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!