Glenn Beck on Ron Paul: Soros Connection? 9/11 Truther?

Apparently Barney Frank and Ron Paul partnered in a project called the Sustainable Defense Task Force in which the main purpose was to reduce defense spending by around $1Trillion over the next ten years.  I am in favor of making some cuts to the defense budget but these type of deep cuts are irresponsible and will be detrimental to the safety of the U.S.  Anything that says "sustainable" or has that in its title I am quite leery of.  That usually means that the group follows progressive principles which seeks to undermine the Constitution and all that makes the United States good as a nation.

There is a difference between cutting and gutting the defense budget.  Plus, the cuts that Ron Paul, Barney Frank, Soros & Co proposed is not limited to the reduction of the number of bases and/or military personnel overseas but rather it guts very important parts of defense that our integral to our national security.

Here is a list of the the individuals on the Task Force.

Sustainable Defense Task Force

• Carl Conetta, Project on Defense Alternatives - Connected to George Soros 
• Benjamin H Friedman, Cato Institute - 
• William D Hartung, New America Foundation - Connected to George Soros
• Christopher Hellman, National Priorities Project - Connected to Soros 
• Heather Hurlburt, National Security Network - Connected to George Soros 
• Charles Knight, Project on Defense Alternatives - Connected to Soros 
• Lawrence J Korb, Center for American Progress - Connected to Soros 
• Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action - Connected to George Soros 
• Laicie Olson, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation - Connected to Soros 
• 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 - Connected to George Soros 

Front Page Mag provides more insight into those who have Soros connections. 

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.  

You can see additional information here. 

Did you see that 9 out of the 14 members on the Task Force are connected to George Soros?  I find that deeply troubling.  I find that troubling on so many levels, especially since Ron Paul claims to be "principled".  If he is so principled why did he allow so many people (or any) with connections to George Soros to sit on his Sustainable Defense Task Force?  

From FrontPage Mag: "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."   

I agree with Beck's assessment of Ron Paul.

Ain't That The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

From the mouth of the Opportunist-in-Chief:

Congress. . .“must not shirk its responsibilities,” according to a White House readout of the conversation.

Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?  When the heck has this opportunistic narcissist focused on jobs instead of himself and his re-election campaign?  Obama has shirked his duties as President since he took the oath of office.  This presidency has been one big extravaganza of concerts, ballgames, golf outings, vacations, visits to cities selling his image to the public but no, not ever truly focusing on what is important in America - jobs and our economy.  His administration has not been promoting economic and business policies which encourages economic growth in the private sector but rather policies which discourages and demonizes growth and success.   The only time he has spoken the word jobs (which has 4 letters Joe Biden - Kindergarten?) is when it is accompanied by his sanctimonious rhetoric castigating the GOP for their solutions to the economic disaster, a lingering economic disaster which his policies are responsible for perpetuating.  

Smitty over at The Other McCain points out the level of the dishonorable  brinksmanship and dastardly tactics that the White House and Obama are willing to play during this scrimmage. 

Seriously. If the intent all along was to punish the Administration’s political foes in particular, and America in general, then the Administration’s actions make sense:

1. Play the brinksmanship game in the Spring of 2011,
2. load the poison pill into the Super Committee, and then
3. make the GOP eat more brinksmanship and the poison pill when the Super Committee, necessarily, fails.

Brilliant! If I wasn’t so thoroughly disgusted at the Machiavellian evil that is this Administration, I would be tempted to admire the perverse talent involved. As with the collapse of the Euro, there doesn’t seem to be much to do in the case of the Super Committee except sound the collision alarm and grab onto something solid.

Over at HotAir, Allahpundit wonders aloud:

Is The One seriously threatening to block a bill that would lift those cuts in the event of a Super Committee deadlock, knowing full well that the GOP will use Panetta’s soundbite to destroy him for it next year? Remember: This guy does not take political risks, and he certainly doesn’t take them in the name of cutting spending. Could be that the fear of another downgrade is weighing on him if the triggers are rescinded, which will pose a threat to his reelection if the market reacts badly, but what are the odds that investors will flee the safety of Treasuries under any circumstance given the chaos in Europe?

Is it possible that Obama & Co want draconian cuts to defense?  His threatening to block a bill which would lift those cuts sure is in America's national security interests. Or not?  This is yet more gutter politics coming from the Democrats.  

New Blog: Puzzled...Rantings on Morality and Defense of Country

I have added a new blog of my rantings and ravings on anything and everything that has to do with the crazy world we live in and what we call LIFE.

Here is the site:

http://ponderingsofacollegiatehippo.blogspot.com/

Here is the start of my first post:
This is my first post on my new blog. I just wanted to let everyone know that this blog will include ponderings on absolutely everything. My rants and raves will include a broad spectrum of issues related to being a married college student. For awhile I have been fascinated by the Hippo and that is why I used that animal in the name of my blog.What is quite puzzling to me and quite frankly I can't understand is why some people seem to care more about the welfare of terrorists who want to kill us than the the defense of the United States and the governments right to defend all of its citizens.

33 Minutes Video Trailer LInk

Is The United States Ready?

Missile Defense
33 Minutes

My Response to Obama's Cairo Speech

At Cairo, President Obama stated,"More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Obama is way off base when he refers to colonialism as denying rights to Muslims. If Obama is referring to Iraq, that is not colonialism. The United States went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people who were living under a brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. American troops went into Iraq to assist the Iraqi people with starting a new life, which includes freedom, which they did not have under Hussein. The United States did not go into Iraq to set up a mini model of the United States. Iraq is still a Muslim nation. The United States did not force its Judeo-Christian roots onto the Iraqi people or its government. The American troops are and have been in Iraq fighting the terrorists and bringing peace to the Iraqi people.

Obama accuses the United States of ignoring Muslims aspirations during the Cold War. The United States primary goal during the Cold War was in its defense against Russia. President Ronald Reagan's main priority was defending the U.S. and making sure that Russia did not have the opportunity to create and launch a nuclear strike against the United States. Obama is not happy about how the Muslims were left alone during the Cold War. He again, is not happy with the U.S. in helping Muslims in Iraq. It seems to me that nothing makes him and other liberals happy. We stay out of the Muslims business during the Cold War and liberals are not happy. Then The United States tries to help Muslims in Iraq and Obama and other liberals aren't happy either. I am wondering if Obama is only happy when he has the power to decide what role the United States plays in Muslim affairs.

I find Obama's last statement appalling. For him to think that its his responsibility as the President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam is absurd. When a group of people takes it upon themselves to kill 3000 innocent American lives, they as Muslims have created their own labeling as being terrorists. The United States did not attack Muslims on Spetember 11, 2001. Muslims are the ones that committed this heinous act. Muslims are the ones that need to change the way people perceive them. Americans are not the ones that need to change. It is the President's respomsibility to defend us against the terrorists, who just happen to be of Muslim descent.It is not the President's responsiblity to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam or Muslims.

Regarding National Security:Obama Blames and Cheney Fires Back

While President Obama claims that he wants to move forward and look to the future he is continually focusing on the past and playing the blame game. Obama has an obsession of pointing out how he wants to distance and differentiate himself from Bush administration policies. At every possible chance Pres.Obama criticizes the Bush administration and loves making a theatrical scene while promoting himself at the same time. Today, Dick Cheney took the opportunity to defend the Bush administration foreign policy decisions. Cheney even had the courage to challenge President Obama on much of his foreign policy rhetoric and claimed that Obama is putting politics before national security.

Cheney gave a very moving speech with an account of where he was and how he was touched and changed on September 11,2001. Cheney expressed how he and others' in the Bush administration realized that they had an obligation to protect Americans and prevent another terrorist attack from happening on U.S. soil again.
Cheney said:
"Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad...and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.
Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact - crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.That's how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least - but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat - what the Congress called "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place."
As many Americans look back and ponder which of the Bush foreign policies including enhanced interrogation techniques worked or didn't work, whether they were justified or not, and whether any of these techniques constitute torture or not; we as Americans while in deep thought must remember the great threat Americans faced on Sept.11,2001.

I believe unless a person has actually has been in President Bush's shoes, or Cheney's shoes in having to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, in which these two officials knew that they had to protect Americans from another terrorist attack, a person would not know for sure exactly how they would have reacted being given the chance to be in that same exact situation. I believe No person has the right to judge the Bush administration in that regard. Even President Obama was not acting there as commander-in-chief on that tragic day, so how can he really know how he would have reacted had it actually been him who was commander-in-chief on that tragic day?

What gives a person the moral authority to judge others' when we have no idea what the "true" intentions of our commander-in-Chief consisted of after 9/11 happened? I believe Bush's interests were in acting for the good of the country in order to keep us safe from another terrorist attack. So, I believe we should give him the benefit of the doubt instead of judging him and others in the Bush administration harshly.

Yesterday, Obama said that the United States reacted out of fear. I know for me, when 9/11 happened that brought fear to the forefront. Were you afraid after 9/11 happened? I think fear in that circumstance was the most natural response a person could have had. As a United States citizen I feared that another attack would happen on U.S. soil. In reaction to this real, imminent and grave threat against the United States the Bush administration felt the need to stop the terrorists over in the mideast before the terrorists entered the United States.

For a President who wants to distance himself as much as possible from the previous administration, Obama, contrary to his mantra, has adopted many of Bush's foreign policy positions. He has adopted re-instating military tribunals, The Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, Iraq and Guantanomo just to name a few. I encourage you to read an article By Charles Krauthammer which includes more information on this topic.
President Obama even reserves the right to use or request the use of these enhaned interrogation techniques when necessary for the safety of our country. If he truly categorically rejects the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and believes that the Bush administration was taking the low road than why is he reserving the right to make use of these very same techniques?

I think that former President Bush and his administration deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they loved the United States so much as to want to do everything necessary to prevent another terrorist attack. That is exactly what happened for the past 7 or so years. I just am thankful that President Obama is adopting many of the same policies of the Bush administration. I say to everyone, let us hope and pray that all things necessary are enacted from henceforth in order to prevent another future terrorist attack.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/05/22/obama_in_bush_clothing_america_fights_on