Makes sense doesn't it? His thinking would be leagues better than what we have now. I can tell you Rand Paul would never strong arm Israel into accepting a ceasefire when it has Hamas on the ropes, as Obama has just done. He would let them do what they think needs to be done.
Israel is a strong and important ally of the United States, and we share many mutual security interests. I believe we should stand by our ally, but where I think sometimes American commentators get confused is that I do not think Israel should be dictated to by the United States. I think that has happened too often, and it has been to the detriment of Israel. Too often we have coerced Israel into trading land for peace, or other false bargains. When President Obama stood before the world in 2011 to demand that Israel act against her own strategic interest, I denounced this as unnecessary meddling. As I wrote in May of that year: "For President Obama to stand up today and insist that Israel should once again give up land, security and sovereignty for the possibility of peace shows an arrogance that is unmatched even in our rich history of foreign policy."
Israel will always know what's best for Israel. The United States should always stand with its friends. But we should also know, unlike President Obama, when to stay out of the way.
Foreign aid is another example of how our meddling often hurts more than its helps. In my proposals to end or cut back on foreign aid, some have made accusations that my proposals would hurt Israel. Actually, not following my proposals hurt Israel. We currently give about $4 billion annually to Israel in foreign aid. But we give about $6 billion to the nations that surround Israel, many of them antagonistic toward the Jewish state.
Giving twice as much foreign aid to Israel's enemies simply does not make sense. Our aid to Israel has always been to a country that has been an unequivocal ally. Our aid to its neighbors has purchased their temporary loyalty at best.
These countries are not our true allies and no amount of money will make them so. They are not allies of Israel and I fear one day our money and military arms that we have paid for will be used against Israel.
So why Rand Paul and not Jindal, Ryan or Rubio? Because the United States is in serious trouble financially. The former Chief Economist of the Office of Management and Budget (and a current Treasury Official), recently wrote that there soon won't be enough foreign buyers to fund US debt. Foreigners would have to hold the equivalent of 20% of their GDP for us to fund our debt by 2020, up from less than 5% less than a decade ago. We are on the road for a real sovereign debt crisis and soon. China has already reduced its US Treasury Debt holdings by $115 billion in the last year. Rand Paul just seems like the candidate who is most serious about cutting spending and getting government out of our lives. That is exactly the kind of person we need in the White House. Not just someone who is going to fiddle around the edges like I fear the other potential candidates will.
Anyway, let's keep our fingers crossed. In the last 88 years, the GOP has only sent two believers in small government and individual liberty to the White House, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, the rest were just lite Democrats who believed in government solutions. I think we're about due.