I recently had the pleasure of conversing with Mr. Conman on his radio show concerning our military. I would simplify our positions thusly: The Conman feels we are wasting resources preparing for threats that do not exist. (Michael please correct me if I am in error.) My contention is that we need a strong military as a deterrent to any threats that might develop.
Before I continue, I am at the forefront in pointing out government waste, corruption, lies and projects hidden from the citizenry. Michael is correct here and I completely agree with him valuable resources are being wasted and misappropriated. HAARP in Gakona, Alaska (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is a good example. Few have heard of this project (outside the “conspiracy” crowd anyway). Millions of tax dollars have been spent on this “research” project. I challenge anyone to first research this project and then contact their senator and/or congressperson about it. See if the answers the government gives you is even remotely similar to what you find in your research.
The point here is not about the pros and cons of HAARP, but the way the government is run. And how the federal government has no qualms of out right lying to it’s population. The initial budget for the entire project is less that what the government ended up spending on the transmitters alone. Lies and the misappropriation of funds that would be much better spent at the local level.
This mentality permeates our federal government. It is the military-industrial complex Dwight Eisenhower warned us about over 4 decades ago at work. And this mentality of doing “whatever” and putting a pretty face on it extends to how our military is built and used.
We need a strong military. But we need logic, honesty and the Constitution dictating how that military is utilized. Not political agendas. Ron Paul voted against invading Iraq for two reasons. He refused to drink the kool-aid being served up by the White House and stood fast to his belief that we do not have the right to arbitrarily invade another country (irregardless of his political party affiliation). And more importantly, he understood that the Constitution states that only Congress can take us to war, not the President. The President is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed services, but the country is ruled by laws passed by Congress. And the laws are subject to the Constitution. Part of that ingenious separation of powers our Founding Fathers thought up.
So in my mind, the mismanagement of our military and our “global policeman/nation building” policies do not mean we should not invest in our defensive posture. Imagine having a pissant military and then waking one day to find out we need a strong one. It’s like having a condom – I would prefer to have one and not need it rather than needing one and not having it.