Israel

Rand Paul: End Aid to Israel

|

Pressed on CNN's Situation Room about details on his budget cut plans, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says end all foreign aid–and when pressed further says that includes to Israel.

Paul touches on the lack of wisdom of funding both sides of an arms race in the Middle East, then hat-tips to Israel's role as a fountain of peace and democracy in the Middle East, but concludes that, especially when we're borrowing all the money from China, all foreign aid has to go.

It's an interesting dance, avoiding seeming critical of Israel (which he refused to do), yet still doing the one thing that people who get upset at those who are critical of Israel want the least out of a U.S. politician: cutting off U.S. support.

The video. The foreign aid part starts at 4:25; the Israel part specifically starts at 5:29:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

213 responses to “Rand Paul: End Aid to Israel

  1. It’s an interesting dance between seeming critical of Israel (which he refused to do) and doing the one thing that people who get upset at those who are critical of Israel want the least out of a U.S. politician: not giving it any U.S. support.

    I can’t believe you…wait..what?

    1. Yeah that sentence is so terrible that I suspect I wrote it.

      1. It should be a different terrible sentence in a minute or so once our servers crunch to life. (Though meaning what I meant to mean, as it were.)

        1. Sorry, Brian, I just had to. You deserve it for the title, which is more than a little misleading. End aid to Israel is not the same as ending all foreign aid. I was really curious as to why Rand would stop paying Israel but keep paying Egypt.

          1. The headline focuses on the part that I found interesting and surprising, and is true. I’m not sure I understand your complaint. Perhaps the headline should have been merely, “Rand Paul Suggests Budget Cuts”?

            1. Fair enough, it is interesting and true. If taxes were to be cut (yes I know it wouldn’t happen) would the headline be “Bill Gates gets a tax cut”?

              Isn’t it also interesting and true that he proposed cutting all foreign aid? Sorry to be a nobody critic but the headline made me think that Rand favored cutting aid only to Israel. Why not “Rand Paul favors ending foreign aid”?

              1. Because that’s not nearly as interesting or newsworthy, I’m afraid. I think any journalist at all given that clip and asked to find the one most interesting, startling, worth noting part of it would say: U.S. Senator openly advocates ending aid to Israel. And if I’m wrong, well, sorry, that’s what I found the most interesting, startling, and worth noting part of it.

            2. I have the same question as Marshall — what’s so exceptional about Israel, as opposed to say Haiti or Zimbabwe? I realize Blitzer was baiting Sen Paul for the “Cut Aid to Israel” headline, but I’d thought better of Reason for not being sensational and not pandering to the Israel lobby.

  2. “Sen. Rand Paul….says end all foreign aid–and when pressed says that includes to Israel.”
    Sounds good to me. Israel is no third-world country; they can support themselves with trade.

    1. Not only that, if the USA cuts off all aid to the middle east, the Muslims lose three times as much as the Jews do. If the Arab kleptocrats have to get along without American money to keep them in power, they’ll have to re-think their relationship with the strongest economy in the region. Egypt and Jordan have done pretty well from trading with Israel.

      -jcr

  3. Welfare reform = hating the poor

    School choice = hating children

    Free trade = hating American jobs

    End subsidies = hating farmers

    End all foreign aid = antisemitic

    Yup that is pretty much how it works.

    1. “End all foreign aid = antisemitic”
      I’d agree with your other 4 points, but I haven’t seen this before.

      1. I believe the above article and video just invented it.

        The birth of a truism before your very eyes.

        Fun stuff.

        1. Note: I am not saying Doherty invented it…only that he is chronically its birth.

          1. A U.S. Senator goes on CNN and advocates ending aid to Israel; a blogger finds this noteworthy and blogs about it; the blogger is responsible for birthing the idea that ending foreign aid is anti-Semitic? I’m not following this, I’m afraid.

            1. Are you saying my sentence is terrible?

              Yeah I am not saying you invented the trope. I am saying you only observed its birth.

              If anything I would say Wolfe invented it by specifically asking about Israel….why didn’t he ask about aid to South Africa or Panama?

              1. “If anything I would say Wolfe invented it by specifically asking about Israel….why didn’t he ask about aid to South Africa or Panama?”

                OK, I’d say he did because, as Brian mentions above, cutting aid to Israel is news-worthy.
                No problem with your sarcasm on the first four linkages, but for sarcasm to work, you gotta have a target, not make one up.

                1. No problem with your sarcasm on the first four linkages, but for sarcasm to work, you gotta have a target, not make one up.

                  MSM? Wolfe Blitzer? Bullshit statist propaganda? Take your pick.

                  They were all my targets.

                  OK, I’d say he did because, as Brian mentions above, cutting aid to Israel is news-worthy.

                  Really? I thought he only had a problem with my use of “chronicled”.

                  I would like it to be noted that talking about Isreal is a fucking mine field and I hate it.

                  It is easier to talk about blacks and they actually have a rock solid case that the US fucked them over terribly.

                  Why can’t we talk about Israel like any other country? I mean i can talk about Canada and even say horrible things like “We should invade Canada and slaughter all those cheese heads” and everyone would know i was bullshiting. But if i say even something mild like “I sure hope the settlers bought the land they are building on” then suddenly I become the head guard at Auschwitz.

                  1. Joshua Corning|1.27.11 @ 7:36PM|#
                    …”MSM? Wolfe Blitzer? Bullshit statist propaganda? Take your pick….”

                    OK, got it. You’re making the claim that Paul *will* be labeled anti-semite as a result of the comments. I’m sure the accusations will follow.
                    The problem I had was the first four are the left’s false claims. The last will probably come from the right.
                    Sorry to be thick.

              2. Just to show how sticky the issue is, even talking about whether bloggers mention should Israel, despite it being on television, makes everyone tip toe around it.

                I think it’s important to remember that Rand Paul represents Kentucky. He isn’t running for national office that I know of; he hasn’t let anyone scribble newsletters in his name…

                So, why should the people of Kentucky have to shell out for…

                …what’s going on in the Middle East?

                See, even I tip toe around it!

                1. Dyslexic transposition amid a sub-thread about bad sentences–I just threw that in as a bonus!

        2. Poppa’s got a brand new trope!

      2. I’ve seen it. In order to avoid charges of antisemitism you have overly emphasize the “all” part, and tag on an “which includes Palestine” before they will let it slide. Even then they will squint at you.

    2. I have a question about the settlement.

      Do they buy the land then build a settlement? or do they just take it and build?

      I realize that i am anti-Israel and anti-Palestine when i ask that question. Still i think it is an important fact to know and i am a bit perplexed why the answer to it is not explored.

      1. Re: Joshua Corning,

        Do they buy the land then build a settlement? or do they just take it and build?

        Joshua, my boy, would they call it a settlement if they bought the land?

        1. So some poeple show up and start building shit on some guy’s farm?

          If that is true then why don’t we see the poor guy on TV bitching about all the crap being built on his farm?

          Plus i am skeptical about the assumption that settlement means a taking. It smells like a critical theory interpretation of the word.

          I am not saying you are wrong Old Mex…only i need more then the word “Settlement” to be satisfied with your answer.

            1. Thanks Baked.

              Still as a libertarians i am concerned about the line of title. Was there an exchange of money or other compensation to the title holder for the title of the land on which the settlements were built?

              But yeah that helped. Even if title was obtained through exchange rather then tip of bayonet it is obvious from facts presented in the video that arabs were expelled, denied access to their land and had their buildings torn down that Israel had its thumb on the scale.

              1. Hallo Joshua,

                maybe you fid this article helpful:

                West Bank Settlements Often Use Private Palestinian Land, Study Says
                by Scott Wilson, Washington Post

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00482.html

            2. Really? The Economist?

            3. Didn’t help much. I didn’t see anything that says the Jews took land; knocking down “illegal housing” is what every government does.
              As far as the remainder, it’s a bit confusing; if a Jew builds a home in an Arab neighborhood, do the values go down? If Jews build homes on X piece of land, how does that “block in” Arabs?
              And finally, Arabs are moving back *into* Jerusalem, so what’s the issue?

              1. if a Jew builds a home in an Arab neighborhood, do the values go down?

                I think you are confusing property values with property rights.

                1. Not as far as I can see; got any property rights here?
                  I don’t have a “property right” that defines the religion of those who want to build on the next lot. And neither do you.

            1. LOL

              Worst real estate agent ever!!

              She was late to meet the client and she picked up a cell phone call while talking to a client in her office.

              That was truly cringe worthy.

            2. “Al-Jazeera also has this.”
              Fail.
              It starts with the claim that the settlements are built on “stolen land” and offers zero evidence to back the claim.
              The rest is what anyone would expect from the various participants.
              Propaganda and not very good propaganda at that.

            3. I also like how she “can’t guarantee the land but god gave the Jews this land”

              I wonder if you can put that on an appraisal or use it to obtain title insurance in Israel?

              “Lets see now you have a shared easement for parking, an irrigation line goes through the back yard and god gave it to your poeple. Sounds good. Sign here for your home loan”

      2. Not long after the establishment of Israel in 1947, the new government passed a law that required all land holders to prove their claim to their land. Most of the Palestinians had lived on the land–some for generations–but had no documentation. Thus, ownership devolved to the GOI.
        No title = free to settle.

      3. Joshua, the Left will label any Jewish building on land that was not part of Israel before 1967 a “settlement” regardless of whether or not the Jews bought the land. There are cases of eminent domain abuse in Israel, but Israel’s record in that department is about the same as Americas. When the Left complains about settlements, they are just upset about a new ethnicity moving into a town.

    3. I think Rand Paul’s argument could be applied equally to Japan,South Korea, North Korea and China. Japan and South Korea recive large amounts of US aid including US troops in South Korea, at the same time China is the largest recipient of foreign aid from countreis like the USA and Canada which allows China to have a more powerful millitary and to provide millitary resources to North Korea adding to the hostilities in that region.

    4. Universal health care = hating freedom
      Taxing the rich = hating freedom
      Sane gun control = hating freedom

      Pulling well-worn dogmas out of one’s ass and using them as a substitute for thought = LIBERTARIANISM!

      1. Max = Pulling well-worn dogmas out of one’s ass and using them as a substitute for thought.

  4. And for all those “poor countries that need our aid…”, it looks like our aid hasn’t been worth squat:
    https://reason.com/blog/2011/01…..ion-people

  5. I think we can get out of the regular foreign aid business. Probably all foreign aid could go, but I could see the occasional tsunami aid, that sort of thing, though private money and resources seem to do just fine.

    1. Paul could have and should have said this: “Nobody will stop private citizens from giving aid to foreigners if they wish to.” He could have cited Haiti relief and a thousand other examples of American generosity over the years.

  6. Paul touches on the lack of wisdom of funding both sides of an arms race in the Middle East, then hat-tips to Israel’s role as a fountain of peace and democracy in the Middle East, but concludes that, especially when we’re borrowing all the money from China, all foreign aid has to go.

    Like saying “I love you, my son, but if I give you a car, then I have to give your brother a car, and then I would have to give you insurance and your brother insurance and I simply don’t have more money to throw away, but you’re still my favorite!”

  7. we’re borrowing all the money from China

    China doesn’t hold all the U.S. debt or even most of it. Nobody knows the exact number, but it’s estimated at between 25-30%. Why do American journalists insist on perpetuating this untruth that China owns all the American’s debt? Racism? Xenophobia? Ignorance?

    1. (Not only journalists, of course. Politicians repeat the falsehood at least as often, though I doubt Rand Paul really believes it.)

      1. How about this, Don: It’s a fucking stupid idea to give away money when you’re borrowing trillions of dollars a year from anyone.

        1. California has $500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, and I’m against the federal government bailing them out on principle…

          But shelling out billions for other countries is supposed to be okay with me?!

          Why?

    2. I thought it was more like 6%.

      1. It’s about $895 billion as of the November 2010 Treasury estimate, which is the number it’s been fluctuating around for at least a year.

        That can be converted into a percentage any number of ways. You can compare it to the total US debt of about $14.5 trillion, in which case you get 6.1%.

        You can compare it to the “Debt held by the Public” of about $9.4 trillion, in which case it’s 9.5%.

        Or you can compare it to the total debt held by foreigners of about $4.3 trillion, and get a result of 21%.

    3. Because Americans love the Yellow Menace.

      Doesn’t matter if he’s plying our good, Christian young men with whores and opium (19th century), whipping our asses with kung fu (1970s), or buying our debt and terkin’ our jerbs (now).

    4. China does have the most of any country, but barely:

      China 895.6b 20.6%
      Japan 877.2b 20.2%

      Those are percentages of total foreign-owned debt (4.3 trillion)

  8. The Israelis can deal with their own problems, and good riddance. It’s mostly the fast-breeding, low-IQ middle-eastern Jews there now. The high IQ Ashkenazim are now little more than a third of the population. In other words, the productive and brilliant portion of the population is being overwhelmed by the dullards who breed more. It’s like a case study for Idiocracy. Of course, the US isn’t much better. Mexicans and blacks (the least intelligent people in this country) heavily outbreed whites and Easts Asians (the higher IQ populations), which pretty much means that the future of the US is poor and stupid.

    1. Back to your office, Rushton.

      1. Hey, prove me wrong. The government has put more resources into trying to “close the gap” between Whites and Blacks (and East Asians and Hispanics, recently) than it has into improving performance for the last two decades. And yet the gaps persist. And the egalitarians scream that it simply means that these efforts need more resources. Even if the problems were wholly cultural, rather than genetic, it would still bode ill for the future, since they are not assimilating, they are disproportionately likely to be on welfare and to commit violent crimes, and they are breeding faster than the people who get bilked for solutions to fix their social pathologies. This all adds up to a future that I would think libertarians would want to avoid.

        1. No, a libertarian would allow people to live as they wish, provided that their lifestyles do not infringe on the rights of others. A libertarian would have no desire to attempt to regulate the breeding of others to accomplish some eugenic end, as you seem to be implying. How else would we stop people from having children, exactly?

          By the way, the onus is on you, who paint entire ethnic groups with a huge brush, to prove your assertions that they are different. I’d like to see exactly how you arrive at your conclusions that certain groups are “the least intelligent people in this country”. By the way, feel free to explain why you can’t seem to write correctly yourself (“Easts Asians”?) while calling others stupid.

          1. “A libertarian would have no desire to attempt to regulate the breeding of others to accomplish some eugenic end, as you seem to be implying.”
            Great, how about requiring that people who are on welfare use norplant (a subcutaneous contraceptive) until they’re off of it? I think it’s perfectly reasonable to regulate people’s behavior if they’re getting benefits at the expense of someone else. Also, we could get rid of the mostly low IQ illegal immigrants, who aren’t supposed to be here anyway, by simply fining employers who gave them jobs heavily. Finally, we could institute an overall immigration system more like Canada’s, where skilled workers are given preference over the unskilled, while reducing overall levels of immigration since, according to the Census Bureau, we’re to have 450 million people in this country by 2050 if current trends continue unabated, meaning we could do with being less crowded.

            1. So much wrong with this post. I can’t even begin to get angry over how stupid you are.

              1. That’s me. Always here to brighten up the day.

              2. “So much wrong with this post. I can’t even begin to get angry over how stupid you are.”
                So you’re not angry? Presumably, if you can’t begin to get angry, you aren’t angry right now ;). And that was a truly epic pwnage right there. I mean, you refuted everything I said and explained why it was a bad idea and…oh, wait, you didn’t. You just gave the kneejerk liberal/libertarian response.

                1. Fascinating. Not your post, because that was shit. I’m just amazed you found time write that much text in between your marathon masturbation sessions with Crania Americana.

                  1. AC,
                    Your name really says it all, doesn’t it?

                2. Just get off this site and don’t come back!

          2. I’d like to see exactly how you arrive at your conclusions that certain groups are “the least intelligent people in this country”.

            Because it’s been studied quite extensively. That’s how.

            The cause may be a matter of contention. The reality is not.

            1. Ah, but you see, good people don’t discuss these things, or debate them. Only racists do. And racism is the worst crime anyone could commit, ever. Therefore, we must not say anything about them. We should never suggest that these might be relevant public policy issues, if we want to be good people.

              1. Fuck the good people. Who do think got us into this mess?

                1. Yes, well, I have similar attitudes towards the “good” people.

              2. Cornholio, Reason does post about performance gaps from time to time. Your eugenic comments were out of order, because they were not related to budget cutting.

            2. Fuck off, fascist scum.

              1. Oh, boy, the other F-word. A very smart man once said that the most graceless way to admit that you have no counterargument is to call your opponent names. So please, call me a fascist. Call me a racist. Call me a nazi, a pervert, a monster, Hitler, Satan, whatever you can come up with. Call me the worst things that can possibly be imagined by your small mind, because it will just serve as further confirmation that your side is intellectually bankrupt.

            3. “Because it’s been studied quite extensively. That’s how.”
              From the Wiki source:
              “At the same time, there is considerable overlap between these group scores, and members of each racial group can be found at all points on the IQ spectrum.”

              “The cause may be a matter of contention. The reality is not.”
              And the reality is such that perhaps people with blue eyes are X compared to those with brown eyes.
              Care to tell us that we need to ‘do something’ about those with blue eyes?

        2. Not to mention, your entire rant could have been written in the 1890s – 1910s, just substituting the Irish and Italians for blacks and hispanics. Everyone is always terrified of the unwashed horde about to overwhelm them. Just end the welfare state (such as didn’t exist for those earlier immigrants), and after a few decades they’ll integrate just fine.

          1. Well, I’d point out that those Italian and Irish immigrants formed a crucial part of the welfare-statist Democratic coalition that libertarians hate so much, but that would interrupt the eternal immigration lovefest.

            I wouldn’t mind if they were just coming here to live and work, and otherwise left people the hell alone, but their kids get automatic citizenship if born here, which means they collect welfare benefits, and they are pretty much a permanent constituency for a massive welfare state.
            I get the assertion that blacks are the least intelligent race in the country, on average, from national IQ statistics. The existence of this gap is not really in dispute, though the causes have been disputed. But it hasn’t narrowed much in the past forty years, despite massive infusions of government resources to achieve that end, so I’m going to hazard a guess that it’s at least partially genetic. While Hispanics aren’t a race per se, the majority are mestizos or mulattos, and overall they have an average IQ of 90, 10 points below the white mean. The average IQ of East Asians ranges from 105 to 110. I’m not an IQ absolutist (otherwise I suppose I’d have to advocate handing the world over to China), but the preponderance of evidence indicates that it has a heavy effect on worker productivity, and thus on the national economy. Since we have a welfare state, like it or not, people with low IQs present a liability to taxpayers. Maybe you should explain why these people should be given citizenship and taxpayer-funded benefits, along with the vote, so that they can decide our fate?

        3. cornholio|1.27.11 @ 8:04PM|#
          “Hey, prove me wrong.”

          Hey, *YOU* prove your claims.

          1. My point was that the preponderance of evidence (from adoption studies and from comparisons of the IQs of children from different races while controlling for household income) as it stands now is in favor of an at least partially hereditarian explanation of the lower average IQs of blacks and nonwhite Hispanics as opposed to whites and East Asians.
            Hence, when I said “prove me wrong” I meant, “come up with an explanation that can account for these data that does not include the possibility of genetic differences between the races affecting intelligence”.

            1. “…at least partially hereditarian explanation of the lower average IQs of blacks and nonwhite Hispanics…”

              Hmm, “at least partially”?
              And I’m curious; what percentage of parentage does it take to prove “black” or “hispanic”? Is 1/8th sufficient?
              Sorry, that’s no proof; that’s a rant.

              1. At least partially, meaning environmental factors (such as poor nutrition, exposure to toxins, disease) might explain some part of the gap, since the gap between black and white students, for example, narrows by about 4 points out of 15 when controlling for household income. Then again, this could also be explained by heredity, since blacks with high IQs (who tend to have higher incomes than the black average) could also be benefitting from better genes in that respect than the black average.

                Wrt ancestry, with black’s, it’s fairly easy to prove, since overall white admixture in the black population in the US is about 16-17%. It’s a bit more difficult to do the same for Hispanics in part because, as I noted earlier, “Hispanic” is not a race. However, the majority of Hispanics who come to the US as immigrants are probably mestizos (mixed race white-Amerindian), mulattos (mixed-race white-black), or some mix of the two.

              2. Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray and others have studied racial gaps in IQ in depth, analyzing numerous studies controlling for a variety of environmental factors to determine the causes of these gaps. If you want to know where I’m getting my source material, you can read them. If you want to read a decent author on the opposing side, you can read James Flynn. The simple fact is that much of the government’s efforts in the last 40-50 years have been directed to the purpose of getting blacks to integrate/assimilate into American society as a whole. To a lesser degree, that has also been the case with respect to the government’s policy concerning Hispanics in this country. Neither group has assimilated to the degree that, to take the examples cited by libertarians, the Irish, Italian, or Eastern European immigrants assimilated. I would add that racial prejudice is an insufficient explanation for this failure, since the Japanese immigrants integrated economically, at least, if not socially and culturally, quite rapidly. Environmental disadvantage theories to explain the economic woes of the black and Hispanic populations are increasingly less believable. But if the problems have to do, at least in part, with genetics, it’s something we have to think about now, before we bring in, and give citizenship to, more mestizo and mulatto Hispanics, or African immigrants and refugees.

                1. Dude, don’t bring this shit up in a political context. People will (perhaps rightfully) think you’re more interested in racism or nationalism than an intellectual discussion on genetics and IQ.

                  1. I bring it up in a political context because it’s important to a number of political issues, such as welfare and immigration.

                    1. Cornholio, IQ is not correlated to income potential or productivity. Haven’t you met any starving artists? They’ve got high IQs, elite schooling, and no ability to support themselves. You could also roam the halls of university humanities departments. There are plenty of highly paid, highly educated, useless social parasites there.

                  2. And affirmative action, the efficacy of foreign aid, education, etc. The list of issues that are affected by the IQ gaps between races is so long that to omit it is irresponsible.

                2. “The simple fact is that much of the government’s efforts in the last 40-50 years have been directed to the purpose of getting blacks to integrate/assimilate into American society as a whole.”

                  Nope. Integration and/or assimilation would have removed the left’s (largely the government’s) incentive in dealing with racial matters.

                  1. Perhaps assimilation is the wrong word. They have attempted to equalize the outcomes of whites, blacks, and nonwhite Hispanics by “addressing” perceived environmental disadvantages which their pet theories say must be the cause of their low educational attainment and productivity, and resultant poor economic outcomes.

                  2. And, while few people dislike the left more than I do, I don’t really believe that they deliberately craft policies to fail so that they can still have their pet problems around.

    2. Cornholio, your rant is classic Eugenic tripe.

  9. I’m sure rand paul will be portrayed as a lunatic, anti-semite, anti-democratic, neo-nazi by the neo-cons and the media. We do need to end foriegn aid for everyone. We should also shut down all those bases around the world. Unfortunately, I don’t see either thing happening anytime soon. Too bad.

    1. You’re 100% right. But keep in mind it’s not just the “media” that will be going after Paul. It’s the dipshit neocon wing of Team Red that will be bitching about him.

      https://reason.com/blog/2010/02…..st-fan-bil

    2. Sorry, didn’t see where you already mentioned neocons in your post.

  10. Perhaps it takes a senator from a state with no significant Jewish population to be able to say this?

    Once Egypt and Jordan signed permanent peace deals with Israel, we should have put them off the teat. They’re no longer in danger of being overwhelmed from all directions at once. They’re only still really pissy with Lebanon and Syria, and those two fuckwads coulnd’t win a battle with a clone of Napoleon leading the Mongol Horde.

    1. Yeah, I love Blitzer’s response “b-b-but Egypt gets just as much.”

      And?

      Ok, so that’s $6 billion we can save. Who’s next? Who else gets billions a year? Stop it.

      Borrow money in the name of the US taxpayer then give it away to despots and crooks. Demand repayment from taxpayers later. WTF?

  11. “By our estimates, your cuts would cost 100,000 jobs”

    So? Do the math. That’s $5 million per job.

    1. That’s what really annoyed me watching this. I’m really supposed to feel the plight of federal employees that might be out on the street? The same federal employees that saw their sector grow while everyone else’s job was in jeopardy during the recession? I’m sorry, but if those employees are working for a sector of government that doesn’t do its job properly, is obsolete, or just plain unnecessary, they probably should be let go. Does Wolf Blitzer really think that we have some sort of obligation to these people? If they made buggy whips, should we keep paying them because otherwise we’d have to let them go? Job cuts happen in the private sector all the time. It’s regretable. I’ve had to fire people before, even employees that were also close friends. It sucks. But sometimes things need to be done. This needs to be done. Get over it, Blitzer.

      1. I agree with all of that. I want to emphasize that when a job costs $5 million it needs to be cut. It’s also something that a Senator can say on TV without coming across as too heartless.

        1. It’s not that simple, VGO, there are very few US jobs attached to US foreign aid, probably tens of millions per State dept employee. Whereas your more paper-pushing employees probably are around 100-120K each (including salary and all benefits). Not defending the latter so much as pointing out that it’s often the program more than the employee that costs money.

          1. If the rational for spending that $5 million is that we’ll lose one job if we cut it, the job cost $5 million dollars.

            Losing 100,000 jobs to save $500 billion is a hell of a deal.

  12. Our response to foreign aid requests should always be, “Go ask China, they’re the ones with all the money.”

    Let China be the “evil rich guy who is so selfish we have to ASK him for money” for a change.

  13. Rand Paul usually puts his foot in his mouth. There is one thing he could do to reduce the deficit. Put all law makers on SS and rescind the out unreasonable retirement program for law makers.

    1. Which would save, speaking in terms of the total deficit, nothing. Thanks for playing.

    2. That’s a nice little symbolic act with absolutely no practical value.

      1. Okay, very little practical value.

  14. What country steals our secrets, and actively tries to sucker the US into Trillion dollar wars for their benefit?

    What country gets $8bln in US taxpayer money and has free health care for it’s citizens while Americans go without?

    What exactly do we get out of this little traitorous, double dealing religious theocracy?

    Nothing, cut it loose. It’s more expensive to have them as a ‘friend’

    1. “God save thee, ancyent Marinere!
      “From the fiends that plague thee thus–
      “Why look’st thou so?”–with my cross bow
      I shot the Albatross.

      1. Warty, glad to see you enjoy the oldies. When I saw your link I thought, sadly, “It probably isn’t Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner I was very pleased to be wrong.

    2. Theocracy? WTF?

    3. I think I like Rand Paul’s argument better then yours.

      It is deficit spending. We get the money on loan from China. 70% of americans oppose foreign aid. We are funding both sides of an arms race.

      Pretty much when you use phases like “little traitorous, double dealing religious theocracy” people’s eyes glaze over.

  15. So far, the Republicans are punting on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Even Rand Paul. At least he proposed a defense cut – I’ll give him credit for that.

    But until repubs go after entitlements, they just aren’t serious. Actually, if they just went after health care regulations, they could make a dent, but I don’t hear that either.

    1. I don’t think its reasonable to call a $500 billion cut ‘not serious’. Could it be bigger? Yes. Is it the best we’ve seen by a politician? Yes, by about an order of magnitude.

      Plus Paul acknowledged this is only 1/3 of what needs to be done.

    1. “Haaretz is unhappy.”
      Tough………………
      stuff.
      Can anyone show “foreign aid” has accomplished anything at all, other then pouring money into the pockets of the politically-connected?

    2. I read the article and can’t find where they are unhappy.

      1. Well, maybe not Haaretz itself, but:
        “In response pro-Israel lobby J Street said in a statement that it was “alarmed” by Paul’s suggestion.”

        1. Hmmm true. Fuck those guys.

        2. “In response pro anti-Israel lobby J Street said in a statement that it was “alarmed” by Paul’s suggestion.”

          FIFY

        3. Yeah… I bet they were alarmed, all right, at the idea of cutting off the rest of the aid – not Israel’s.

  16. I have no problem with ending aid to Israel.

    However, I openly and derisively laugh at the common idea on the Israel-critic front that suggests cutting off aid to Israel will make it easier to pressure Israel to “make peace”.

    1. “However, I openly and derisively laugh at the common idea on the Israel-critic front that suggests cutting off aid to Israel will make it easier to pressure Israel to “make peace”.”

      If we’re not providing any aid, why should we pressure Israel to do anything at all?

    2. I get the gist of that, and I think there’s something to it.

      I’m not sure anybody is about to make peace over there until they have to.

      And that goes for all five dozen sides, or how ever many there are.

      1. I perhaps have improperly imported a common argument I have with leftists into Reason here. There are a lot of them who claim Israel is a U.S.-dependent client state that won’t be able to find an alternative sponsor, and so cutting aid will force Israel to make peace.

        Me, I expect Israel can weather a cut of a mere 5% of its national budget, and the withdrawal of aid will reduce the effectiveness of the moderating argument “that policy will upset the Americans” in Israeli politics.

    3. The Israelis aren’t doing anything that hasn’t been done in some form or fashion for tens of thousands of years. People have made war on each other, and displaced each, since before the dawn of civilization. It’s a reality that we here in the US, Western Europe, and a handful of other countries have had the luxury to avoid confronting in anything other than historical terms (our ancestors did the unpleasant work for us). That said, the rest of the world still operates mostly under the law of the jungle.

      1. Awesome by me, as long as my taxes don’t have to support it.

        Israel claims rights to its land based on Bible stories. To support its claims with public funds is a violation of our separation of church and state.

        Israel will be just fine, and will likely continue to be subsidized by religious Americans in the form of private donations.

  17. Go ahead cut off aid to Israel. Israel will survive any U.S. abandonment of it, but America will not.

    You Rh?mites are so whitehot in your hatred of Israel and the Jews that you will not understand that Arabs don’t keep to the idea that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

    Jimmy Carter bashed Israel repeatedly and appeased the new Khomenie government of Iran and all that brought us was the hostage crises. And those guys, while Muslims, were not even Arabs! The Arabs view the anti-Semitic appeasement you guys offer as weakness.

    So do I!

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here!”

    1. Took you long enough.

    2. Ah, underzog, your response time is slipping, my Zionist friend.

      1. C’mon! I can’t be here that much. None of you listen to me anyway. I have to practice piano and other stuff.

        1. But how can you practice piano when you’re busy crashing the banking system?
          Trollolololololololol.

    3. underzog|1.27.11 @ 8:40PM|#
      “Go ahead cut off aid to Israel. Israel will survive any U.S. abandonment of it, but America will not.”

      Uh, oh! Matzo shortage on the horizon!

    4. “The Arabs view the anti-Semitic appeasement you guys offer as weakness.”

      You do realize that Arabs, by which I presume you mean Muslims, live in Israel also…right?

      Yet, what does any of that have to do with forcing U.S. citizens at gunpoint to fund international disputes?

    5. Wow underzog when are you going to get some new material?

      *Some person criticizes underzog or Israel*

      Underzog: Israel is strong but your appeasement of the Muslims will not save you when they come to rape your family!

      Some Person: How am I appeasing Muslims?

      underzog: Israel is strong but your appeasement of the Muslims will not save you when they come to rape your family!

      Some Person: Dude what’s wrong with you?

      underzog: “Israel is strong but your appeasement of the Muslims will not save you when they come to rape your family!

      1. The truth has to be repeated or even stated to the anti-Semites and cowardly, self haters in order for some of it to enter tiny minds such as yours.

        1. Professor Farnsworth:Oh dear god! She’s stuck in an infinite loop.. and he’s an idiot!

    6. I’m pro-Israel. But if we cut off aid to everybody else, then we need to cut it off for Israel, too. Honestly I think they would do fine without it.

  18. Yeah, Israel is a real fount of peace and democracy.

    1. Juice|1.27.11 @ 8:59PM|#
      “Yeah, Israel is a real fount of peace and democracy.”

      By comparison to *any* mid-east state, it certainly has been.

      1. But as the ultra-orthodox outbreed the secular Israelis, it’s become more and more of a theocracy. They’re already pushing seperate religious law outside of the secular courts…a kind of Jewish “sharia”.

        1. Jim|1.27.11 @ 11:35PM|#
          “But as the ultra-orthodox outbreed the secular Israelis,…”

          Oh, no! The sky is falling!

          1. The sky isn’t falling. But the overall intelligence, culture, and standard of living are.

        2. “But as the ultra-orthodox outbreed the secular Israelis, it’s become more and more of a theocracy”

          Didn’t you just criticize me for complaining about demographic trends a while upthread (unless you’re a different “Jim”)? If you’re the same person, let me paraphrase “Your same rant could have been written about the Irish or the Italians in the 1890s”.

          Not that I disagree that the high fertility of the ultra-orthodox Jews is making Israel suck, but it’s rather hypocritical to criticize me for noticing demographic problems, and then to turn around and say basically the same thing in a slightly different context.

    2. Yes it is and it the only one in the ME unless you count Turkey…and maybe Iraq/Kurdistan.

      1. Certainly Kurdistan.

  19. I just want to smack old Wolfie for carping on and on about “Oh noes 100,000 government jobs will be lost, oh noes WTFBBQ11!!!!!!eleventy!”

    It is not the government’s fucking purpose to employ people. Does he get that? Do even 25% of the mouth-breathing sheeple in this country get that the government is not an employment agency? Do even three of the people who watched that CNN segment get that it’s not the government’s job to secure employment and guarantee that everyone gets a paycheck? *facepalm*

    Better Rand than me, though. That segment was yet another reminder of why I can never, ever run for office. Wolfie would be whining about “oh noes 100,000 people who are entitled to their gubmint paychecks into perpetuity will be unemployed hurr hurr,” and I’d respond, “So? So what, Wolf?”

    1. That was my feeling as well. Rand should have gone with the $5 million figure. That would play well and pretty much end the jobs debate.

  20. You know who else wanted to cut aid to Israel…

    1. Rome?

  21. The problem here is that cutting foreign aid is like telling Michael Moore to leave a pickle off his triple cheeseburger.

    It’s less than 1% of the budget. Big freakin’ deal.

    And, oh yeah, this Jew thinks there’s nothing anti-Semitic about cutting off aid to Israel as long as you cut it off to everyone else too. Ending foreign aid is a great idea, but it’s got nothing to do with the budget.

    1. And there’s the rub, Steve. Many people carp that cutting a mere 1% won’t do anything. That’s defeatist. It’s only 1% but it’s a big chunk we can cut all at once. And all those little percentages add up. And it’s at least doing something.

      1. If you think the main problem with foreign aid, particularly to Israel (and Egypt, so it makes nice with Israel), is the mere monetary cost, then you aren’t paying attention.

        1. “If you think the main problem with foreign aid, particularly to Israel (and Egypt, so it makes nice with Israel), is the mere monetary…”

          I don’t care. I don’t want the money going there regardless.

      2. The interest we’re paying.

    2. And, oh yeah, this Jew thinks there’s nothing anti-Semitic about cutting off aid to Israel as long as you cut it off to everyone else too.

      So it WOULD be anti-Semitic to just cut aid to the biggest recipient? Would it be racist to just cut aid to Haiti if Haiti were the biggest recipient? By the way, how’s that Giffords’-shooter-must-be-an-anti-Semite theory panning out, Steve?

    3. And, oh yeah, this Jew thinks there’s nothing anti-Semitic about cutting off aid to Israel as long as you cut it off to everyone else too.

      So it WOULD be anti-Semitic to just cut aid to the biggest recipient? Would it be racist to just cut aid to Haiti if Haiti were the biggest recipient? By the way, how’s that Giffords’-shooter-must-be-an-anti-Semite theory panning out, Steve?

    4. Is cutting foreign aid going to solve the deficit problem? No.

      Is it going to help? Yes.

      Is Rand Paul proposing to cut only foreign aid? No.

  22. I’m sure Wolf “I used to be in AIPAC” Blitzer’s hairs stood on end when Rand replied “yes.”

    1. That was so sensationalistic on Blitzer’s part. My answer would have been “yes, Wolf, ALL foreign aid.” And moved on.

  23. Israel is our greatest ally in the war on sand Nazi terror.

    1. Absolutely. Our aid to them is not useful to Israel anymore especially with the BS strings attached like ‘no don’t attack Iran yet give our stupid talks time to fail some more.’

      Israel deserves better than US aid.

  24. Hey! I have an idea. Let’s nuke Mecca and THEN cut off foreign aid, including aid to Israel. Then, the Arabs/Muslim won’t regard the cut off of foreign aid as weakness.

    Do you Rh?mites like my idea?

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here!”

  25. I frankly don’t give a shit about Israel, Pakistan, Lichtenstan, or the politics of the world. Stop giving my money to other people. If money is keeping people from fighting each other… fuck them.

  26. End aid to Israel, and put that money towards high speed rail.

  27. I agree with Senator Rand Paul (KY) about the Foreighn Aid to all the countries be stopped

  28. God, I fucking HATE talking about this subject on the net, because it ALWAYS brings out the anti-seimetic/white nationalist assholes who try to co-opt the libertarian movement for their own ends.

    Fuck off, racist scum. We do NOT want you here.

    1. It also brings out the “OMG YOU’RE AN ANTI-SEMITE” crowd if you’re not an Israeli flag-waving money-throwing zealot.

      1. Moral equivalence between anti-Semites and Jews? Or should I say Nazi and Jews. The Libertarians are basically anti-Semitic. You guys are cetainly fun to party with though.

        Or they are deranged appeasors of terrorist Islam such as Ekatarin Junge.

        “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.”

  29. Israel is not just the only Democracy in the middle east, but our only ally there. But fine, want to cut foreign aid to that nation? Do it, but then you can forget about intelligence sharing, you can forget about technology sharing (including the Israeli technology that invented the cellphone), and don’t even think about lecturing Israel about how she deals with the Palestinians. Once the aid’s cut off, the gloves come off.

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

    1. Not that I don’t view Israel as a friend that should be supported to some extent, but I think the benefits run insanely the other direction. Especially on technology. The U.S. is still kinda sorta preeminent on planet Earth in that regard.

      I don’t think Israel needs direct aid from us, nor do I think we should play as prominent a role in the Middle East, mostly because it’s not our problem and we can’t make things better. But we should continue to have a good relationship with Israel and support the one island of liberalism in an ocean of totalitarianism.

  30. You can learn about Israel’s technology accomplishments here.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo…..0302/posts

    I also found this:


    SO, YOU WANT TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL…

    DO IT PROPERLY. HERE’S HOW.

    1) THROW OUT 30% OF YOUR MEDICINE, FLU VACCINES, MADE AND INVENTED BY ISRAEL

    2) MOST OF MS-WINDOWS WAS DEVELOPED MY MICROSOFT-ISRAEL. THROW OUT YOUR COMPUTER.

    3) THE PENTIUM CHIPS WERE DESIGNED BY INTEL-ISRAEL. THROW OUT ALL YOUR COMPUTERS.

    4) VOICE MAIL WAS INVENTED IN ISRAEL. THROW THAT OUT.

    5) AOL/INSTANT MESSAGING WAS INVENTED IN ISRAEL. THROW THAT OUT.

    6) THE CELL PHONE WAS INVENTED IN ISRAEL BY MOTOROLA-ISRAEL. THROW THAT OUT.

    So, you can vilify and demonize the State of Israel. You can continue your silly boycott, if you wish. But I wish you would consider the consequences, and the truth.

    Think of the massive contribution that Israel (1/1000th of the world’s population and the 100 smallest countries) is giving to the world?and to you?in science, medicine, communications, security. In relation to our population we are making a greater contribution than any other nation on earth.”

    1. Why would we lose these technological advancements that Israeli companies produce? Last time I checked, companies SELL their products to consumers. If they wish to make money, then they will sell it to buyers, many of whom will be U.S. companies.

      This idea that cutting off foreign aid will also cut off trade is absurd.

      1. Well, his C&P did say “boycott,” which would have serious consequences… but what that has to do with cutting off foreign aid, I don’t know.

    2. So because we have algebra does that mean we have to send billions of dollars to Muslim countries?

      1. No, I think that having the Iberian peninsula and Greece under the rule of muslims for hundreds of years is sufficient payment. But if we boycott Israel (an idiotic gesture in the extreme), it’s true that we shouldn’t complain about having to do without Israeli technology, at least the most up-to-date stuff. The Israelis are established now. They have a functioning economy, and shouldn’t need our support to survive anymore. If they do, well that’s their problem.

        1. Hence why I’m for cutting their taxpayer-funded aid, but against a boycott.

      2. Why should we pay muslims for Indian mathematics?

        -jcr

  31. Blitzer is another clueless Israeli firster. Cut aid to Israel. BTW: they’re not our “ally”. We have no alliance with Israel. Yet we GIVE them (not loan them)$3 Billion each year! Cut’em off now!

  32. What has Israel done for us? Oh yeah, 9/11 and Israel, here:
    http://www.iuniverse.com/Books…..-000190526

  33. The next rotten headline may probably be: “Is Rand Paul A Paulestininan In Secret?” When someone proposes, quite rightly, cutting of ALL foreign aidwaste, then the main newsfact, according to Brian Doherty, is ‘Israel’. Sure.

  34. I completely agree with reducing aid to Israel.

    I am tired of our uncritical support for them, and I think that they take us for granted.

  35. God’s speed Mr. Paul, Please cut off aid to Israel.

  36. Thank you, Rand. It is long past time someone said this. PLEASE stand firm and continue your call to end all foreign aid, ESPECIALLY aid to Israel and Egypt. All of it needs to end. Our “leaders” have no right to take money from our pockets and send it to other people in the world, particularly ones who use it to imprison and occupy others.

    1. His Father is also a patriot and the media tried hard to crucify him as well. Lets all send both of them a small donation of $25 to help them along.

  37. Yes, end all aid to those Zionist pigs!

  38. A jew by any other name is still a jew.They have set forth in our demise from the alpha and will continue until the omega or until we put an end to the parasite juden.Orthadox or atheist,Israeli or your next door neighbor,are all the same.So in answer to the question,all the Rosenthals,Cohens,Stiens,ect.ect of the world have to go in order to preserve our white Christian race. 88

    1. ^
      Yep, outta the woodwork.

  39. Why is everyone in this country so afraid to state the damn obvious. The Israel First crowd and their minions in the media (Wolf Blitzer was a paid member of AIPAC check it out) will have the american public actually beleive that the US support of Israel is somehow aligned with our interests. The truth is we are constantly being dragged into the whole damn Mideast fiasco and if you point this out you are an Anti-semite. This is Orwellian. Here you have a Senator who correctly points out that we as citizens have to BORROW the money from China to send to the Mideast and he is being criticized and suspected of being Anti Semetic. I should also point out that our good freind Israel has a per capita income equal to Great Britian. Please people lets stand up for our own interests and stop being afraid to say the “Emporer has no clothes”.

  40. Israel is both our greatest ally and the prophesied Kingdom for the final confrontation of good and evil. To abandon Israel would be to abandon the will of God, and His punishment would be swift and unrelenting.

    1. ^
      Yep, outta the woodwork.

  41. Why do some libertarians think that we can end foreign aid to Israel, Egypt plus end our military and this will make everything ok?

    1. How about if some of our “allies” paid for their own defense?

      1. Egypt controls the Suez Canal, so we basically have to kiss their ass. Or bribe them. Depending on your point of view.

  42. Figures he’d be anti-military. Rand Paul looks like one of them dancing faeries from the homosexual Cable channel.

  43. Today, in 2011, the U.S.A. is totally dominated by Jews. Virtually every newspaper or magazine is owned by Jews. Their self-serving propaganda constantly fills the TV screen. The Federal government and Federal Reserve is totally under Jewish control. US military forces are the pawn of Israel. The banks, the markets are theirs. They systematically denigrate our Founding Fathers and our heritage and our Constitution.
    The Jews are destroyers. They are also the Anti-Christ that the bible speaks of. They will destroy any and all things to get their way. They are ruthless, vile, filthy scum that serves their father, the devil. To befriend a Jew, is to sign your deathwarrent. The filthy Jew will trick you and lead you to your own destruction.
    Thank you Rand Paul for standing up to this evil nation.

    1. Wow, Melvin. You are paranoid.

    2. Who knows? Maybe with Melvin, the woodwork is beginning to empty.

    3. Considering the Paul family’s affinity for Ludwig von Mises, I think you’re grossly overstating the good senator’s intentions and beliefs.

    4. you are an ignorant piece of filth yourself sir. it is people like you who hold humanity back from achieving a great potential that your feeble mind cannot grasp.

    5. This man speaks truth with the most effective tongue. Heed his words or suffer the loss of your home and everything you have. Non jews unite and declare your independence from the zionist jew mind control machine! Stop sacrificing America for criminal zionist israel!!

  44. I like Mr. Paul’s proposal to cut all foreign aid across the board.

  45. Lemme get this straight… We borrow money from China, and then give that same money away for free to other countries…?
    How bout we cut out the middleman, and just tell China which countries to give money to, and send us the bill…?

  46. It would be a big mistake to cut aid
    to Israel. They are our best allies.
    Also, they are yahweh’s people.
    America would be harming itself.

    1. ^
      Nope. Still some things left in the woodwork.

  47. The Constitution does not allow foreign aid. It is not one of congress powers. It is just that simple

  48. I absolutely agree. No foreign aid to anybody, including the cesspool of
    sub saharan bongo drumming african countries and the moslim towelheads,
    particularly egypt and arabia. . Our goverment is spending 30 billion
    dollars a year in foreign aid.

    The problem is that when someone says cut off aid to Isreal, it
    automatically attracts the anti-Isreal, anti- Semetic pro “palestian”
    posters. I just feel that it needs to be pointed out that these “peaceful”
    Moslims intention is to destroy Isreal and kill all the Jews and Christians
    there.

    It is important to note that Isreal will not surrender to its’ executioners
    without a fight to the death. The result will be the death of hundreds of
    thousands and possibly millions of civilians in Moslim countries and
    tremendous suffering among there survivors. The anti-semetes here are
    pushing for this and when it happens they will be partially to blame.

  49. Unless you can prove that a god exists, can’t we leave religion and “yahweh’s people” out of this otherwise rational discussion?

    Saying that we must send billions to Israel because of some divine fiat is just absurd and juvenile. Grow up and approach problems with a rational mind set.

  50. And so ends the ballad of Rand Paul. GFY, Randy. I will never, ever, vote for anyone who would abandon Israel to the sub-human, verminous, Islamo-Nazis. I don’t care if we do not spend another penny on foreign aid anywhere else in the world — we’re going to be standing next to Israel.

    1. And as you stand by Israel so shall you die by Israel. The time is quickly coming! The REAL war to end all wars will be the destruction of Zionist Israel once and for all. Then and only then will there be a glimmer of hope in world peace.

  51. End ALL aid to all countries immediately!! Start with Israel! The jews expect America to act according to their needs without question while at the same time American’s are barely able to feed their families and still earn a decent living while the greedy warmongering jews of israel keep stuffing their pockets with Americans hard earned and shamefully borrowed money! If israel thinks America will endlessly risk her own future to ensure the security of a state that is of the opinion that they are above all others in this world simply because they are jews, well they have another thing coming! Americans are waking up every day and saying NO MORE! Jews have always and will always be the scourge of the earth. Everywhere in history that there is a war, you can directly trace the source of that war to jews and their corrupt practices of politics and greed! Its human nature to be greedy but no other race or religion in this world practices collective greed and manipulation like the jews! Zionists try to control the power that the US holds through monetary means and brainwash American people into going along with their agenda by flooding the zionist jew owned and operated media with their propaganda! Over thousands of years its always been the one truth when you look at the source of the majority of the problems stemming from economical unrest, there are jews at the base of the problem every single time. You want proof, start looking at the facts. Jews run the major firms that were directly responsible for the financial crisis the US is going through now. Baer Sterns, jew owned and operated, Goldman Sachs, jew owned and operated, Lehman Brothers, jew owned and operated just to name a few. Not to mention the zionist jew Madoff and his massive greed! Open your eyes people and place the blame where it belongs, on the jews who commit the crimes! If you need even more proof, there is plenty of factual information to be found at http://www.jewwatch.com where there are factual lists of all zionist jews who have held and currently hold office in highly influential American political positions. They collectively aspire to circumvent our system to plunder our wealth and way of life to better their own regardless of the cost to those people they effect through their greedy and corrupt ways. In the end, if we keep up this mentality of passiveness in fear of being labeled an antisemite or a racist we will see the loss of everything our founding fathers worked, fought, and died for in making America a free and great country to live in. Bring our troops home, STOP ALL aid to other countries and start taking care of Americas problems with Americans money! NO MORE SUPPORT TO ISRAEL OR ANYONE ELSE! Enough is enough!

  52. Finally, somebody in the District of Corruption with backbone and foresight who won’t vote the party line if it doesn’t add up. Somebody who’ll stand up to PAC’s and see foreign aid for what it is: bribery abd payments to corrupt officials like Mubarek. You go, Rand!

  53. Why does the headline read “End aid to Israel” rather that what Rand Paul said, “End foreign aid.” Is this a man bites dog story? Or is it that a government official who dares to mention ending aid to Israel is so rare in the District of Corruption?

  54. A petition to the white house to stop this.

    https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/stop-giving-billions-dollars-year-israel-instead-focus-developing-countries/vbbHWfH6?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.