Written by Rolling Stone senior politics writer Tim Dickinson, the commentary begins with the following:

“A new study models the impact of the implosion of U.S.-funded disease treatment and prevention in the developing world — and suggests that Elon Musk and Marco Rubio will go down as among history’s greatest monsters if funding and effective administration are not restored. In short: Tens of millions will die, millions of them children.”

Pardon me for playing Donald Trump’s Advocate . . .

. . . or is that Devil’s Advocate? Meh. It’s six of one, half a dozen of the other . . .

. . .but do death certificates from places outside the USA ever list the cause of death as being a lack of money from the U.S. government?

Also, where does the U.S. Constitution say that the job of the U.S. government is to take care of people who aren’t U.S. citizens and who live outside of the USA?

Seriously, just what legally obligates the U.S. government to do that?

The last time that I checked, nothing is preventing private charities from taking care of said people.

Indeed, since June of 1987, I have been using a private charity to sponsor children who aren’t U.S. citizens and who live outside of the USA.

So, instead of using other Americans’ tax dollars for charity, I have been using my own money.

If the Trump Administration is violating the law by not using tax dollars the way that Congress requires, then one may have a legal argument against Elon Musk and Marco Rubio.

However, it is a stretch at best to call these men “monsters” because non-Americans outside of the USA die from natural causes that the men did not create. Even people opposed to the Trump Administration’s existence can figure that out.

Again, exactly what, if anything, requires the USA to rescue the entire World from the harshness of Nature?

Can anyone cite a legal requirement?

Now this may strike some viewers as harsh, but Life itself is harsh. Denying that bit of reality doesn’t make one morally superior. Neither does insisting that the U.S. government MUST rescue everyone in the World from whatever Nature dishes out.

Granted, Dickenson’s commentary is just that, a commentary, not a news report. Still, his commentary uses emotionally-laden language to claim that the Trump Administration will be killing non-Americans living outside the USA if U.S. tax dollars aren’t spent to rescue those people from natural phenomena.

To the best of this blogger’s knowledge, the U.S. government is in the same legal position as Batman at the end of the 2005 film Batman Begins. In one scene, Batman tells the villain Ra’s al Ghul, “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you.”

Again, I am approaching this issue from strictly a constitutional and legal perspective. I am neither an attorney nor a constitutional scholar. I really do not know what is legally required of the U.S. government when it comes to foreign charity, which is why I am asking these questions.

As for non-legal incentives, I consider it wrong to cite any religious texts or religious beliefs when insisting that the U.S. government provide foreign charity. Doing so would violate separation of Religion and State. It would be hypocrisy to do that while claiming to support the U.S. Constitution.

Besides, I do not know of any religious texts which require the U.S. government to provide foreign charity. I know of religious texts that require charity from private citizens who believe a certain way, but those texts do not pertain to any modern civil government.

In contrast, I see a reason to reconsider how much the U.S. government spends on foreign charity. At the time of this post’s writing, the U.S. National Debt exceeded $36 TRILLION. In the long run, that debt is harmful to U.S. citizens.

Should such harm be permitted in order for the U.S. government be generous to non-Americans living outside the USA?

Should Peter be robbed of tax dollars in order to be generous to Paul?

As I said before, Americans can give their own money to support charities that provide assistance to non-Americans living outside the USA. However, the fact that they CAN doesn’t mean that they WILL. It is way easier to be generous with other people’s tax dollars than it is to be generous with one’s own money.

Regarding public charity, the Israelites of antiquity had a system for providing for the physical needs of the poorest among them. This system is mentioned in the Tanakh (Old Testament) Book of Devarim (Deuteronomy):

This verse says that the Israelites were to give their tithes directly to people who were the physically poorest* people in their communities. By doing so, the Israelites were ensuring that the physically poorest* people would have enough physical food to stay alive and healthy.

According to the Tanakh, Elohim (G-d) mandated that charity system for the ancient Israelites to participate in. By doing so, Elohim demonstrated his compassion for the physically poorest* of people whether they be Israelites or be non-Israelites.

Sure, the Tanakh does not forbid modern civil governments from using other people’s tax dollars for charity.

Neither does the New Testament if you are a Christian.

As far as I know, neither does the Book of Mormon if you are a Mormon, nor the Quran if you are a Muslim.

Yet, what personal compassion is demonstrated by relying on the government’s use of other people’s tax dollars to provide charity? None that I know of.

*I keep saying “physically poorest” because I once heard a Southern Baptist pastor claim that the Tanakh (Old Testament) was talking about the spiritually poor, not the physically poor. Granted, the pastor was wrong, but nobody in his church (mine at the time) dared to question his teachings because he had an honorary Doctorate of Divinity. Thus, he was called “Dr. ___________” by everyone, as if his honorary title made him infallible.