Congressmen are Paid to Vote for War - Going to Congress means becoming rich.

Discussion in 'Economics' started by BigCandle, Jan 9, 2012.

  1. Turns out that letter of unconditional support for Israel almost every congressman signs except Ron Paul, which by the way is treasonous considering we are talking about another country.

    Turns out it's not so much about ideology as about Money Money


    For the psychopaths on Capitol Hill, each new military escapade is a lottery windfall.

    To make sure American politicians play their role, Congressmen are allowed to own stocks in defense contractors, and make millions of dollars buying and selling them using insider knowledge.

    According to reports from OpenSecrets.org, in 2006, 151 members of Congress had $195.5 million invested in defense corporations. Their average net worth was $910,000 compared to $100,000 for American families in general. Over 50 range between $5 million and $190 million. John Kerry is at the top end of the scale.

    WAR IS A RACKET

    If you are a member of Congress and you sit on a 'defense committee', you are free to trade as much defense stock as you want to. A shocking example is former presidential candidate John Kerry, who has $30 million invested in defense contractors.

    Wars are planned by groups such as the Council of Foreign Relations, founded by David Rockefeller and Rothschilds. They feature both politicians and CEO's of defense contractors.

    Another group is the 'Atlantic Council'. On their website, they describe their mission as "drafting roadmaps for U.S. policy towards the Balkans, Cuba, Iraq, Iran and Libya." Corporate membership includes all four of the top four defense corporations in the country: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.

    Recently General Jim Jones left his job as chairman of the Atlantic Council to work as Obama's National Security Adviser. Four other prominent officials from Obama's administration are also members: Susan Rice, Richard Holbrooke, General Eric Shinseki, and the ominously named Anne-Marie Slaughter.

    Another example is the cozy relationship that existed between Northrop Grumman, the fourth largest defense corporation in the world, and the Bush administration. According to Corpwatch, at least seven former officials, consultants or shareholders of Northrop Grumman held positions in the Bush administration. Unsurprisingly, as the war on terror expanded, Northrop Grumman saw net sales of $7.6 billion in 2000 skyrocket to $34 billion by 2008.

    Most defense contractors fund the Republicans and Democrats equally. During the 2008 election, Lockheed Martin gave $2,612,219 in total political campaign donations, with 49% to Democrats ($1,285,493) and 51% to Republicans ($1,325,159).

    [​IMG]

    http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/04/strategic-assets.html
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/m...-worth-rose-25-percent-despite-economy-65862/
    http://www.rollcall.com/features/Guide-to-Congress_2010/guide/-49892-1.html
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_1...mation/?pageNum=3&tag=contentMain;contentBody
    http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/war-is-a-racket/foreign-policy-and-war-profiteering-.html
    http://www.onedayonejob.com/jobs/atlantic-council/
    http://www.corpwatch.org/section.php?id=11
     
  2. piezoe

    piezoe

    Is this anything we did not know? Well perhaps some of the details. What to do about it? That's the important question.

    Very difficult to do anything about it when to be a warrior in an undeclared war of aggression is to be a hero; when it is politically incorrect to oppose war.

    The war industry has learned to use the same methods that the religion industry and the Zionists use. You get things rolling with a healthy dose of fear, then once you've made it politically incorrect to even question, let alone criticize, you needn't worry anymore about opposition.


    (Just writing what I have written above can invite labels such as "pacifist kook, anti-semite, atheist", etc. In the United States, certain camps of political thinking have even been able to attach a negative connotation to the term "intellectual", as if there was such a thing as too much education. It is the intellectuals that oppose war, that are soft on communism -- and now socialism -- that are blind to the menace of China.)
     
  3. Something in the culture changed, too. After Vietnam, the military wasn't considered desirable. No one wanted to "serve" in another war like that, and a lot of military "lifers" were considered riff raff who couldn't function well in society.

    Since all the Middle Eastern adventurism began in the 90s, opinions have changed. People think of the military once again as a highly-desirable and respectable calling. "We're sooooo proud of our son who enlisted. He looks great his uniform and is defending our freedoms in Afghanistan right now!"

    There have been a lot of reasons for this. One is Hollywood. They often consult with the military on war and military life-related movies. In general, films have been more pro-military in recent years.
     
  4. hee hee, sure, a war in SE Asia doesn't buy Israel much of anything but in the ME, now THAT'S a war!!
     
  5. d08

    d08

    It's the same thing Soviet Russian communists did -- calling someone "intellectual" was a pretty strong insult. I guess it's just one of the many similarities.
    I completely agree with what you said, btw, couldn't have said it any better myself.