You need to go read Sowell. Don't comment on free trade until you have.
You mean Thomas Sowell? PhD University of Chicago?
Greed for power is more dangerous than greed for money and has shed far more blood in the process. Political authorities have often had revolutionary values that were devastating to the general population.
Yup, I've read him, as well as Leo Strauss, the ideological mentor of the Chicago Kids.
Have you read the Statement of Principles of the Project for a New American Century?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm " we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
" we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
" we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
" we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Have you read last weeks assignment?
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8102North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a tri-national, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a road map to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.
Perhaps you should, for a view of the policy being crafted from the philosophy you espouse.
At least three of the P for the NAC founders are current members of the CFR, and thats only high profilers, ie Dick Cheney, Fred Ikle and Paul Wolfowitz. Im not trying for the seven degrees of Leo Strauss but a legitimate unified front of the western world will make the goals of the neoconservative philosophy easier to realize.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n121/ai_17489596Irving Kristol (of the CFR) self proclaimed godfather of neoconservatism writes
People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government.
Who stands to gain from all this? That is the 64 thousand dollar question. Who stands to gain?
Yes, you can call me a tin foil hatter and conspiracy nut all you want, I laugh at your reluctance to educate yourself with the roots of current political philosophy and policy therein rooted. Who stands to gain? Rabbi answered 75% correctly in reply post 48 #
(Big Corporations? Polticians? George Bush? The dreaded Neo Cons?)
All the same, except GW, hes nothing. Again, look at the list of members of the CFR, The P for a NAC, and the Tri Lateral commission.
The constitution is written to uphold the rights of the people. There has been no overt assault on that goddamned piece of paper, rather, we see a gradual erosion and chipping away.
Why these erosions?
To protect us from terrorists? To ensure domestic tranquility? To foster continued economic growth?
Who stands to gain?
Not a conspiracy theory, this North American Union, but perhaps a hypothesis. What I find disturbing is the number of fawning sycophants willing to ignorantly call names, espouse contradictory points of view and deny the validity of even trying it under scientific method.
Who stands to gain? Look at their philosophy and their methods.
Is it feasible? Is it possible?
The fox will find the hen house. If we build a bigger, stronger hen house in a private location, do we sit back assuming the fox will never find it, or is even looking for it? There is no feeling quite like waking in the morning and finding the place ransacked by a thief in the night. Whose tracks are those?
Some call it paranoia,
Realists call it situational awareness.
Soakers
ps. my earlier quote attempt was a cheap shot. I'll try to control myself.
