PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul’s Soros Defense Plan



txradioguy
01-04-2012, 06:17 AM
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.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/02/ron-pauls-soros-defense-plan/

noonwitch
01-04-2012, 01:51 PM
The Soros ties are interesting, but I don't really think Ron Paul's stand is a "leftist" stand. I think it's a small government, isolationist libertarian stand. Libertarians want no government regulations, and small government to them includes the military.

It's a head in the sand way of looking at the world, like the US took toward Germany in the 1930s , regardless of what side of the political spectrum it's coming from. Although it's definitely an extremist view, I think Paul's reasons come from his personal conservative/libertarian mindset, not a liberal one.

Articulate_Ape
01-04-2012, 01:58 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see that expecting Congress to issue a declaration of war (a la the Constitution) prior to engaging our military in hostilities and putting its men and women in harms way as being a particularly extremist notion.

Molon Labe
01-04-2012, 03:17 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see that expecting Congress to issue a declaration of war (a la the Constitution) prior to engaging our military in hostilities and putting its men and women in harms way as being a particularly extremist notion.

It's a hack journalist from FP mag...what do you expect.

Following the Constitution and being prudent IS extremism these days.

Rockntractor
01-04-2012, 03:55 PM
All this is interesting but when his term is up the only thing he will be managing is his own retirement and how much fiber is in his diet, bye bye Ron.

Arroyo_Doble
01-04-2012, 04:02 PM
... bye bye Ron.

... hello Rand.

Molon Labe
01-04-2012, 04:03 PM
... hello Rand.

I think that was the plan all along.

djones520
01-04-2012, 04:13 PM
Well, looks like their getting their wish. Nearly 1 trillion is the amount we're facing in cuts now. 950 billion over the next two years.

I am so thankful I'm reenlisting next month. I'd be sweating bullets if it was coming later this year or next year.

Rockntractor
01-04-2012, 04:16 PM
... hello Rand.

Do you think he'll survive after papa shrivels up?

Articulate_Ape
01-04-2012, 04:21 PM
I do.

Rockntractor
01-04-2012, 04:26 PM
I do.

It is possible if he separates himself from the old man,Rand has more sense.
Paul is just another Buchanan, or Perot, their will always be someone to lead the cult but it will never have true political power. Always the yappy dog on the heals of the party's.

Arroyo_Doble
01-04-2012, 04:39 PM
Do you think he'll survive after papa shrivels up?

Yes. He is more powerful as a senator and he is also has a great deal more wile than his father. I cannot see him being rhetorically trapped as often as the congressman. I also think he can take up the mantle of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party (second only to DeMint) very easily if he chose. Rubio or others like him merely will cater to them without being of them.

Molon Labe
01-04-2012, 08:42 PM
Funny to hear conservatives call guys like Buchanan and Rand cultist. I never heard that when Pat was at his peak. There were still repubs that likened him to Reagan. But now?

Shows how far we are from how we used to define conservative. Were u even around in those days Rock? Do you even remember what it was like?

Rockntractor
01-04-2012, 08:55 PM
Funny to hear conservatives call guys like Buchanan and Rand cultist. I never heard that when Pat was at his peak. There were still repubs that likened him to Reagan. But now?

Shows how far we are from how we used to define conservative. Were u even around in those days Rock? Do you even remember what it was like?

Pat hadn't written his books yet at his peak or I would have called him crazy. I never called Rand a cultist just his pappy.
I voted for Reagan's first term, how old are you?

Molon Labe
01-04-2012, 09:18 PM
Pat hadn't written his books yet at his peak or I would have called him crazy. I never called Rand a cultist just his pappy.
I voted for Reagan's first term, how old are you?

I got to vote for Bush. I went in the military during Reagan's last term but was still too young to get to cast a vote.

I was a grassroots supporter of Buchanan's both times. Buchanan's never changed his stance on much of anything. If you knew him back then then he didn't hide himself either so I didnt have to read a book to know his beliefs are pretty much the same. Funny cause those were still considered mainstream conservative beliefs then. Peace through strength without all the militarism and foreign intervention everywhere....and we still thought small government was achievable.

Not now. The name of the game is which conservative will grow the government a little less.

I could not bring myself to support Perot then because I did not trust his motives were pure. Looking back now, I was wrong.

One of my Aunt's was a staffer of Barry Goldwater's. She has often told me that Buchanan and the Paul's represent some of the closest things we have to the original conservative revolution. That's why many label them Paleos......cause they're a dying breed. Since she actually knew Goldwater and Goldwater Jr. actively supported both Paul's, I'll take it that those guys are in the ballpark.

Sorry....22% of Iowa Repubs does not make a cult.

Rockntractor
01-04-2012, 09:27 PM
I got to vote for Bush. I went in the military during Reagan's last term but was still too young to get to cast a vote.

I was a grassroots supporter of Buchanan's both times. Buchanan's never changed his stance on much of anything. If you knew him back then then he didn't hide himself either so I didnt have to read a book to know his beliefs are pretty much the same. Funny cause those were still considered mainstream conservative beliefs then. Peace through strength without all the militarism and foreign intervention everywhere....and we still thought small government was achievable.

Not now. The name of the game is which conservative will grow the government a little less.

I could not bring myself to support Perot then because I did not trust his motives were pure. Looking back now, I was wrong.

One of my Aunt's was a staffer of Barry Goldwater's. She has often told me that Buchanan and the Paul's represent some of the closest things we have to the original conservative revolution. That's why many label them Paleos......cause they're a dying breed. Since she actually knew Goldwater and Goldwater Jr. actively supported both Paul's, I'll take it that those guys are in the ballpark.

Sorry....22% of Iowa Repubs does not make a cult.

Read Buchanan's books, they might surprise you.
Paul is not a conservative, he is a Libertarian, you my friend are a Libertarian, you can still be conservative while being a Libertarian but with you as well as Paul Libertarian is of the utmost importance. nothing wrong with that but don't expect everyone to agree with you, you're on the fringe.

Molon Labe
01-04-2012, 10:07 PM
Read Buchanan's books, they might surprise you.
Paul is not a conservative, he is a Libertarian, you my friend are a Libertarian, you can still be conservative while being a Libertarian but with you as well as Paul Libertarian is of the utmost importance. nothing wrong with that but don't expect everyone to agree with you, you're on the fringe.

I'll post this again.


If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path. - Ronald Reagan

History should show that when the left wing neocons started to take over the Republican party in the late 60's they purged the Goldwater conservatives. That's why the Libertarian party began. I've never voted for a Libertarian...per say.

It is those who do not hold true the original platform that have strayed and are fringe in my opinion.

Rockntractor
01-04-2012, 10:13 PM
I'll post this again.



History should show that when the left wing neocons started to take over the Republican party in the late 60's they purged the Goldwater conservatives. That's why the Libertarian party began. I've never voted for a Libertarian...per say.

It is those who do not hold true the original platform that have strayed and are fringe in my opinion.

Reagan built up the military, Paul would drastically reduce it.
Reagan dealt harshly with Gaddafi , Paul would turn the other cheek.
There is no comparison between Reagan and Paul.

Molon Labe
01-05-2012, 10:27 AM
Reagan built up the military, Paul would drastically reduce it.
Reagan dealt harshly with Gaddafi , Paul would turn the other cheek.
There is no comparison between Reagan and Paul.

Are you kidding me? You're have to do better than "nuh uh" to show that Paul is no Reganite.

He was one of 4 congressman who supported Reagan...Reagan endorsed him.

Reagan pulled all troops out of the middle east after the Beirut bombing of our 241 Marines....
Today that would be called "cut and run"...but then it was considered "wisdom". He said


Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.


Ending the use of our sons and daughters to Nation Build every podunk sand pit does not equal "turn the other cheek".

Policing the world should not take precendence over defending America.

Making Congress responsible for their war making powers, eliminating waste in the military, defining clear missions, and setting achievable goals does not mean someone would not deal harshly with those who threaten our national security.

When he talks about cutting the military, he is talking about the costs of our overseas wars, foreign aid and the cost of hundreds of thousands of troops stationed overseas. This is not about completely dismantling the military. That's a misrepesentation of the position and people know it.

Having a leaner more agile military that projects itself swiftly to take out our immediate threats, but is still obust enough to challenge the most modern militaries of the world is a good thing. Donald Rumsfeld even believed in that when he reorganized the military. But that was before he decided to occupy Iraq...which that type of force CANNOT do.



Rock...we are broke. Our economy is our number one national defense issue. If our economy crashes, then we won't be funding or projecting our military anywhere at all anymore. Bye bye Superpower, hello China Hegemony. Do you really want that?

Liberals are supposed to be the ones that make the mistake we can perpetually spend money on government to solve social issues and not hurt the economy....but conservatives fall into that trap these days and think they can do the same thing with Defense and social welfare in foreign lands. And we are supposed to never crash.

I do not understand the belief system that says one is a fiscal conservative if they won't seriously consider our foreign aid, defense budget, and nation building.

txradioguy
01-05-2012, 12:09 PM
Reagan built up the military, Paul would drastically reduce it.
Reagan dealt harshly with Gaddafi , Paul would turn the other cheek.
There is no comparison between Reagan and Paul.

Ronald Reagan would bitchslap Dr. Nutz for even suggesting we kiss Iran's ass.

Reagan was the one that put the American Flag on ever tanker travelling the Straits of Hormouz the last time the Iranian Mullahs wanted to disrupt shipping there.

I believe we sent a couple of their gunboats to the bottom as well....plus one civilian airliner :D

In short...Ron Paul isn't fit to shine Reagans riding boots.

txradioguy
01-05-2012, 12:13 PM
Our economy is our number one national defense issue. If our economy crashes, then we won't be funding or projecting our military anywhere at all anymore. Bye bye Superpower, hello China Hegemony. Do you really want that?


The Defense Budget is roughly 4% of the U.S. GDP.

How much does the mammoth welfare program take? A shit ton more than Defense for sure.

But you so called fiscal conservatives always ignore the elepahant in the room and go for the easy...short sighted answer...cutting defense. Something that...unlike all the welfare bullshit...IS listed in the Constitution as a Federal responsibility.

We'll go "by bye" as you put it as a Superpower and China will take over global domination if we follw the batshit crazy plans of Ron Paul...George Soros or any of their idiot followers when it comes to the military.

All that will do is send a signal to the world that the U.S. is ripe for attack because we won't have the ability to fight back.