Senator Paul: Why Not Fund Disaster Relief With Foreign Aid Money?

Senator Paul: Why Not Fund Disaster Relief With Foreign Aid Money?
“My amendment, the ‘America First’ amendment, would take the money from money that we were going to send to foreign countries,” in order to pay for disaster relief in the United States, explained Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “We send billions and billions of dollars to countries who hate us. We send billions and billions of dollars to countries who burn our flag. I think it’s a very simple choice that when we’re looking at those in need in our country, we quit sending money to other countries.”

Paul’s amendment was a reaction to the proposals for the U.S. government to go even deeper into debt to aid in the disaster of Hurricane Harvey. Instead of taking on even more debt, Paul contends, why not just cut the amount of the American taxpayers’ dollars that go to foreign governments, which include dictatorships, many of whom hate the United States.

Apparently, few senators agree with Paul that helping Americans without going into debt is as important as keeping the levels of foreign aid where they are. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Paul’s fellow Republican senator from the Bluegrass State, made a motion last week to table (kill) Paul’s reasonable proposal, and that motion passed passed 87-10.

Paul’s amendment would have allocated $7.85 billion in aid to help in relief of the devastation brought on by Hurricane Harvey, which hit the Gulf coast of Texas and Louisiana, and $2.5 billion for damage expected from Hurricane Irma, which began hitting the western coast of Florida over the weekend. The senator argued that no reason exists to increase the national debt when the money can be taken from the foreign aid budget.

Many people put their expenses on a credit card, but credit cards have debt limits; such people do not have the option of simply raising their card’s debt limit when faced with unexpected expenses, as the federal government does every few months. So, when a family encounters unexpected expenses, they either take the money out of savings, or cut spending elsewhere to pay for it. They certainly don’t often take on debt to send their money to foreign dictators.

“In Washington, we have a disease — or a syndrome, rather. I call it the ‘dinosaur syndrome,’ big hearts, small brains,” Paul lamented in a speech last week on the floor of the Senate. “Unfortunately, it’s a reoccurring problem. Year after year, bill after bill, day after day. In Washington, it is argued that you are more compassionate if you give away more of someone else’s money. I would argue that true compassion is in giving your own money away. I would argue truly rational policy is giving away money that you have. So, it’s one thing to give away other people’s money, it’s another thing to give away money that you don’t even possess.”

As an example, Paul pointed to the foreign aid the U.S. has spent in “nation-building” in Afghanistan. President Donald Trump, in yet another reversal of his campaign promises, has promised to continue the war in Afghanistan — now the longest war in American history. “We spend billions of dollars — I think it’s over $100 billion — building roads in Afghanistan, blowing up roads in Afghanistan, building schools, blowing up schools, and then rebuilding all of them. Sometimes we blow them up, sometimes someone else blows them up, but we always go back and rebuild them. What about rebuilding our country?”

Trillions of dollars in taxpayer money have been given away around the world in foreign aid, since the Second World War. At one time, the argument was that this was needed because of the “Cold War” — the effort to keep a country from “going communist” — but even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the foreign aid budget has only increased.

What has the United States gained for all of this expenditure of national treasure? Is America more loved around the world? Can we really “buy” friends with all of this foreign aid? Much American blood and wealth was given in an unsuccessful attempt to “make South Vietnam a showcase for democracy in Asia,” followed by another unsuccessful attempt to “make Iraq a showcase for democracy in the Middle East,” but the doomed efforts to change foreign nations with American money goes on and on.

It must be understood that much of the foreign aid has been spent to prop up foreign dictators. Little of the money actually helps the average person in the receiving country. And, often this foreign aid actually causes so much disruption to the receiving nation’s economy that it leads to social and political unrest in that country.

And, it should be noted, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution to take money from Americans and give it to foreigners, whatever the reason and results.

What the rejection of Senator Paul’s amendment illustrates, however, is that the forces inside the United States who benefit from continued foreign aid are so powerful that the giving away of American wealth — even if the country must go deeper into debt — will continue, despite the great unpopularity of foreign aid with the American public.

In essence, foreign aid is a redistribution of American wealth in socialist fashion to many socialist countries around the world. What those countries really need, as does America, is to allow the free market create wealth, rather than redistribute it.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/26888-senator-p...

Views: 34

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have said this very thing to my friends. Senator Paul absolutely is right about using foreign aid for our country.........then stop all foreign aid. I am sick of paying for these other countries. Obummer spent our money to rehab mosques in the middle east....he is a muslim so what do you expect?

AMEN sister.  Using foreign aid TOTALLY gets my support.  We have our own to take care of right now, and they should come first.  After all, it is OUR money...

ID# 15811 - Four Sports Fans Doing The Wave - PowerPoint Animation

Ditto AMEN!

I called my two senators yesterday, Sen. McCaskill and Sen Blunt.  After a wait, found that McCaskill voted to table Sen Paul's proposal.  After a long wait, was finally hung up on by Blunts office, so did not find out what his vote was. I'm not through though.  My next question is:  how do the senators, 87 who voted with McConnell to table the proposal, benefit with keeping the amount of foreign aid at it's present level?  Is there money involved, money for the senators?  It absolutely baffles me that these senators would NOT prefer to give some of the foreign aid money to our countrymen in Texas and Florida.  Today, I heard the National Debt has gone over the 20 trillion mark.  The cost of the interest will surpass what is spent on defense and non defense discretionary spending. The national debt went up 6.666 trillion under obama.   Words, words, words, that all I hear from these politicians. I'd like to go to D.C., line them all up and give each one who will not work for us people, a fat lip.

I think we should pass them through a gauntlet.....so we can all take turns giving them a fat lip

Image result for through the gauntlet

Good idea. I once worked with a doctor from Afganistan.  He and his family escaped when the Russians invaded, and came to the U.S. One day, I jokingly asked him how would he like a fat lip?  He looked at me in astonishment and just walked away.  I later explained and he actually became as good or better at joking with us like that. Women in Afganistan apparently do not say those things to men. Learning the idioms of our language is sometimes more difficult than learning the language.

How appropriate, 666, number of the beast.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service