Rand Paul and the Special Relationship with Israel

May 22nd, 2010

(KurtNimmo) -  I defended Rand Paul when the Democrat operative Rachel Maddow tried to take him to the woodshed over this remarks about the Civil Rights Act (remarks he has in part retracted in response to the collective lib howl amplified over the corporate media megaphone). Paul said that while he abhors racism the law violates the property rights of the individual.

Paul was spot on about that.

Paul has made other comments, however, that deserve attention. It appears Paul is an Israel cheerleader not much different than the neocons who have dogged him since he announced his bid for a Senate seat. As unfair as that may seem, please bear with me and keep reading.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 21, 2010

Philip Klein, writing for the American Spectator back in April, posted a document circulated by the Rand Paul campaign for those interested in his views on Israel. Rand differs significantly from his father on the issue.

“Israel and the United States have a special relationship,” states Rand’s position paper. “With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries.”

This “special relationship” has cost you and me a boatload of money. “Israel is by far the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. Since 1949, the United States has provided Israel with $101 billion in total aid, of which $53 billion has been military aid. For the last 20-plus years, Israel has received an average of $3 billion annually in grant aid,” write Kathleen and Bill Christison.

Lost your job and home thanks to the banksters? Tough beans. Mr. Change, Barry Obama, will not end the special relationship or cut back on the free money Israel gets at your expense. “U.S. President Barack Obama will not cut the billions of dollars in military aid promised to Israel, a senior U.S. administration official said,” the Israeli press reported last November. “The $30 billion in aid promised to Israel over the next decade will not be harmed by the world financial crisis, the official told Israel Radio. He spoke on condition of anonymity.”

No special relationship for you, pal. Get prepared to pay even more so the government can give billions away to the Israelis and other moochers standing in the free money line.

To be fair, Paul didn’t say anything about forking billions of bucks into Israel’s coffers. He merely mentioned the supposed special relationship. If not for the cash, though, it is doubtful this relationship would be as rosy and special for very long.

According to New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, what “makes the relationship special is the incredible largess that the United States shows towards Israel, over the past decade, $28.9 billion in economic aid. And on top of that, another $30 billion in military aid, that’s almost $60 billion. That’s 10 times the GNP of Haiti that is being gifted to a small country. Now, I ask you, to what end is this money being used. Ladies and gentlemen, we would submit that it ends often inimical to the American interest.”

Rand needs to read George Washington’s farwell address. “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,” said Washington. Our commercial policy “should hold an equal and impartial hand” and should not seek nor grant “exclusive favors or preferences.” A “special relationship,” by definition, is an exclusive preference. It means relations with other nations are less special. It is picking favorites.

In fact, Israel’s enemies, according to Paul, deserve something far less special. “In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel.”

You’d think he would strive to end the hand-outs to all nations, not just Syria and Iran. It is unconstitutional to tax me — or rather take out loans issued by bankers and make us pay for it into perpetuity — and hand that money out to special friends. It is no different than a Mafia don demanding I cough up a wad of cash so he can dole it out to his cronies.

“Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone,” writes Paul.

Fair enough. It is Israel’s business, not ours. Does that mean that Rand Paul will insist upon taking his Senate seat that the government must stop stealing our money and giving it away to Israel in the form of military aid?

Of course, Israel ends up with the fighter jets and attack helicopters, but the money finds its way into the pockets of transnational death merchants such as Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. By and large, Israel uses this incredible death machinery to kill Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. Are these the “Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza” Rand Paul was talking about?

As Rand’s father notes, foreign aid is not only unconstitutional, it is also plain stupid:

Foreign aid is not only unconstitutional, but also exceedingly unwise. It creates the worst kind of entangling alliances that President Washington warned about. It doesn’t buy us any real allies, but instead encourages false friendships, dependency, and a sense of entitlement among the recipients. It also causes resentment among nations that receive none, or less than they feel they deserve. Above all, however, it is simply unconscionable to tax American citizens and send their money overseas. We have enough problems of our own here at home, and those dollars should be returned to taxpayers or spent on legitimate constitutional activities.

Once again, to be fair, Rand Paul did not address the issue of hard-earned U.S. dollars going to the state of Israel. It would be nice if he clarified this before the November election.

Let’s hope Mr. Paul is not simply playing the same old political game played in Washington and sucking up to the Israel lobby.

In March, Paul’s lead caught the attention of the pro-Israel community, a group not known for paying close attention to Bluegrass State politics. Is it possible Paul’s blather about the “special relationship” is a way to placate the neocons? If so, that does not make him much different than any other politician in Washington.

Finally, it should be noted that the neocons hate Rand Paul. Not only do neocons such as David Frum and Billy Kristol loathe and fear Rand Paul, but so does the neocon blogosphere. “So Rand Paul is the big tea party success story, eh?” wrote the blogger Allahpundit of Hot Air in a Tweet after Paul’s victory. “It’s cool to think that Alex Jones will now have a pipeline to the Senate too instead of just the House, huh?” he snidely added.

The fact the neocons hate Paul is a good thing. Now the next senator from Kentucky needs to set the record straight and tell us if he supports the government stealing my money and forking it over to a country that may invade Iran in any minute.

Source: Infowars

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on RedditShare on Google+Email this to someone

One Response to “Rand Paul and the Special Relationship with Israel”

  1. Bigmo Says:

    Rand would have said the same things about Iran. Rand knows what makes him different is his foreign policy and fiscal policy and he is riding high. What was a liability in 2008 is now an advantage. He is very slick with his foreign policy answer but he really is saying the same things his father said just in a different way. Look carefully at the words and you will notice the difference between what he says and how he says it and how a Neocon Republican would say it like Rubio.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.