To begin, secret government activities need secret and sometimes illegal source of funds. An illegal trade like drugs has the potential for huge profits. The drug trade also is one of the largest parts of the cash economy, estimated at over 1/5 of all cash transactions. From the High School kid buying a $20 bag of weed to the big city dealer buying $50,000 of coke, these cash transactions help the economy by increasing the transfer of wealth from one person to the next. With the international drug trade, huge exports of drugs from one nation leads to foreign, corporate investment in the nation. If a drug cartel has $100,000,000 in cash from a large deal, they do not put this money in a vault, they invest it by opening a Wal-Mart or Home Depot in their nation.
The CIA has been rumored for years to help facilitate this trade. With the "Big Brother" security abilities our intelligence agencies have today, it would be easy for the drug trade to grind to a stop pretty quickly. From monitoring cell phone calls to tracking known dealers, the ability to end the drug trade would be fairly easy in our modern society. The government has no desire to do this though, because the economy and the CIA funding would dry up.
An ex-acquaintance of mine who was a heavy pot smoker introduced me to his dealer, who was arrested numerous times, yet never spent a day in jail. His father was a top investigator in the local police force. He admitted to me that he works as an informant for the local police department. If someone wants to buy a large amount, he reports it, otherwise, the police do not take further actions. They do track each person who this dealer has dealings with by monitoring his phone, but no criminal action is taken. The most curious part of the story was his source of his marijuana. After buying from shady dealers for years, he was put in touch with a "police approved" supplier. So with the police’s full knowledge, this dealer buys drugs, and sells them to the public, with no action being taken. I have heard similar stories from individuals from across the nation.
I know many will think this is just a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory, and I admit, I have no indisputable proof of the government/CIA complicity in the drug trade. There have been numerous known CIA airplanes that have crashed with massive amounts of Cocaine. Past "drug wars" during the 80s never had the effect of lessening the drug usage in America, but eased the flow of drugs in most cases. Many people "in the know" have discussed the secret CIA involvement in the drug trade, but other then the Internet, a great deal hasn’t been discussed or published about it.
Barack Obama appears to have no deep connections to this drug trade or people who have made their livelihoods from it. Will he investigate these covert actions? Will he legalize some drugs while having an actual war on other drugs? With a president who appears to care more about the truth then protecting his buddies, The Obama Administration could be transformative for the Dark Side of America and its secret actions.
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
November 19, 2008
July 25, 2008
Of Our Trust in Public Figures
At what point in history did the public decide to put our trust in public figures of authority? From politicians to religious figures to heads of industry, at what point did the public decide we should stop questioning what they said and put our trust in these people?
It seems that time and time and time again, people in authority abuse the public’s trust for their own gain and the detriment of the public. I guess it is human nature to be trusting of people until negative aspects are made clear. We cannot be skeptical of everything that everyone says to us, but when there is something to be gained from what is being said, a critical examination is absolutely necessary. Do we trust advertisements at face value? It’s time to do the same with public figures because we have more to lose by trusting their pubic statements.
This past weekend, the Pope spoke at World Youth Day in Australia. He was quoted as saying something to the effect of “the youth of today needs to give up materialism and excess to revitalize the world for tomorrow, which is desperately needed.” This is a great message that should be taken to heart, but let us examine the speaker and the context to get a fuller perspective. The Pope has tremendous excess himself with no intention of giving it up. Are his gold hat, lavish clothing, personal transportation vehicles, and excessive land ownership vital to his existence? If he is going to tell the youth of this world to give up excess, why doesn’t he start by giving up his own gold crown and lavish clothing or sell some of the excessive property the church owns? One must live his own statement, not just say things that for others to do or live by.
While in Australia, the Pope had to deal with the sex abuse scandals that apparently occurred “down-under” as well as in America. For decades, the Catholic Church covered up these abuses, allowing them to continue unpunished, even when they knew it was a widespread problem. They were more concerned with protecting the church than the people who put their trust in it. So today, knowing what we all know about The Church, why should anyone take these statements from The Pope at face value? It is easy to say nice things, but if the speaker has something to gain and his statements lack consistency with his actions, the declarations should not be trusted on face value.
The fastest rising public figure in America today is Barack Obama. He is perceived as the perfect antidote to George W. Bush, but how true is that perception? Obama gives superb speeches, many of which hit on topics that have upset Americans over the Bush years. He is a minority, is inspirational, and wants change. He speaks of changing the tone of politics, uniting people, and bringing new ideas to a failing system. These are great sentiments, but what do his actions show?
His campaign is run by specific statistics and polling. His key words and sayings are tested before being uttered publicly. His policy statements are carefully worded to anticipate future changes and avoid being viewed as a “flip-flopper.” Vague statements can have the public thinking they mean one thing at the time, but in the future, it can be looked upon with a different meaning. Does Obama’s values jive with his vote giving telecom companies immunity for past illegal actions? It seems to go against his ideology and many of his statements.
A Senator who has spent approximately 140 working days in the Senate does not have the experience as someone who has spent more time there; however, experience is not the only important aspect. Good judgment can be more important than lots of knowledge about events in the past, but experience and good judgment are different aspects to the same root issue, and should be treated as such. Trying to blur the two is a marketing tactic, not factual reality.
The above-mentioned ideas should seem fundamental to society. It should be discussed in a fair forum that isn’t ideologically based in order to work for a better public understanding of government. This would be a perfect job for some profession that gathers information about events then relays the information in an organized, factual basis to the public. To bad this profession doesn’t exist these days.
It seems that time and time and time again, people in authority abuse the public’s trust for their own gain and the detriment of the public. I guess it is human nature to be trusting of people until negative aspects are made clear. We cannot be skeptical of everything that everyone says to us, but when there is something to be gained from what is being said, a critical examination is absolutely necessary. Do we trust advertisements at face value? It’s time to do the same with public figures because we have more to lose by trusting their pubic statements.
This past weekend, the Pope spoke at World Youth Day in Australia. He was quoted as saying something to the effect of “the youth of today needs to give up materialism and excess to revitalize the world for tomorrow, which is desperately needed.” This is a great message that should be taken to heart, but let us examine the speaker and the context to get a fuller perspective. The Pope has tremendous excess himself with no intention of giving it up. Are his gold hat, lavish clothing, personal transportation vehicles, and excessive land ownership vital to his existence? If he is going to tell the youth of this world to give up excess, why doesn’t he start by giving up his own gold crown and lavish clothing or sell some of the excessive property the church owns? One must live his own statement, not just say things that for others to do or live by.
While in Australia, the Pope had to deal with the sex abuse scandals that apparently occurred “down-under” as well as in America. For decades, the Catholic Church covered up these abuses, allowing them to continue unpunished, even when they knew it was a widespread problem. They were more concerned with protecting the church than the people who put their trust in it. So today, knowing what we all know about The Church, why should anyone take these statements from The Pope at face value? It is easy to say nice things, but if the speaker has something to gain and his statements lack consistency with his actions, the declarations should not be trusted on face value.
The fastest rising public figure in America today is Barack Obama. He is perceived as the perfect antidote to George W. Bush, but how true is that perception? Obama gives superb speeches, many of which hit on topics that have upset Americans over the Bush years. He is a minority, is inspirational, and wants change. He speaks of changing the tone of politics, uniting people, and bringing new ideas to a failing system. These are great sentiments, but what do his actions show?
His campaign is run by specific statistics and polling. His key words and sayings are tested before being uttered publicly. His policy statements are carefully worded to anticipate future changes and avoid being viewed as a “flip-flopper.” Vague statements can have the public thinking they mean one thing at the time, but in the future, it can be looked upon with a different meaning. Does Obama’s values jive with his vote giving telecom companies immunity for past illegal actions? It seems to go against his ideology and many of his statements.
A Senator who has spent approximately 140 working days in the Senate does not have the experience as someone who has spent more time there; however, experience is not the only important aspect. Good judgment can be more important than lots of knowledge about events in the past, but experience and good judgment are different aspects to the same root issue, and should be treated as such. Trying to blur the two is a marketing tactic, not factual reality.
The above-mentioned ideas should seem fundamental to society. It should be discussed in a fair forum that isn’t ideologically based in order to work for a better public understanding of government. This would be a perfect job for some profession that gathers information about events then relays the information in an organized, factual basis to the public. To bad this profession doesn’t exist these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
