Who pays the bill?

Who or what is financing all the arms and ammunition that goes into Gaza and Afghanistan? Obviously the stuff isn't manufactured on site but is smuggled in through porous borders. Is this part of the U.S. arms industry? Many counties make guns and stuff but who pays for them? No one comments on this matter so it must be hush hush.

Now McCrystal is being called on the carpet for telling it like it is in A'stan.
That is such a screwed up mess. Naturally the Afghans are hedging their bets on what happens when the U.S.and U.N. pulls out. Perhaps we should simply pull out with the understanding that if AlQueda or any other belligerent of the U.S. regroups we will drone them out of existence. That no doubt is simplistic but it beats the present fiasco.

The "intellectual" conservative (how did he get in there?)syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, manages to both praise and condemn Obama. K obviously respects O's intelligence but can't help putting the conservative vitriol into the discussion. His biggest gripe is that we are not exploiting the Alaska North Shore for oil. He simply says, if we are going to inevitably pollute let's do it where there are no people affected. What a cynical outlook! But that is the conservative frame of mind for you. He rightly states we are stuck with the need for oil for many decades yet but derides any attempt to begin the transition away from that. It has to begin sometime. The sooner the better. Tom Friedman quotes a writer who puts the blame where it belongs, on us. We are the ones who are going to have to adapt to a less petroleum based economy---from gas and oil to plastic bags and all the petroleum based products in between. Lots of luck. I'll never see it.

Another conservative "intellectual" George Will is now distorting history to demonize the liberal agenda. His Straussian reference is typical jabberwocky when one attempts to discredit an opponent's idea. (Strauss was Wolfowitz' mentor, and we know how that turned out) The New Deal was not intended to be perpetual but when attempts were made to limit the "dole" they were shelved by conservatives. Lockean "natural rights" have been touted s the bulwark of the conservative platform yet that philosophy was promulgated for an agrarian society and not the present corporatist society. Consequently it is necessary to enact regulations to restrain corporate greed.

With the Supreme Court ruling on "corporate rights" the corporatist are in the cat bird seat and the recently enacted Campaign Finance Bill makes it laughably easy for lobbyist to buy all the votes needed. Hopefully the matter of "push coming to shove" will be realized by enough people fed up with the destruction of our Democracy to unite in a populist movement to take back our government. The Tea-baggers use that
same argumentation against the supposed Socialistic trend of Obama's but there is a decided difference: the Tea-baggers are financed by the corporations that are only intent on disabling the reforms Obama intends. The corporatists are concerned only with ever more profits for the plutocracy. The populists want the common good to prevail.

In previous blogs I questioned where the money went and how do certain agencies get to skim so much money off each transaction? Those are legitimate questions that need answers.