Posted on 01/02/2012 8:38:41 AM PST by mnehring
It was recently observed that Ron Paul was to the left of Obama on national security and the best evidence for that statement can be found when one year ago Ron Paul joined forces with Barney Frank on a proposal to gut national defense via a panel of experts, quite a few of whom were tied to George Soros.
In July 2010, Barney Frank and Ron Paul co-authored a Huffington Post article rolling out their Sustainable Defense Task Force. The Task Force “consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum” would recommend a trillion dollars in defense cuts. The experts, however, didn’t quite “span the ideological spectrum” — more like float under it.
The panel of experts who would decide how to best gut national defense featured such independent thinkers as William D. Hartung of the New America Foundation. Hartung’s main expertise was appearing in “Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire.”
Then there was Lawrence J. Kolb of the Center for American Progress and Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies. If you want to know what the Center, the Foundation and the Institute all have in common, it’s Hungarian and smells like stale cabbage and the death of nations.
The rather creepy Institute for Policy Studies issued a paper proposing that Obama act as king and rule through executive orders. The New American Foundation is not only backed by Soros but has his son on its leadership council. The Center for American Progress is run by the co-chair of Obama’s transition team and is, for all intents and purposes, the think tank of the White House. All three are Soros funded.
But it doesn’t end there. Also on the panel was Christopher Hellman of the National Priorities Project (NPP). If you are wondering what the NPP is, it’s a think tank whose objective is to “influence national spending priorities.” And if you’re in the mood for a double, Miriam Pemberton is also on the board of the NPP. The man behind the curtain at NPP? None other than our favorite Hungarian James Bond villain.
Going further down the list there’s Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information (CDI). The CDI’s goal is to strengthen “national and international security through international cooperation [and] reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict.” CDI operates under the aegis of the World Security Institute, which is apparently the least creepy name they could think of. Wheeler is a Counterpunch contributor, a site which even Stalinists think goes a bit too far. CDI gets money from the Open Society Institute (OSI) where the stench of death and stale cabbage never goes away.
Then there’s Charles Knight and Carl Conetta of the Project for Defense Alternatives, which appears to be a subset of the Commonwealth Institute. Of its board of directors, S.M. Miller is also the founder of United for a Fair Economy which enjoys generous support from a certain philanthropic chap who occasionally destroys economies for sport. Another member, Guy Molyneux, has also worked with OSI. A third board member, Richard Healey, was formerly director of the Institute for Policy Studies and is on the advisory board of the Center for Social Inclusion, founded by two OSI veterans.
If you think this can’t get any worse, meet Paul Kawika Martin of Peace Action (PA). You might know PA better by its old name, the “Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy” or just “SANE,” a Communist front group investigated by none other than Senator Thomas Dodd. PA has the same attitude toward American defense that burglars have toward alarm systems in other people’s homes. They don’t like them very much. And they have a “five year strategic plan” for the job.
Paul Kawika Martin travels around fighting progress on board The Rainbow Warrior and is also involved with Physicians for Social Responsibility. Martin has also collaborated with the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a front for the Iranian regime. I think you can guess by now who funds Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Also on the task force is Laicie Olson of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The Center is actually a subset of the Council for a Livable World. Olson originally worked for Physicians for Social Responsibility. Another task force member was Heather Hurlburt of the National Security Network (NSN). The NSN’s goals are to “build a strong progressive national security and counter conservative spin.” Its founder was part of Obama’s transition team and resigned to work for Janet Napolitano. Soros’s OSI helped fund NSN, and its Special Counsel was on the NSN Policy Committee. If you’re tired of reading through all this, then here’s the summary. Of the Paul-Frank Task Force, 9 out of 14 members were linked to Soros’s organs. Two were affiliated with the Cato Institute. One is indeterminate. Ron Paul proposed to put a bunch of Soros-funded think tank experts in charge of dismantling the US military. Think about that for a moment. Ron Paul supporters can see conspiracies in a glass of water; can they see anything wrong with this picture? Can they see anything wrong with having a man from a group that was investigated for its Communist ties in the driver’s seat on national defense? The task force’s proposals included cutting nuclear deterrence; reducing the fleet by 57 ships, including two carriers; canceling the Joint Strike Fighter; “severely curtail missile defense” — and that is a direct quote from the report — retiring four Marine battalions; reducing the military by 200,000 personnel; cutting defense research spending by 50 billion over ten years; and increasing health care fees for members of the military. Not only did Paul join forces with Barney Frank to slash military preparedness, but he ended up putting the experts of a foreign billionaire with global ambitions in charge of the project. And that was what he did as a congressman. Can anyone imagine what he would do as president?
But why would Ron Paul allow George Soros that much power and influence over America’s defense policy? There are a number of possibilities. There is the possibility that Ron Paul just didn’t know and didn’t bother to do his research. Which is not much of a recommendation for the job he’s running for. There’s another possibility that Ron Paul knew and didn’t care, that he had no objection to being part of a left-right alliance against the “American Empire” with Soros. But there’s also a third possibility. During the previous election, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) ran an ad praising Ron Paul for his position against the war. AAEI was an umbrella group for MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, SEIU, Americans United For Change, the National Security Network and others in the progressive bestiary. A number of those beasties were Soros groups. I’m not one to dabble in conspiracy theories, but when Soros pays for an ad praising you during the Republican primaries and then you put his experts in charge of America’s defense policy, then maybe some questions should be asked.
On principle Paul is in line with the founding fathers and the original of the Constitution. The US today has an offensive military force and employs it around the world at the whim of the president. The founders envisioned defensive forces, stationed inside the boundaries of the country supplemented by local militias. The founders did not envision the US becoming involved in what they considered to be “foreign entanglements” across the globe. Paul claims he would scale the armed forces down to a defensive posture. My comments here are not intended to endorse Paul.
I do believe George Soros, possibly allied with convert support from Arab states and the Chinese, will gladly fund a Paul or Trump third party run in 2012 to ensure an Obama victory. Recent history shows a third party candidate can siphon enough popular votes to shift the Electoral College in close races. Perot enabled Clinton to win in 1992 and 1996 by attracting conservative Republicans. In 2000 Ralph Nader under the Green Party flag captured enough liberal voters in Florida to give George W. Bush a tiny popular vote margin and Florida’s electoral votes. Had Nader not run, Gore would have won Florida on election night by a few thousand votes and the electoral crisis of 2000 would not have occurred.
If the Republicans choose Romney to carry the flag in 2012 it is almost certain Paul or Trump running as a third party candidate would attract disaffected conservative and libertarian voters unable to vote for a moderate Republican who has at one time or another supported government run healthcare, open immigration, and abortion rights not to mention being a poster boy for Wall Street. In close swing states Paul or Trump would almost certainly receive enough votes to allow Obama to win the popular vote and the state’s electoral votes.
My instincts tell me the odds of a Paul and/or Trump third party run is very high. Splitting the Republican vote is the sure fire way for the Democrats to achieve victory in 2012. Hopefully the RINO leadership intent on nominating Romney has a winning game plan for this scenario. At this point in time it is difficult to envision what that game plan might be.
I always suspected a RuPaul/Soros connection. And now we have it outlined. Thanks for posting this valueable article!
Since the federal gov of the USA is borrowing 43 cents for every dollar it spends, is over 16 trillion dollars in debt, is it not a good idea to look for ways of maybe spending a little less? I do believe that GOP leadership agreed to let Obama cut 500 billion from defense NEXT YEAR, any way Obama wants to. With our debt there are no easy solutions to be had. Ridiculing those making a serious, sincere effort to reduce debt is not helpful.
Carl Conetta, Project on Defense Alternatives
Benjamin H Friedman, Cato Institute
William D Hartung, New America Foundation
Christopher Hellman, National Priorities Project
Heather Hurlburt, National Security Network
Charles Knight, Project on Defense Alternatives
Lawrence J Korb, Center for American Progress
Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action
Laicie Olson, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Prasannan Parthasarathi, Boston College
Miriam Pemberton, Institute for Policy Studies
Laura Peterson, Taxpayers for Common Sense
Christopher Preble, Cato Institute
Winslow Wheeler, Center for Defense Information
Task Force members serve as individuals. Affiliations are listed for identification purposes and do not imply organizational endorsement of the Task Force findings.
The Sustainable Defense Task Force was formed in response to a request from Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), working in cooperation with Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC), Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), to explore possible defense budget contributions to deficit reduction efforts that would not compromise the essential security of the United States. The Project on Defense Alternatives coordinated the work of the Task Force. Carl Conetta drafted the main body of the Task Force report in ongoing consultation with Task Force members who developed or digested proposals from the diverse sources cited in the report. A sub-committee of the Task Force reviewed the final draft before publication. It should not be assumed that all Task Force members endorse all items and sections of the report.
So then you agree with this panel proposed by Ron Paul and Barney Frank?
No have not read it, this is the first I’ve heard of it. I am sure there are 100’s of plans to reduce spending. I am hopeful that the House of Representatives will FINALLY do their job and reduce spending. The House is the only body with the authority to reduce spending. When the House comes up with a plan I will let you know what I think of the House plan.
RuPaul tied to Georgy Schwartz? That tops it!
“My instincts tell me the odds of a Paul and/or Trump third party run is very high. Splitting the Republican vote is the sure fire way for the Democrats to achieve victory in 2012. Hopefully the RINO leadership intent on nominating Romney has a winning game plan for this scenario. At this point in time it is difficult to envision what that game plan might be.”
Here’s a game plan for you. Don’t vote third party! If Obama’s defeat is the primary objective, then vote GOP regardless of who the nominee is.
“On principle Paul is in line with the founding fathers and the original of the Constitution. The US today has an offensive military force and employs it around the world at the whim of the president. The founders envisioned defensive forces, stationed inside the boundaries of the country supplemented by local militias. The founders did not envision the US becoming involved in what they considered to be “foreign entanglements” across the globe.”
Really? You mean those founding fathers that fought a war with France (Quasi War) and fought the british in the war of 1812? And, if they didn’t envision an offensive military force, what about sending the US Navy to Tripoli? Then, there was that Monroe Doctrine thingy. Looks like the founding fathers did quite a bit of entangling.
“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” – Ronald Reagan
“Ron Paul is a kook, a nutcase, insane, in-cahoots-with-George-Soros-to-promote-the-demise-of-the-United States, pro-abortion, open borders, a$$wipe, liberal, surrender-monkey, king of pork, big government, non-viable pretender. We need to keep any mention of his ideas from infecting the people” - Lex Lemming
also the US had the good fortune up to the 1900s to benefit from the protection of the Royal Navy. For the most part we had a commonality of interests in “freedom of the seas” meaning promoting and encouraging world trade (There was that 1812 dust up that you pointed out!). The US for the most part didn’t have the ocean going navy to do much more then cheer the RN along. The exceptions being Perry’s Expedition to Japan, which was “Open-Your-Ports-for-Trading-&-Our -Whaling-Ships-for-Emergency-Fitting-or-We-Will-Shell-Your-Ports” proposal. There was a similar proposal made to the Hermit Kingdom - Korea in 1867, but it was more of a “Stop-Killing-Stranded-Whalemen-or-We-Shell-Your-Ports” proposal, that took a landing of the USMC to put an exclamation point on that proposal. Again Paulites have a very selective reading of US history.
ho-lee-krab
I said this JUST YESTERDAY that I bet PaulBots are a Soros funded attempt to defeat Newt so that Romeny will win the GOP
Willard is NOT the only candidate that can defeat Obama, I think he is the only candidate that can be DEFEATED by Obama.
Remember, he is the LOSER who lost to McCain, who is THE LOSER who lost to Obama last time.
Good points. Not normally recognized is that the Royal Navy pretty much was the major supporter of the Monroe Doctrine.
“Hopefully the RINO leadership intent on nominating Romney has a winning game plan for this scenario. At this point in time it is difficult to envision what that game plan might be.”
I don’t think they much care. They seem to have an “arrangement” with barky and most of the d’s. While I’m sure they’d prefer mittens, they have a long history of doing business across the aisle.
I can only assume from your continued spamming of breaking/front page news with Paul stuff the last few days that you’re pulling for Romney in IA, no?
Most things I put into Bloggers- it seems someone with more power than I is promoting the articles to news.
I am for anybody but Romney or Paul in the primaries. Hell, I’ll even take the Rent is Too Damn High guy over those two.
Romney needs Paul. Romney’s support numbers are always flat so he needs Paul to split up the ‘not Romney’ votes enough that it keeps his numbers on top.
bump
gnip
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.