May 24, 2021
“At $39.2 billion for fiscal year 2019, foreign aid is less than 1% of the federal budget,” George Ingram, Senior Fellow – Global Economy and Development, Center for Sustainable Development, argues for the Brookings Institute. “As the world’s wealthiest nation, the U.S. provides more assistance than any other country, but a smaller proportion of its GNP than most other wealthy nations.”
It figures that career globalists with the ears of the elites would stick that qualifier in there. The curious thing is, when they list all the reasons why we should agree with them, the one thing they don’t say is “because the Constitution calls for it.” They assure us it’s a small percentage of our budget, that support is popular and bipartisan, and that they have workarounds for minimizing support of corrupt and tyrannical regimes. They tell us about poverty and health issues they’re working on, just none of it for “ourselves and our Posterity.” They say U.S. taxpayers reap global stability and peace dividends, and that has the added benefit of mitigating migration.
Then again, minding our own business could also work. Focusing on our self-interests, which is what the Constitution authorizes, would be the best way to assure peace, stability and prosperity, and the results of that would show the rest of the world the path it must follow if it wishes to enjoy the same “Blessings of Liberty.” Washington’s counsel in his Farewell Address comes to mind: “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
That was echoed by Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address: “[P]eace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…”
They didn’t tell us to appoint ourselves the solver of the world’s problems by expending treasure that is not the property of globalist bureaucrats to give away, to squander and to bribe with. And they certainly would not have embraced Brookings’ contention that foreign interests can determine what each country’s “fair share” of the tribute is. Ingram and his fellow travelers may as well just cut to the chase and declare "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
“Why does the United States send foreign countries American taxpayer money?” the Rand Corporation, another globalist think tank funded by establishment military, industrial, academic, government and private interests asks. “The answer, in short, is because it serves U.S. self-interest to do so.”
They cite Donald Trump’s objections to funding “a series of foreign aid programs that benefit Cambodia, Burma, Egypt, Pakistan, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama as evidence that Congress prioritizes foreigners over hardworking Americans,” and note “Over the course of his presidency, Trump has repeatedly called for slashing funding by over 20 percent, only to have the idea rejected by Congress.”
That would be “The Swamp” we’ve heard so much about.
But then, as so often seemed to be the case where words don’t jibe with actions, Trump signed off on foreign aid giveaways in the ones embedded in what was represented to the American people as the first COVID stimulus bill, “negotiated” by Republicans with Democrats, and that, per American Military News, “include[d] $700M for Sudan, $10M for Pakistan ‘gender programs’ [with] $135 million going to Burma, $85 million to Cambodia, $1.4 billion for the ‘Asia Reassurance Initiative Act,’ $130 million to Nepal, $1.3 million to Egypt, $453 million to Ukraine, $25 million to Pakistan and $500 million to Israel.”
But we need foreign aid to promote democracy and human rights we are told. We need it to counter terrorism and to stop the spread of WMDs. We need it to stop the spread of disease before it becomes pandemic. We need it to counter China’s “Belt and Road” initiative, and to counter cheap their loans that draw other countries into their debt. Oh, and it’s also a good economic deal for us because it opens up markets for American goods and agricultural products!
If I may, again getting back to what the Constitution’s delegated powers authorize the branches of government to do:
Where is “promoting democracy” cited as a concern of the Founders, who only intended for members of the House of Representatives to be elected? Democracy in Afghanistan means women in Burqas. Democracy in urban America means wealth transfers. Democracy anywhere, as has been observed before, means two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner…
As for “human rights,” it would certainly be nice if “our” politicians would get their own house in order. We have a Bill of Rights that they can’t seem to undermine fast enough, beginning with the Second Amendment and then working their way around to infringements on everything else once they figure those they’re slapping around are “just gonna to stand there and bleed.”
Anyone really serious about preventing the spread of disease in this country would be making sure those it lets come in weren’t contagious. Instead, Democrats interested in upping the number of “pathway to citizenship” voters and Republicans whose first loyalty is to “cheap labor” have joined forces to create the greatest threat to gun owner rights we face, strategically manipulated demographics. That will result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass whatever anti-gun edicts they want and confirm judges who will uphold those edicts. And NRA and its apologists are doing a thing about it, instead offering a “single issue” strawman to excuse their deliberate indifference.
Anyone who thinks foreign aid will even factor into Peoples’ Republic expansion once it decides to get serious about global domination is whistling past the graveyard of history. If you want to impact their ability to finance their plans, how about paying attention to “theft of US trade secrets costing ‘$300bn-$600bn a year’”? How about rewriting trade deals to address practices that “including dumping, discriminatory non-tariff barriers, forced technology transfer, over capacity, and industrial subsidies—that champion Chinese firms and make it impossible for many United States firms to compete on a level playing field.” How about not destroying the U.S. auto industry by mandating electric cars while China controls the rare earth metals market, necessary not just for those and for electronics, but more to the point of survival, the U.S. defense industry?
Speaking of that, who’s up for expending American blood and treasure defending disputed Japanese islands in the East China Sea, or for that matter, Taiwan? And will it also be safe to assume that person is smarter than Washington?
The last argument, that foreign aid is good for business because it turns countries from welfare recipients into paying customers, particularly for America’s farmers, is also fair game for scrutiny. We’re no longer talking “Grandpappy Amos, the head of the clan.” Isn’t Bill Gates now the biggest farmland owner in the U.S.? Besides, what are we really talking about but another centrally planned wealth transfer scheme? So, the lesson we’re to take from this is that free enterprise just can’t work, and the answer is communist central planning, like the kind that produced the Holodomor Ukrainian famine under Stalin and the Great Chinese Famine under Chairman Mao?
Rather than applying the lessons that made America great in the first place, the emphasis is on bringing the rest of the world over here and becoming more and more like the type of place our new occupants fled. So much for advancing into that “shining city on the hill” Ronald Reagan talked about when he wasn’t busy supporting “gun control” (like Brady Bill background check waiting periods, the Mulford Act open carry ban, and administrative bans), and amnesty for illegal aliens.”
For now, don’t look for any changes under President Harris (Joe Biden’s words, not mine) administration. If they manage to screw things up enough so the democrats can’t steal the next two elections and Republicans can once more assume majorities in the House and Senate, and recapture the White House, and those are huge “ifs,” I’m not sure if we can look for any substantive changes there, either.
The GOP is great at introducing bills they know don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell when they’re in the minority. When they’re in charge, well, what if you see them do with suppressors or nationwide concealed carry?
What happened to Donald Trump’s “Second Amendment Coalition,” supposedly to be headed up by Don Jr. under the promise that they would provide industry and gun community leadership and support? Coalition goals included rescinding President Obama’s executive actions, allowing military personnel to be armed on base, revoking restrictions on gun and ammo imports, and liberalizing rules for suppressors. Did they ever even hold one meeting?
If by some great miracle or act of God the Democrats manage to blow it, do we see even one Republican candidate who is likely to advance the heresy of the Second Amendment, beginning with its core militia purpose necessary to the security of a free State? Do we see any calling on the Department of Justice and the states to provide not just law enforcement, but rights enforcement, when individuals are instead prosecuted for exercising what the Founders considered their birthright by the very government that mandates is paradoxically “shall not be infringed”? How about if that $40B or so we’re told not to worry about because it’s “only 1%” of the budget gets applied toward doing just that, and toward carrying out the responsibility and duty of Congress “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”? Unlike foreign aid, that’s even directed by the Constitution (Article. I. Section. 8.).
How about if safe gun use is taught in schools instead of gun avoidance, loathing and fear? How about having programs to promote an armed citizenry, as a protection against tyranny, and defend against infringements rather than government being the source of them? Or can anyone seriously argue that Pakistani gender programs are the bigger priority under a Constitution that defines among its purposes in the Preamble, “to provide for the common defense … and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”?
Yeah, I know. It’s a pipe dream. It’ll never happen.
Much more realistic: The majority of American gun owners, who for the most part won’t joint advocacy groups or support worthy political campaigns and candidates, and whose collective efforts consist of leaving anonymous squabbling comments in article comments and on gun boards, will rid themselves of Leviathan without actually organizing, preparing, or genuinely committing to doing much more than that.
Molon labe! Right?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. In addition to being a regular featured contributor for Firearms News and AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.