Elder Patriot – Following a vote to condemn the United States for its planned embassy move to Jerusalem U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley told the world’s most expensive debating society “what we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won’t be forgotten.”
Two days prior to that vote, using Twitter, Haley had warned the member nations of the international body:
“At the UN we’re always asked to do more & give more. “So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don’t expect those we’ve helped to target us. On Thurs there’ll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names.”
Left unsaid was “and kicking ass.” Which America immediately began doing when it cut U.N. funding by $285 million. Admittedly, the reduction had been in works for some time and the amount pales in comparison to our total annual support for the body but it does establish an important predicate for the future: The United States is a sovereign nation that will tie its financial support for foreign entities to the extent that the recipient supports our policies.
Following that announcement came another, this one from the White House:
“The United States does not plan to spend the $255 million in FY 2016 in Foreign Military Financing for Pakistan at this time.
“The President has made clear that the United States expects Pakistan to take decisive action against terrorists and militants on its soil, and that Pakistan’s actions in support of the South Asia Strategy will ultimately determine the trajectory of our relationship, including future security assistance.”
In August, President Trump had made it clear what he expected from Pakistan:
“We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately.”
The $255 million represents slightly more that a quarter of military U.S. aid to Pakistan. That’s a significant cut that signals a new day in the way that money taken from American taxpayers will be spent, one that is based in morality.
During a 2013 interview Rand Paul expressed this exact shift in policy to Greta Van Susteren of Fox News after she asked him which foreign aid he would cut off “because foreign aid has been very effective for us in many parts of the world in achieving certain goals”:
“Well, I think there’s some argument whether it’s been effective. A lot of foreign aid’s been stolen over the years. The Mubarak family in Egypt became very wealthy off of our foreign aid.
“In the end, when people were rioting in the streets and protesting Mubarak’s rule and protesting his martial law, he sprayed them with tear gas that he bought with our foreign aid. So I don’t think the foreign aid necessarily endeared us to the Egyptians that were rioting against Mubarak.”
Senator Paul’s comments came during a time when Democrats, led by President Obama, were demanding sequester cuts to military spending essentially arming our enemies with that money.
This was not the only time Senator Paul questioned the sanity on our nation’s generous foreign aid policies. During a presidential debate in 2016 Paul raised concerns when he said those policies amounted to little more than “taking money from poor people in a rich country and giving it to rich people in a poor country.”
My apologies if that sounds like the outcome of every so-called liberal policy.