RELATED: New law allows Israeli Air Force easy opportunity for a false flag in United States [Featured on WhatReallyHappened.com.]
Hello to the U.S. House of Representatives. Your official ISP was logged as visiting several pages of this website on 7/20/12 at 4:58am. Don't you have anything better to do than to read stories about how you betrayed America? You disgusting traitor. By the way- we also know, and we know that YOU know, that 9/11/01 was a false-flag attack, an inside job carried out by the U.S. and Israel. You had better repent for your own sake. Your continued silence and cowardice is complicity.
House passes Israeli loyalty bill by voice vote, awaits Obama's sig 7/18/12
Israeli Air Force to Conduct Training Exercises in United States Under Fast-Tracked Aid Bill 7/15/12
7/14/12: I spoke with Rand Paul's Senate office in D.C. to inquire about this matter:
"Fiscal conservative" Rand Paul pledges $9+ Billion to Israel on the backs of American taxpayers 7/9/12
Rand Paul apologists who continue to excuse his silence on the Israel aid issue will often argue "Don't you know that Paul's FIRST BILL was to cut ALL foreign aid, including to Israel?!" That is a red herring arguement; misleading or distracting from the actual issue. His bill went nowhere, and the least he can do now as a Senator is to oppose new foreign aid and use his bully pulpit to advocate the fiscal policies he purportedly represents.
Soon after taking office January 3, 2011, Rand Paul introduced a bill which sought to enact $500 billion in spending cuts. S.162, the "Cut Federal Spending Act of 2011" (which can be found on http://thomas.loc.gov), was introduced by Paul on 1/25/11 with no cosponsors. On 1/26/11, it was "read the second time" and "Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 1." There has been no further action whatsoever taken on the bill. On page 23 & 24 of the "link to bill overview" at Paul's website, he correctly explained his rationale for seeking to decrease foreign aid spending by 71%:
"Despite billions of dollars spent in attempts to prop up economically weak countries, U.S. foreign aid has had almost an opposite effect. In the 1990s, a Clinton administration task force found that despite decades of foreign assistance, most of Africa and parts of Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East are economically worse off today than they were 20 years ago. In 2000, the Meltzer Commission found that the World Bank and organizations like it spent record levels backing projects in developing nations, only to have 55 to 60 percent of them fail because the money went to poorly managed economies where the money was either squandered by corrupt officials or imprudently spent. Instead of reaching the people who need it, foreign aid has increased the size of the state rather than the welfare of the people. After reviewing aid flowing to 95 countries, researchers at the London School of Economics found that virtually all the aid went toward consumption. It did not increase investment in growth, nor benefit the poor. But it did increase the size of government. Historical examples tell us the same: From 1961 to 1989, the U.S. sent well over $2 billion in aid to India, almost all of which went to the Indian state. Similarly, in the 1980s and 90s, African economists frequently complained that 90 percent of U.S. aid to sub-Saharan Africa went directly to governments. Finally, there is no evidence that aiding developing nations produces rapid and widespread economic reforms. Though many list South Korea and Taiwan as success stories of U.S. economic assistance, those counties began to take off economically only after massive U.S. aid was cut off. Similarly, numerous studies have disputed the link between aid money and economic reforms. In fact, A 2002 World Bank study admitted that they had been "overly optimistic about the prospects for reform, thereby contributing to the misallocation of aid."
The only other Congressional reference ever made to Paul's bill was a month and a half later by Senator David Vitter of Louisiana. On March 10, 2011, Vitter made reference to S.162 along with other budget-cutting measures during a 'fiscal responsibility' speech in which he sought to "focus on the single biggest domestic threat to our country, our single greatest challenge in the eyes of every Louisianan and every American I know, and that is to stop this runaway spending and debt.". Despite referencing it favorably, Vitter declined to cosponsor the bill.
Paul's initial budget proposal, albeit perhaps sincere and well-intentioned, does not excuse his current neglect to oppose the $9 billion in Israeli loan guarantees. Additionally, Paul has actually advocated increased military spending!
"Rand Paul is known for advocating reduction of the military budget- but on March 22 2012, Rand appeared on Glenn Beck's show discussing his proposed 5 year budget plan. Asked by Beck about defense spending, Paul noted that he would actually increase military spending increase by cutting four other departments: [4:38] "Instead of having military spending go down, like the sequester would have, ours actually allows for a gradual increase in military spending over time.." Beck's assistant asked Rand for clarification; "Wait a minute. You're actually going to increase military spending?" to which Rand replied an unoquivical "Yes." Despite being the son of the most well known non-interventionist of modern time, Paul voted for sanctions against Iran and has been referred to as a neocon in libertarian clothing." [Ron Paul says GOP is wrong for trying to cut food stamps one week after Rand tried to cut food stamps, 6/21/12.]
Yes, Paul proposed a very good bill, S.162, on 3/25/11; and he should keep on that path. The bill went nowhere, however. So that single attempt does not exonerate Paul from sticking to his purported position of no foreign aid in the future. In actuality, Paul could have gotten more attention to this important issue by opposing S.2165, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, on June 29th.
That is where the issue of foreign aid currently stands- not on some failed bill from almost 2 years ago. If he is sincere about cutting foreign aid, Rand Paul can not simply rest on what can't even be considered laurels (past successes).
Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured on LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, National Motorists Association, WorldNetDaily, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 Los Angeles, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI 640, The Press Enterprise, Antiwar.com, IamtheWitness.com, FreedomsPhoenix, Rense, BlackBoxVoting, David Icke, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com