by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Instead of sending money to Sudan because there is, yet again, a famine, or was it Ethiopia once again, we need to send money to the following country: Great Britain.
Many in this country (and the same is true for the USA) are forced to go without food, shelter and clean drinking water.
Service personnel, after coming home from the wars, are forced to live on the streets because there is no money to care for them and their needs.
Residents are going without heat for the winter and no air conditioning in the summer, not that the latter is used much in the UK. Very few air conditioning units. And then again,does one really need an AC unit? However, the point is that many go without heating, families with children and the elderly included, and thousands die each winter of the cold. And this in a country that is supposed to have a welfare system.
Millions are without jobs, we need good healthcare for the sick. It is time to stop sending our money overseas to countries that want to see Britain go under. And the same is true for the Unite States. We have people here that lack the basic human needs. Charity begins at home
The British government has ring-fenced overseas aid for foreign countries while we have to cut services. But, says our government, we need to spend money overseas to help others as it helps our country. I disagree.
Overseas aid, which includes, obviously, the emergency aid for earthquakes, famines and such and it is there where we interfere with Nature. On top of that does anyone believe that if Britain would be in a similar trouble anyone else would come and help us.
Foreign aid, including emergency aid, whether from government monies or monies collected by the likes of Oxfam, and others, is not helpful to the needy people at home nor those needy the aid is supposed to help.
Many “greens” talk about the need to reduce the world's population (by preaching people in the developed countries to have fewer children – or even none) while interfering in Mother Nature's own way of population control.
Charity begins at home!
Some years ago, during one of the Ethiopian emergencies (oh dear, there have been so many) and emergency operations, I was friendly with someone who was involved with the relief operations who told me of the case when they tried to encourage the people to return to their villages and start farming again. The agencies gave them grain, sorghum and millet by the bushel so that they could have a start to farm again. But, instead, the men brewed beer from the grains and after getting drunk everyone stayed in the camps waiting for the next handout.
And, before anyone complains, I know Africa and the Africans rather well, thank you very much.
However, the same attitude prevails everywhere where people are made dependent on aid, be it famine aid, or welfare, and the same attitude can be seen amongst the Roma Gypsies in Eastern Europe too.
The British foreign aid budget is in such a high range that, more than likely, no cuts to public services and therefore no job losses in the public sector would be necessary and, if we also got away from having troops in places where no one wants us – defence of the realm is not done in Afghanistan – we would need make not cuts anywhere and could pay back all debts as a nation. Britain, like American, was never meant to have a standing army but was supposed to be defended by militia regiments raised as and when needed. But, I digressed.
With needy people at home any money should go, initially, to help them and not some people abroad. When the needs of the citizens have been fulfilled then we can go and help others. Same as with food grown here. First supply the needs of the country, then think of export. Let's get some sense back into our world.
© 2012
