative of the bunch.

As for actually helping Myanmar beyond simple "condolences"... taxpayer dollars that are delivered to Myanmar through the wasteful chain of government and without the consent of the people are hardly the answer. The people want to help Myanmar... and so the people should. A fund should be setup outside of government so that those who are able can help those who are suffering in Myanmar. Period.

[Sid Davis]

Which is more compassionate, freedom or slavery?

I think Ron Paul is the most compassionate politician in the US. He does not advocate the government engineered system of plunder and control that the privileged few now enjoy. He fights against actions of the federal government that exceed those authorized by the Constitution, which is what that bill you endorse would have done. Nobody is stopping the LATimes from making contributions to those suffering disasters around the world? How much did you contribute?

I suggest that the LATimes perhaps is where lack of compassion is since you are fellow travelers in supporting the slave system. In case you don't understand slavery is the opposite of freedom, and both the federal government and the state of California are leaders in destroying expanding laws that have the effect of eroding freedom, imposing slavery.

Look in the mirror boys.

[Cez]

You're a disgrace to journalism.

[Dominique]

Shame on you for such a misleading title. It figures you only print half truths. You print only the part that makes your story stick. If it were me, I would have voted the same as Dr. Paul and for the same reasons. Mr. Malcolm you are just like our dumb politicians in congress. You don't care about America!!!
And as individual citizens, we can send our own money and condolences. Just like the Tsunami of 2004. WHO WAS THE BIGGEST DONORS, The AMERICAN PEOPLE and not the DAMN GOV. I happen to be one of those donors. Our government certainly has their own HUGE DOMESTIC PROBLEMS to be addressing than an empty letter of sympathy to the cyclone victims and the condemnation of the Junta. It's LIP SERVICE at it's best.They are trying to look good and only pick and choose who they really care about based on "what can we get from them" in return. God Bless the people of the world and pray for the governments of this world that do not serve their own people!!!!!

[Patrick]

Andrew,

If TJ's posting of the bill listed below is accurate, it would seem to me that it does more than just offer sympathy to the people of Myanmar. Perhaps your immigrant parents should have spent more time stressing the importance of a limited democracy, Constitutional Republic. But then again, should I really expect more from someone who was Laura Bush's press secretary? Even at your age, you should be ashamed to have that in your bio. Has the easy money been worth it, sir? It wouldn't quiet my conscience. You lack integrity, old man. It's time for you to retire.

[Mike]

Once again Paul has stuck to principle, and a so-called journalist, who doesn't investigate the entirety of this bill, gathers his opinion too hastily, and is his story turns into being a laughing stock.

Adhering to principle can sometimes come across as being callous, it's true. But the underlying concept of the principle itself is always just. One cannot make exceptions to the rule whenever it seems fit, no matter how strong the temptation. For when that precedent is set, it's a slippery slope. That type of weak thought process is what has gotten this country into the problems it's in.

I can only wish more Congressmen and women had the political courage and integrity of Paul.

[CT]

My only hope here is that you wrote this article KNOWING that Ron Paul supporters would explain WHY he voted against it. Ive read your past articles, I have been pleasantly surprised by your open minded approach to Dr Paul's stance on issues... but this? You either had a brain fart or have completely lost it! Is it really so hard to do your research before posting a peice of dirt like this? You have taken a vote in which Ron Paul carefully weighed in terms of constitutionality and YOU have made it sound heartless and cruel. SHAME ON YOU! I find it sad and dissapointing that a journalist that I have had a poitive edge toward has fallen into the doldrums of the same old tired "propeganda".
I hope this was just a slip up on your part.

[Lisa]

I haven't seen one person on here addressing the fact that WE HAVE NO MONEY to send them. Where the hell do you think it will come from people. It's easy to sit back and say we should help, well then guess what, watch out here comes more taxes. The money has to come from somewhere, and that is the taxpayer. If you want to save the world that's fine, do it as individuals, we know how to handle money way better than the government.

[Tim, Minnesota]

Andrew,

I would expect more journalistic investigation from you. Ron Paul voted against the resolution because of one point. The Congress resolution demanded the Myanmar government postpone their general elections. This is interference in other governments affairs. Ron Paul stated he wanted to support the resolution except political positioning had to be incorporated into the legislation.

Please Andrew prior to you slandering Ron Paul GET ALL the facts correct. I look forward to your retraction and apology very soon.

[million]

hilarious, Andrew!! i'm enjoying all the way-too-serious comments above. folks relax, i think this was Malcolm's deadpan version of satire.

[MalcolmsBlogVomit]

This is the same focus on the superficial that we've come to expect from Mr Malcolm and the rest of the mainstream media while the real issues facing THIS country not Burma go completely ignored.

Who cares about Bushco raping the Constitution and setting themselves up as dictators? Who cares about the erosion of freedom? Who cares about the massive national debt? Who cares that the banking system is bankrupt? Who cares that the Fed is bailing out the banking system at the expense of the taxpayer? Who cares about the millions of killed or displaced Iraqis that had nothing to do with 9/11? Who cares if the US is hell bent on obliterating Iran as a proxy for Israel even though Iran has never been a threat to the USA and Israel has 300 more nukes than Iran's paltry zero?

What we really need to focus on is the lapel pins and Ron Paul's voting record on empty platitudes.

Thanks for advancing the cause of liberty and intellect Malcolm. You really are a renaissance man aren't you?!

Ha!

[Brandi]

To anyone reading this that might (somehow) think this article is not spin: Please read Ron Paul's book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom. These things are never just an ofference of condolences, they always leave a door open for further US involvement, and always have unintended negative consequences for us and the other country. "It's great to learn, cause knowledge is power!"

[Angela]

Andrew, I wish you had been prescient enough to wite this after researching Paul's reasons for the veto.

I really don't expect much from most journalists, but I generally consider you an exception. What were you thinking????

[mark]

Mr Malcom , your either a liar or very poor at research.
Fundementaly Paul's stance on things like is

"We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money"

your lie is that this bill was authorizing 3.25 million to burma. It wasnt a sympathy vote as you claim.

the sybolic vote of the football team that was siged by Paul wasn't receiving funding.

I expect the paper to get some of the facts correct , ie your writing about an article that is about a specific bill. You then go on to show how each member of the house voted on the issue, but then somehow totally mis represent the fact of funding vs no funding and try to relate this bill to other "symbolic legislation" when one is gesture and the other is appropriations.

[D- In Las Vegas]

Andrew Malcom is the only writer I have ever had the displeasure or reading that consistantly outdoes his last piece by making every piece worse then his last. It must be the neocon inside his searing with displeasure everytime Ron Paul makes a good point as more and more people stand behind him. Or it must be his age, because every piece he writes, the gramitical errors grow.

You know what happens when America is ruled by 'Compassionate Conservatism?' George H. W. Bush. Thats what. Debt. Recession. A housing slump. More & more illegal immigrants. A national Id card. And writers like Andrew Malcom, too old and brainwashed by what the television says to muster up an original thought. Too old to write a piece relevant to the election. But just smart enough to get people to read it. If it werent for scum like you Andrew, I wouldn't know that there are others like me out there who whole heartedly believe that Ron Paul is good for America. If it werent for you Andrew Malcom, there wouldn't be comments about your story and how horrible of a person you are and what an amazing man Ron Paul is. So for that I have to thank you and appreciate your horrible work.

RON PAUL 2008

[David]

"The sharp-eyed folks at Radaronline.com"

That statement alone should tell you about the intellectual merits of this article.

Radaronline.com recently added Spencer Pratt as a columnist. Mr. Pratt is infamous for being the dimwitted, inconsequential, waste of space known as "Heidi's boyfriend" on MTV's The Hills.

One of Spencer's early columns on Radaronline was the intellectually stimulating piece: "When Is It The Right Time To Try Butt Sex?"

Yes, those are the sharp-eyed folks at Radaronline.com

-dave

[NCgirl]

I'm just sitting here laughing after reading that ridiculous article. Unfortunately, the Baaa Baaa Sheeples will swallow it hook, line and sinker. Do some research Sheeples before you fall off the cliff. I, for one, will NOT follow you.

WWW.RONPAUL2008.COM

[ck]

Good Lord Malcolm you truly are an asssss! And I don't care if you post this or not as I will never be back to your column again and I suggest the same to any other Congressman Paul supporters.

[Imperial]

Andrew, there is a difference.

Do resolutions that give a pat on the back to the NY Giants create a slippery slope. Its not like in the future we will then go and make a policy to repress other teams to ensure the NY Giants win.

However, these condolence resolutions for disasters do. Look at Lebanon, where step-by-step in the 1980s Ron Paul warned of controversial phrasing. He was right; it was used as justification for increased federal power and intervention in Lebanon, leading to a big barracks explosion among American marines if anyone remembers.

Or Iraq? Regime change advocation lead to justification for war as well.

So, he votes against them when they bring the chance of a slippery slope.

[Stephen Zurich]

What Malcolm should be furious about is a Congress that uses this terrible tragedy to make a political statement about the Burmese government. But poor Malcolm is too stuck in empty-headed sentimentality and would rather lash out than think.

Did you even read the bill, Andrew?

" Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
...
"(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people."

[Steve]

The folks who have drunk Ron Paul's magic Kool-Aid seem to be living in some sort of la-la-land. That kook will be lucky if he even gets 1% of the vote in November.

[voxpo]

Sounds like Ron Paul did fine on these trivial votes. Nice job.

[DJ]

How did I know you'd sink so low, Malcolm? I hope it was worth selling your soul. Guess those savings of yours just isn't keeping up with the inflation, eh? Oh, did you find out if Ron Paul ever broke any FEC rules? Ahh... didn't think so, sorry for your misfortune. At least the training of your four boy troll army is going well for you.

Good luck and fair well... Top of the Ticket. May your troll patrol educate themselves enough to regurgitate more then a couple lines of vomitous mental surrender. And may their welfare checks always be on time.

[Tony R.]

Government isn't supposed to be compassionate with other people's money. A government protects the people and their property so that THEY can be if they are able and so choose. Ron Paul correctly adheres to this philosophy... Andrew Malcolm is a sad and misinformed panderer who spouts anything and everything that should find its way from his ass.

[shel]

Ron Paul objected to this on the principle hat it interferes another Government's business? What about the Romanian Orphan referendum resolution that he did vote for? It urges the government of Romania to a)complete the processing of certain intercountry adoption cases b)amend its child welfare and adoption laws to decrease adoption barriers. Now, the wording isn't as harsh, but that looks just as interfering to me, yet Ron Paul voted for this referendum just fine.
For the record, I'm of the opinion that these resolutions are a big waste of time as well. If a Congressperson or Senator feels compelled to send a message to Burma, I'm sure they have stationary.

[mbviews]

My question is why did Congress spend so much time drafting such a long resolution. What is the point? Sometimes 1 person makes a difference by voting that enough is enough. Too many regulations. Too many taxes. AND, too many resolutions. Private sector institutions supported by private contributions can respond to Mynamar.

[nzer]

hello from nz. for me the biggest shock in this piece was hearing that your congress votes on resolutions to congratulate sports teams... is this for real?!? What utter nonsense. If this is true, you need to get your own 'government' system straightened out before you go telling other countries when to hold their referendums!

[Wesley]

If you really want to understand Congressman Paul's position on Burma and foreign aid listen to the recent NPR Talk of the Nation interview, in which his compassion is questioned.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90438900

Your silly story about Ron Paul's "mean, vicious, cruel and uncaring side" is one of the most pathetic attempts to smear his character to date. His true character is present in the ironic photo your chose to use for the headline.

[Mark]

Normally Andrew takes the time to respond to some of the readers' comments. However, this time he realizes he's so off base he does not even try to defend himself.

You should retract the article.

(Uh, no. Why are you so troubled by actual facts? Our readership is growing so fast, can't keep up with all the comments. But couldn't let special Mark's go by unnoticed. Thanks again.)

[Malcom the Moron]

Shouldn't you be trying to smear a candidate that "will" win?!?

LOLOLOL.. you're clown... you ought to focus your efforts on keeping us posted on the latest britney drama... you win.. here's you traffic and clicks

[Joseph]

Ron Paul should be president. He does want to help Burma, but without the government printing paper money that doesn't really have value.

He said that we as individuals are very generous people and that we as individuals can donate our money to relief organizations. Billions of dollars if we choose to.

[John]

So I thought I would chime in. Basically it's a matter of principle, the federal government(congress), should not be making these resolutions. Ron Paul has talked about Burma as a private citizen, showing sympathy etc, but the federal government does not play a role in doing that. It's not authorized in the constitution.

Just like congress saying we symbolically agree with Kosovo's declaration of independence. Then our embassy is burned down, and someone inside burns alive.

The founders and the constitution's methods have lots of merit. It doesn't matter if it's a hurricane, or some natural disaster, private citizens can donate, say whatever they want. The federal government does not have a role. I consider Ron Paul to be the only one who payed attention to the constitution when voting on this resolution.

[blargen]

Andrew, you don't get it, the government shouldn't be wasting time on useless legislation. Are you happy to pay money for them to make this completely useless symbolic gesture? Personally i don't think they should do the football thing either. And as for sending money and aid, that is also not a responsibility of the government. Individuals should have the choice to send money if they want, through organizations such as the red cross, but the government should never be involved. Its called liberty, look it up.

[Mark]

You have the nerve to talk about facts??? You're article clearly demonstrates that you have no grasp of any. Shameful.

(Thanks for reading the article about the fact of Dr. Paul's actual vote now a part of the Congressional Record and U.S. history. Can't handle that, can ya? You're right, it does look pretty awful.)

[AAAAANDRE]

Say Andrew, how's that shoe tasting today???

[Paul]

Ooh...the "Evil Ron Paul". I'll bet he ate half of those 4,000 babies he delivered.

Andrew, get a life. Or at lease get a clue.

[Tess]

Mr. Malcolm,

Now that all the Ron Paul Supporters, and Liberty Activists have bombarded your blog with their perceptions of why Ron Paul voted this Resolution down, please do us all a favor, and tell us your real unbias opinion, or is that against your company policy, as it is with the employees of Foxnews?

[Scott Harmon]

Mr. Malcolm:

First, let me point out that the crux of your argument is illogical. You are attempting to equate Paul's willingness to concur with "silly resolutions" on sports activities with his failure to concur with "silly" foreign policy resolutions, regardless of whether either of the resolutions has any merit. The point you are missing is not whether the resolution has merit, but whether the resolution has a philosophical purpose that is consistent with his own values about the role of Congress and U.S. policy.

Note that the "silly resolution" to congratulate a football team does not confer "interventionism." Did that resolution demand that the football team wear red jerseys? Did that resolution require the team to play on Thursdays? Of course not. Now, look at some of the text of this "silly" resolution from Congress regarding Burma:

(5) calls for the Burmese military junta to consider the well-being of its people and accept broad international assistance; and

(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people.

This "silly" resolution is demanding something. It is attaching strings to an offering of sympathy. Now, just think about a similar circumstance: I send you a sympathy card for the death of your loved one, and also "demand" that you bury this person in a certain area, and follow a certain type of religious ceremony to effect the "proper" rites of passage. That, sir, would be outrageous, disrespectful, and rude. But that is what we are doing in Burma.

So, it is time we started realizing that a policy of "non-interventionism" is not always "cruel" and "rude" on principle; rather, a policy of "interventionism" is often in bad taste and symbolic of opportunism.

Yet, I can hear the counter-arguments. The Burmese government stinks. People are suffering. And so forth. True, no doubt. But just about every government I can think of stinks, and people are suffering everywhere. So, by this logic, we must thrust ourselves onto every country of the earth and overturn every government so that we may do good and alleviate the suffering. Or, more correctly, we'll pick and choose which ones we want to help--by attaching a string to our foreign policy goodness--thereby rendering our support superficial.

So, that's the game. If you want to help the people in Burma, then you must help the people in New York, Chile, Venezuela, Djibouti, Russia, China, Sweden, etc. Are you getting the point?

[Thomas]

Wow, was that the best you flat worlder's can do? I'm quite pleased. Thank you for showing you hand early. I have even more confidence in Ron Paul now. Thank you thank you!

[PubliusNot]

Screw the LA Times. Jump on Paul for not showing politcally correct sympathy for a despotic Chinese Puppet government in Myanmar. But by all means be cowards when it comes to using the power of the free press to show sympathy when it comes to Tibet or Darfur and Chinese heavy handedness in their own country because you want access to the Olympics.

And by the way , he is "Dr. Paul", not just a name the "Paulites" use -- he earned the title whether you like him or not. My god, what a bunch of boobs at the LA times -- or more appropriately communist dimwits. And the fourth estate is supposed to be a bastion for truth?!!! What a bunch of retards with this jerk off as chief mo-mo.

[Dano]

Why should Americans be taxed to help non-Americans?

People who want to help others should do it with their own money.

Taxing Americans to pay for welfare of Americans is bad enough, but taxing them for the welfare of non-Americans is an abomination. How anyone could defend that, morally, philosophy, or economically is beyond me.

[msn]

I have to agree. I don't think he should have voted no that resolution. He shouldn't have wasted his time even voting either way on that. It was a waste of time on our public servants parts to even take the time to come up with this resolution. The public servants of this country in Washington D.C. should start doing their job which is to get this government back tofollowing the Constitution and shrinking the federal government, giving states back the power they were supposed to have and the people as well. get rid of the IRS, FBI, CIA, Dept.of Education, all types of welfare, all aid to other countries until our country can take care our own....not our government take care of us but our own people taking care of themselves and each other when needed. We can't support the whole world or be the world's policemen.

[JoJo]

Man you Paultards have thin skins.

[Bill Chen]

It is not the job of the US Congress to tell other nations what to do, symbolically or not. Only an irresponsible government would waste its time on a silly resolution like this at a time when our nation is 9.5 trillion in debt. Ron Paul is right. A resolution like this has more to do with paternalism than humanitarianism.

[Nicolas Martin]

On this issue Paul follows in worthy footsteps.

Not Yours to Give
by Colonel David Crockett
http://www.fee.org/library/books/notyours.asp

[Eric]

Someone here actually stated:
"Hey, government gives you all the freedoms" -- Jay

Wow. The ingorance is very thickwhen people start believing their freedoms are given to them by government.

"Jay" needs to learn where our freedom comes from, and it sure isn't government. Learn about the philosophy of liberty, by watching this entertaining video:

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/option,com_seyret/Itemid,26/task,videodirectlink/id,22/

[Joe Blog]

I'm as much a Paultard as the next guy... I agree with him voting no to condolences, but the football thing has me baffled, I would have thought he'd vote no to that too... my only guess is that he makes a distinction between foreign and domestic... useless (but doesn't cost money) votes are ok for domestic, but foreign is none of our business (which makes sense).

He still seems principled... you just have to search a little harder for the principles. He has some other odd votes like this, like voting not to extend the tax free status of the internet, not because he wants to tax it, but because he doesn't think congress has any authority to tax the internet in the first place (to grant it 'tax-free' status).

And the ad hominems against Andrew aren't doing anyone any service.

[PK You Know!]

A do-nothing congress voting on a do-nothing piece of legislation. What a bloody joke.

[Davo]

What he actually states during a NPR interview is this.

Is that it is up to the individual to donate to these causes, and not the govt role to act on behalf of taxpayers. He also states that you would probably end up with far more being donated this way.

Sounds good to me, what's your problem with it?

Another example of nonsense from the MSM.

[ABC]

If Paul votes against a bll easing restrictions for refugees from Myanmar in light of recent events then I'll be disappointed with him, but as it stands the resolution a) does nothing b) is exemplary of the US government thinking i can tell other countries what to do. This resolution has nothing to do with being compassionate or not being compassionate, compassion is up to the individual. The football resolution was a silly waste of time, but at least it wasn't trying to dictate to a foreign government and, I'm assuming this mind, didn't cost money. And as far as the whole putting principle before person that some person alluded to, well putting people before principle has ended up hurting the people as governments will always make excuses through the prism of helping the people in order to justify violations of principle. Empire is created with the help of good intentions.

[Jenn]

We want more like Ron Paul in Washington!
Ground up, here we come, and the roots run deep!

[working poor]

gee all this shows me is that there are more people in Washington that care more about what's going into their own pocket than what's coming out of mine.

I have found that a majority vote in congress is not always for the good of all but the people are just swayed and seduced into thinking that it is.

Something that would make me have a little faith in our government would be to see the majority voting with Ron Paul instead of against. That would blow my mind...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions is what my mom always told me growing up.

Integrity, so it seems often stands alone and naked...

Nice try Mr. Malcolm

[helpmyanmar]

It seems there is more to the resolution than just humanitarian issues.

If the humanitarian crisis were the only issue, then there shouldn't be mentions or demands related to foreign policy or political aims.

I'm sure the intentions were good for all concerned, but when life and death are at stake, is scoring political points so important?

[Paulite]

"Wow. I sure hope none of you Paulites consider yourself Christians."

Religion is a personal endeavor NOT a state endeavor. Until you can understand that you will NEVER understand that the STATE has no part in religion.

No one is saying it is wrong for people to PERSONALLY donate to a cause like this. However the government has NO BUSINESS stealing my money to give to whatever charity the presiding congress feels is important.

Let me put it this way, if for some reason congress decided it should give money to satanists would you feel ok about them taking YOUR tax dollars and giving it to a religious group that you despise? Maybe you feel that is a little extreme but the problem is WHERE do you draw the line to decide who gets charity and who doesn't? You CANT draw a line, the only thing to do is keep Church and State SEPARATE.

No one is preventing YOU from giving up your hard earned cash away to whoever you want. But FORCING Americans to give away their own money is STEALING..

- oh and regarding the football thing, you know, everyone makes mistakes. Perhaps Paul used to vote on that stuff and then one day he realized what a frivolous waste of time it is and quit voting yes to stupid proposals like this.

[swifty]

Here is a short excerpt taken from The 1884 biography, Life of Colonel David Crockett, this may help to explain the kind of priciples Dr. Paul adheres to and why, it is well worth a look and grants wisdom its reading.

http://mail.commonwealthfoundation.org/pb04-03.pdf

[Scott Frost]

In defense of Ron Paul, that resolution does, in fact, sound like it is telling another country what to do.

The part of the resolution which reads:

"(2) [The House of Representatives] vows its full support of and solidarity with the people of Burma;"

could be interpreted broadly to justify intervention. The Bush administration has a history of using the flimsiest of justifications for indulging in its interventionist foreign policy.

And the last part, which reads:

"(6) [The House] demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people."

is clearly making a policy statement.

What if Myanmar, or some other country, passed a resolution "demanding" that the United States leave Iraq and spend its money on America's poor people rather than its empire (or suzerainty, if you prefer)? Would we find that acceptable? If not, why not?

Resolutions to congratulate sports teams are merely a silly waste of Congress' time. They have more imprtant things to do, like investigating the New England Patriots "spy gate" scandal and pestering pro baseball players about steroids! Groan...

Ron Paul was right to vote "Nay." He would have been right in voting "Nay" even if he had been voting on an actual aid package to Myanmar.

Laurence Vance has written an argument for not sending any government aid to Myanmar or China or anywhere else -- for moral reasons.

Here is Mr. Vance's article:

http://mises.org/story/2985

Unfortunately, what is moral has been turned on its head in this country. It is now seen as perfectly acceptable to ask the government to steal money from the citizens (our neighbors) and redistribute it to people in other countries. That is not freedom. In a free country, people make donations on a voluntary basis, assuming that they can afford to do so.

As Mr. Vance points out in his article, it was once considered improper for the federal government to give aid even to its own citizens. Now we give money to foreign countries. Money that we don't even have.

"Government aid" is not compassion, it is coercion. It's like giving somebody a present that you bought with stolen money.