In the wake of another disaster here at home, Americans are again asking themselves the question of whether we ought to be sending our tax money overseas when it could be used to help Americans in need. As far as I'm concerned, the question is becoming more pertinent every day.
The latest catastrophe occurred in Joplin, Missouri, where a huge tornado devastated an entire town. It destroyed vehicles, razed homes to the ground, and most tragically, claimed dozens of lives. The storm came on the heels of arguably the worst flooding in the history of our nation, with the Mississippi River cresting to near-record levels. Even worse, it was only mere weeks ago that the southern United States was hit by a series of tornadoes almost as severe as the one that hit Joplin.
President Obama visited the areas that were hardest hit by the storms, and promised residents that federal aid was on the way. I'm sure most Americans would agree that this is an effective way to use our tax dollars, and I know of no one who opposes the action. But in this difficult economy, with our people struggling, our nation's debt increasing exponentially, and our budget shortfall growing by the day, it's not as if we have a ton of disposable income to throw around. While we want to help out our fellow Americans, we have to ask ourselves whether we are going to reach the point where we will no longer be able to. And that, my friends, is a scary thought.
One fair question to ask in the wake of these natural disasters is whether we should be sending billions of dollars overseas when that money could be used to help our own. Before I go any further, allow me to state that I am in no way an isolationist. I have long believed in the saying, "No man is an island," and I believe that the saying applies to nations as well. America simply must look out for its interests abroad. If we wall ourselves in, then the rest of the world could go to pot and eventually it will all catch up to us. We need to stay engaged, foster friendships with other countries, and protect our friends when they need our help.
That said, we have to choose our friends wisely. We need to support those who support us. Are we doing that? When you look at the current situation, one would have to say that we're not.
Consider that of all the proposed U.S. assistance for 2012, almost two-thirds is earmarked for Muslim nations and one-third goes to Arab countries.Yet, despite those billions in aid, opinion polls show most Arab citizens still have an unfavorable view of America and most Muslim nations routinely vote against U.S. interests in the United Nations. Are these really the countries we should be supporting?
Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) is answering that question with a definitive "no." He is calling for our government to show some backbone and stop giving money to those countries that consistently vote against our interests. But will his colleagues respond to the call? That remains to be seen, though I firmly believe it won't happen. At least not with this Senate and with this president.
The idea is actually nothing new. Years ago, John Bolton, former U.N. Ambassador, called for cutting off aid to at least 30 countries that always voted against U.S. interests. To this day, he laments that America is making a terrible mistake in supplying these nations with billions and billions of dollars.
Let's take a look at some of the numbers. Over the past 5 years, the United States has provided $74 million in aid to Turkey, a country where only 10% of citizens have a favorable view of America. Turkey voted against U.S. interests in the U.N. approximately 60% of the time. From here, it only gets worse. Look at the aid we've provided to the following countries during this same span: Indonesia ($1.3 billion), Lebanon ($1.4 billion), Jordan ($4.5 billion), and Egypt ($9.5 billion).
How often do they vote against U.S. interests, you ask? Take a look: Indonesia (73%), Lebanon (70%), Jordan (60%), and Egypt (75%). Interesting how the country that received far and away the most aid voted against our interests more often than any other, isn't it?
When will this madness end? Let's look at this from a personal standpoint. If you consistently gave (not lent, GAVE) money to a "friend," but they openly went against your interests anywhere from 60% to 75% of the time, would you continue to give them money? If you did, would you not be considered a doormat?
In my book, this is exactly what our great nation has become: a doormat. We let foreign countries continue to walk all over us. We provide the Saudis with troops whenever they call for them, only to have them gouge us on oil prices. We maintain an open trade agreement with China, only to have them screw us by manipulating their currency. We provide billions in aid to Pakistan, only to find out they're helping our most wanted terrorist to escape our clutches. Why???
Again, I am not an isolationist and I believe firmly in securing our national interests around the globe. But our leaders in Washington need to wake up and stop supporting the countries that don't support us. We are still the world's one dominant superpower, but we don't use that status to our advantage. We hold all the cards, but don't play them. Instead, we allow the snakes of the Arab world to play us.
This is the platform Donald Trump was going to run on, and in my opinion it was the reason he was at the top or near the top of the polls in the race for the GOP Presidential Nomination. Americans are tired of watching other countries rob us while our leaders idly stand by. The time has come for action, and I believe that now more than ever, the American people realize that.
So where do we go from here? Do you think President Obama will ever cut off aid to Muslim countries? If so, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Unless a Republican wins the White House in 2012, we will continue to ship billions of dollars overseas to nations whose people hate us and who openly go against our interests. All in the face of a terrible economy where millions of Americans remain unemployed, many others who are working struggle to get by, and still others lose everything they have to the capricious cruelty of Mother Nature.
I can only hope and pray that the candidate who secures the GOP nomination will see the light on these issues and defeat Barack Obama in 2012. Should that happen, I'd have a solid piece of advice for the new president: appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State. He would be the right man at the right time. Given his past experience at the U.N., Bolton would know who to go after and how to hit them. Then the message would be sent loud and clear: namely that the United States is fed up and we're not going to take it any more.
That, in my view, is the only way we're going to win the war on oil prices in the short term. It's the only way we're going to get China to stop manipulating their currency and playing us for fools. It's the only way we're going to get more cooperation from Muslims throughout the world. And it's the only way to get our foreign policy headed back in the right direction.
So who would you rather help? The blue-blooded Americans struggling to get by, find work, or rebuild their lives after losing everything to a flood or devastating storm...or the Muslims who hate our country and consistently advocate against us at the United Nations? If that isn't a no-brainer, then I don't know what is.
No comments:
Post a Comment