Ron Paul Warns Burma Tyrants: We'll Stay Out of Your Way!

Happens all the time…sometimes you are right and everyone else is wrong. I was listening to talk radio the other day and there was a guest talking about how all the street cameras recently installed in the city were so good because everyone would be paranoid and not drive fast anymore thus reducing accidents and making driving safer…hmmm…wouldn’t it be safer still to stop everyone from driving in the first place… don’t let them on the road,kidnap them all and tie them up …restricting freedom is not the solution to the problem … it’s just a crime…interfering with other peoples business might make them safer from thier own goverment … but that interference is criminal too, however slight… Ron Paul was right…410 little dictators wrong.

Out of 410 on the hill only one has the courage to stand up and say no. What a sad state of affairs.

The point here is that, by Ron Paul’s strict rules of international isolationism—which make him a rare GOP critic of our Iraq occupation—the United States has no business meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, regardless what they’re up to. That he can’t bring himself to support even a nonbinding condemnation of Burma’s junta—which would rather have survivors of Cyclone Nargis wallow in starvation and disease than allow foreign aid groups into the country—is evidence of just how strongly he thinks Washington should look the other way.
Paul supporters would call this stand principled. But in a globalizing world of 6 billion plus, where the lines between domestic and foreign policy have been blurred by trade and national security concerns, one questions the wisdom of remaining silent while Than Shwe and his minions allow thousands of Burmese to die unattended.
This says nothing of our moral obligations as the wealthiest nation on the shrinking planet.

This post is for Mike Lillis.

Mike, I appreciate you candid response about the idea that we live in a global community. I couldn’t agree more that we should support those that are less fortunate or those who have experienced a misfortune of whatever magnitude. Notice the pronoun I used above, “we”, as in those of us able to volunteer for such a cause. Though I appreciate your response to the article, your ideas are misguided. See Ron Paul is following the rules of the Constitution not his personal opinions, only because he’s not allowed to follow personal opinions. If he followed his own ideas of what should be done with government power or money then he would be in violation of his oath of office. What Ron Paul is doing is demonstrating the limiting power of the Federal Government. He is demonstrating that individuals who believe that something is a worthy cause can give to the cause and can seek to make change for that cause. In the case above Ron Paul is simply showing that every individual of Congress can send their condolences as a individuals, and so can the individual citizens, but it is not in the power of the government to address the issue in any way because it is out of the governmental jurisdiction. When his spokeswoman said that, “It’s none of ‘our’ business”, she was referring to the government. If an indivdual or group of individuals or the rest of the country wants to make it their business then they can, but the Federal govenrment doesn’t have that athority according to Article I Section 8 and 9 and the 10th amendment of the Constitution. Ron Paul wants people to engage in global issues and not the government. He wants people to demonstrate care, and love, and community. The government would only divide communities. This issue is not about the Burmese people it’s about government overstepping its boundaries and about individual people not taking responsibility for people that need their assistance.

Dr. Paul has a point, our government is not authorized by the constitution to meddle in other countries affairs. He had the courage to actually read the resolution, and decide based on the constitution, not just because ‘everyone’ else is doing it.

Thank you Dr. Paul, you make me proud to call myself a supporter. I (and prolly many others) will follow your lead, just let us know what is needed. I voted for you in 88, and earlier this year and look forward to the priviledge of voting for you may more times.

Ron Paul is correct. The addition of requirements to this bill was an attempt to interfere with another government’s business. That is exactly why it was inserted and exactly why, if one votes against it, one is made to appear as unsympathetic.

It is fine to donate individually as Americans, by the way, to aid another country in its time of tragedy, but it is not the business of our government to donate nor attempt to interfere with its policies and politics, no matter how tragic or sad or immoral or unethical that country’s policies and politics are.

Congratulations to Dr. Paul for standing up for the Constitution and non-interventionist philosophy upon which this country was founded. He is the last true conservative and last true stateman this country has.

Mike,

The US is not the wealthiest nation in the world though. We are 9 trillion in debt. We are 8th in the world of GDP per capita (Wikipedia), unless you count that we each owe 30K to the US government’s debt pool. Everyone in the world needs help even in our own country. The government has no right to try and send our money or its “loaned” money overseas. This is because the government turns its donations into politics. The government picks and chooses when and why to help a nation. Remember the issues with Dafar? Remember Iraq was about doing good will in the 80s and today. North Korea and China are allowed to violate human rights, but Iraq isn’t. That is why donating as an individual is important because you have different goals. You could easily donate yourself to the cause. You could also pick a cause that was meaningful to you. What is even better, is that when I donate time or money helping someone, I feel a sense of satisfaction. I feel nothing when the government throws my money around. The problem is we want the government to do what we are to lazy to do, for charity takes time and money. Then we complain when the government doesn’t do what we think it should be doing. We need is a government that doesn’t get involved and gives us our money back so we can get involved.

“The point here is that, by Ron Paul’s strict rules of international isolationism…”

I get so tired of responding to this misapprehension (or deliberate malinterpretation) of Congressman Paul’s non-interventionist stance… I have no idea whether Mr Lillis is just ignorant of Dr. Paul’s views, in which case I commend to him a whole thirty seconds of Internet research, or if he believes that by attempting to affix to those views a term that has acquired a pejorative connotation he can discredit them. Either way, if Mr Lillis is a journalist, it’s irresponsible journalism; otherwise, it’s mere ranting.

“This says nothing of our moral obligations as the wealthiest nation on the shrinking planet.”

Nations, however wealthy, have no “moral obligations.” A nation is no sentient thing, bound and driven by conscience. That’s not true, of course, of the people of a nation. People do have consciences and Mr Lillis is certainly at liberty to respond to the dictates of his in any way he deems appropriate. But he’s not at liberty to impose the dictates of his conscience on the nation.

Governments have a responsibility to those they govern, and the government of Myanmar is egregiously violating that responsibility. But the U.S. is not, and cannot be, the conscience of the planet. We are not the conscience police. We haven’t the authority, implicitly or explicitly, morally or de jure, to assume that role and, in any event, not only can we not afford it, all it ever does, in the end, is add to the list of those who hate or resent us.