pt.5- military and money

recap:
intro- globalization
part 1- what is it and why should we care?
part 2- the brave new americas?
part 3- meet the players
pt 4- america's turn for imperialism?

i have not yet determined the real motive behind the push for wars on several fronts- but it is interesting to note that recently at sean hannity's freedom concert, tom delay noted that we had other people in the world fighting for us- notably ethiopia in somalia. why? i guess that it would help to understand the philosphy of this movement: according to wikipedia-

"Neoconservatism is a political current and ideology, mainly in the United States, which emerged in the 1960s, coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. It is most closely identified with a set of foreign policy positions and goals: a hawkish stance during the Cold War and, more recently, in various conflicts in the Middle East; at times there have been distinct neoconservative positions in domestic policies. In particular, the first generation of neoconservatives were generally less opposed to "big government" and to social spending than other U.S. conservatives of the time."

the current movement started in earnest in the house of representatives when cheney, gingrich, and delay were elected and took form with the republican revolution of 1994. cheney and rumsefeld were the architects- along with wolfowitz- and were looking to consolidate power into the hands of a few men. the plan was that the executive and legislativie branch worked together to make it possible. gingrich worked in the house along witht the 'gang of seven' and was the one who came up with using the media as a tool for political gain- in conjunction with rove in the executive branch- and used the infamous 'smear campaign'. delay "the hammer" worked in the senate and started the k street project. he also used fear tactics(re-election money withheld, blackmail) to keep other repubs in congress in line. both gingrich and delay have been plagued with ethics scandals but gingrich went to work for aei- american enterprise institute and has parlayed that into a run in 2008 for president. delay has relinquished his texas seat and , according to the washington post:

"DeLay said he would move his official residence to Alexandria and vowed to stay involved in grass-roots conservative causes and expand a foster-care program he started in Texas. Friends and associates of DeLay say they think he can make a prosperous future for himself as a corporate-paid legislative strategist, book author and speaker."

where is the money trail and why is america bankrupt? where is america's money going? i have a feeling that halliburton may be the key. halliburton has been involved in iraq and the gulf coast and both areas have missing money. why is the federal government buying up land out west? idaho?

how does this fit in with pnac and nato? these folks are moving to dismantle the united nations which they view as weak and ineffectual due to the peace keeping focus. they also feel that the un should work in the best interests of america- period. nato, on the other hand, is a military coalition. we have reached out to several of the eastern european nations as well as india, israel, and japan to become members or satellites of nato. indeed, nato is set to take a bigger role in afghanistan and now lebanon. i posted not too long ago about uzebekistan and its role in the region- the administration had wanted to put a military base there but the leader is a crazy dictator who has taken to killing his countrymen with the zeal of oh- stalin. he decided to boot america out but hey, he doesn't mind housing one of our secret prisons (jimmy carter, 'our endangered values.').

so, the direction i see us moving towards? i have been called a "crazy lefty," a "moonbat," and one 'gentleman' told me that he was grateful that i wasn't in charge of his family's security. why? simply because i feel that in a free society, you take risks. the risk is maintaining your open society. i see us moving into a fundamentalist, theocratic country with our personal freedoms eroded and our government a hierarchacal oligarchy at best and a dictatorship at worst. you cannot have it both ways- there is no middle ground. either you decide to remain free and open or you close yourself off and give up your personal freedoms to your government. now, that isn't to say that you can't defend yourself or take safeguards by putting a workable structure in place. this current government has done none of this. they have consolidated power under the guise of protection and defense and turned our once great country into a divided, weakened one. we have no power in the world because we gave it up. we have little power to fight off the demagogues because we are ceding it in the name of fear. grow up and take some responsibility people. are we so afraid of losing our big homes and suvs and corner market that we are willing to give up our basic freedoms? i know for myself that i would rather live in a cardboard box and be free than a mansion under dictatorship. make no mistake- these folks will not cede power easily. just because you think that you can 'vote them out' doesn't mean that life will go back to normal.. newt gingrich had a less than 1% approval rating when he left congress and now he is going to run for president. what does he know that we don't?