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.

On Foreign Policy, Ron Paul, and Missionaries

Before starting this post I want to let everyone know that my entire family will be getting together to celebrate my parents 50th wedding anniversary so from tomorrow through Sunday I will be taking a break from blogging.  Hopefully next week my blogging will return back to normal, including Eagle Freedom Links and a rule 5 post returning next Saturday and Sunday.

Our foreign policy is so muddled right now that its mission needs to be much better defined and more limited in nature.  While I do think that Ron Paul's foreign policy is isolationalist to a degree (not trade policy) he makes some very good points about the U.S. needing to be less comingled/intertwined in other country's affairs.  While I still believe that it was right for us to enter both Iraq and Afghanistan to stop both perceived and imminent threats, I also think that in the case of Libya, Egypt, Africa, and other Middle Eastern countries' uprisings that we should stay out of those countries' affairs and Ron Paul is correct in saying that we should stop policing the world unless a country would be subjected to a Rwanda-style massacre.  In the case of Afghanistan we were responding to an act of war - 9/11 - just like we did after Pearl Harbor was attacked during WWII.

I do think that it is good if the United States influences other nations but should that necessarily include our military involvement?  Missionaries take care of the needy all over the world.  Their mission is to evangelize, help educate, assist with medical care, and bring the message of Christ around the world.  Maybe missionaries would have more success at converting individuals in foreign lands into a more civilized lifestyle where people are tolerant of all religions, so that those of different faiths could coexist as equals in civil society rather than U.S. militarily try to change the countries and its people?  Maybe we should leave the changing of minds, hearts, and souls to missionaries instead of having the military try to influence these peoples?

Now, if there is an imminent threat to our nation's national security I do think it would be necessary for us to respond militarily.

Rick Santorum at Values Voter Summit: Partial-birth Abortion, DOMA, National Security, "0-0-0" Plan, and an Emotional Personal Story About His Son Gabriel

Is The Patriot Act Unconstitutional or Constitutional?

Over at my hippo blog, I am starting a debate as to whether The Patriot Act is unconstitutional or constitutional. If anyone is interested in a good, healthy debate on this issue please stop over to my hippo blog.

In my U.S. Foreign Policy class, I am writing a paper on whether certain controversial parts of The Patriot Act such as -- roving wiretaps, or warrantless wiretaps, delayed notification searches and new authorities to obtain the library, credit card and health records of individuals who are not the subject of a criminal investigation but who might be of intelligence value in terrorism probes -- are in fact constitutional or not. So, I thought that this would be an interesting blog debate.



http://ponderingsofacollegiatehippo.blogspot.com/2010/03/debate-is-patriot-act-unconstitutional.html

Dick Cheney, National Security Wizard, Wins The War of Words With Biden

     

Biden is full of hot air. Joe Biden's mouth has been spewing the rhetoric of opportunism, truth bending, and flat out lies. This administration loves to use revisionist history in taking credit in both economic and foreign affairs. As you will see below, the video shows both Joe Biden and Barack Obama stating that they were adamantly against the surge. The other video shows Dick Cheney defendiing Bush policies on ABC's This Week. I am so sick of this me, me, me mentality where Biden, Obama, and the rest of their administration takes credit for policies that they clearly had nothing to do with, and in fact repudiated. Obama and Biden should both be praising and ashowing that they're proud of our brave soldiers overseas but instead they are looking to fulfill their self indulgences, personal gratification campaign, and furthering their political agendas. How utterly despicable! Biden should be displaying gratitude for the sacrifice that our troops made during the successful surge in Iraq. Yes, that is what turned around the war in Iraq. But, no, they can't give Bush one iota of credit of success for anything. MSM political pundits and the White House officials have misapplied Iraq success to the Obama administration when both the soldiers and Bush deserve the crdit for the successful surge in Iraq.

The Obama administration continues to play the Bush blame game. The Obama administration has issues with it needing a false sense of self gratifiation. They also continue to display a childish naivety in refusing to accept responsibility for both actions and inactions with relation to problems that have been both created and exacerbated by this administration. Cheney did an excellent job at pointing out the differences in the cases of the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. The shoe bomber incident took place only a couple months after 9/11, when military tribunals were not already in place and Eric Holder's law firm continually represented the terrorists and challenged the legitimacy of military tribunals all the way up to the Supreme Court. But, nine years later the military tribunals are in place so it is only proper to try our enemy in front of a military commission. Dick Cheney explains how this administration has chosen in a nonsensical manner to limit the tools that they can use to keep us safe from another terrorist attack. Cheney tells us what he believes is necessary to keep this country safe instead of this adminstration's weak policies of accommodating and appeasing our enemies. In my opinion, Dick Cheney wins the war of words, and the national security debate hands down.

Lawrence Loses Coherence & Marc Thiessen Proves that Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Prevented Terrorist Attacks

This video shows Lawrence O' Donnell going nuts when interviewing Marc Thiessen.  This shows him spewing vitriolic and ad hominem attacks at Thiessen because Lawrence doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Krauthammer: Obama is "On Wrong Side of Logic and Reason" On Miranda Rights For Terrorists-- They are NOT Merely Civilians Living in U.S.

Krauthammer applies common sense, logic, and the knowledge to know the best way to keep this country safe.  He comes up with the right answer on whether or not terrorists are obligated or required to be given miranda rights.  This administration has clearly been appeasing the far leftsists living in Hollywood. And, instead of taking their oaths of office seriously, caring about the safety of all Americans, this administration has decided to grant extra rights to terrorists, and made it ppolicy to negotiate with terrorists instead of using the common sense required to keep this country safe from terrorists. This administration has displayed callousness and illogical policies when it comes to keeping this country safe.

 

H/T goes to Hot Air Pundit

As The Amoebic Parasitic Disease Runs Rampant....

An amoebic parasitic disease known as far leftist liberalism has been permeating the minds of all Congressional Democrats and RINOS in Washington this past year. This amoebic parasitic disease consists of :

ARROGANCE, SNOBBISHNESS, BULLHEADEDNESS, IGNORANCE, RUTHLESSNESS, MYOPIC , UNSEEING, INCONSIDERATE, DISTASTEFUL, DECEITFUL, BOORISH, IMBECILLIC, NUMSKULLED BEHAVIOR, BUT MOST OF ALL THESE FREAK BEINGS OF NATURE DID NOT DO THE ONE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT OF THEIR JOB, AND THAT IS TO LISTEN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND NOT DISREGARD THEIR VOICES, AND TREAT CITIZENS AS IF THEY WERE WORTHLESS INDIVIDUALS. THIS WILL COME BACK TO HAUNT THESE PARASITIC FREAK BEINGS OF NATURE COME NEXT ELECTION.


And, then, a cataclysmic earthquake rocked the Democratic world last Tuesday when Scott Brown was elected as Senator of Massachusetts. After Tuesday, certain people like Jim Webb, Barney Frank, and Evan Bayh have had some healing of their amoebic diseases and are backpedaling on health care "reform." But others like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama still have this parasitic disease taking over their lives and insisting on forcing health care "reform" down our throats even though a majority of citizens want the Dems version of health care "reform" stopped. They are promoting tyranny and ignoring the will of the people. The people of MA have spoken because of the following: Democrats and their demagoguery of Obama, his “hope and change” mantra that in fact spawned a new wave of corruption to the enth degree, the realization of Obama campaign trail lies, lack of transparency, lack of bi-partisanship, radicalism and the Obama’s “re-making” or radicalizing of America, abandoning the principles laid out by our Founding Fathers, Democrats abandoning the rules of military law and American principles by accommodating terrorists or enemy combatants in giving them added benefits and rights only due to a civilian in America. Yes, this is the reason people voted for Scott Brown on Tuesday. But, unfortunately there is still an amoebic parasitic disease running rampant through the veins of Pelosi, Reid, Obama and their ilk.

This administration is confusing our brave men and women in the military who are serving overseas on how exactly they should handle captured terrorists on the battlefield with regards to miranda rights. How ludicrous, giving miranda rights to our enemy. This is so absurd. First, Obama has been appeasing and apologizing to the world and showing great weakness to other countries. He decides to close Gitmo to please his liberal base without having a plan on how to do so. That is a sign of an inept leader. That is a leader not having a clue. Maybe, the amoebic parasite has taken over his body and he's insane? What sane person would do and allow for these ludicrous and unconscionable things?

Obama is spreading the “love” of the terrorists all around, some to NYC, some to Thomson Correctional Facility in Illinois, some back to terrorist sympathizing countries, and some are staying in Gitmo whereby all these are endangering many, many American lives. Lo and behold the terrorists have filed complaints to stop their transfer to Thomson so that they can stay at Gitmo. If Gitmo is really all that bad than why do the terrorists want to stay at Gitmo? Or is it that the left has demonized Gitmo falsely?

Eric Holder and Obama are a bunch of cherry picking people who are political opportunists cherry picking principles of the Geneva Convention for political expediency. Eric Holder and Obama has been cherry picking the application of the Geneva convention rules and also cherry picking which detainees the Geneva Convention applies to. They are skirting around International military laws to fit their own political agenda instead of actually caring about the safety of American citizens. This is unconscionable!!! But, putting politics over American safety is not a new concept for Democrats.

The Obama administration is bending over backwards and accommodating a terrorist who is accusing a Navy Seal of punching him while the terrorist was being detained and transferred. If the Navy Seal’s accuser is not able to come to the United States than the charges should be dropped immediately. In fact, the Seals should have never been charged in the first place. The Navy Seals captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq- mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. But, this administration is forcing one those Navy Seal's, who is accused of punching a terrorist (oh poor baby terrorist!!), and this administration is dragging him to face his terrorist accuser all the way to Iraq because for some odd reason the terrorist can’t be brought to the U.S. This is one of the most ridiculous, abhorrent and unamerican things to ever to be done in the history of the United States. All of these inconsistencies are incomprehensible. Obama’s methods of engaging terrorism is one of complete chaos. This just blows my mind. This is unconscionable!! These three Navy Seals should be revered as heroes and instead our military or one commander and the Obama administration has made a mockery of Navy seals bringing justice to this terrorist. The terrorist is playing both the military and the Obama administration for fools. Well, It is obvious that this amoebic parasitic disease is spreading and is affecting people's mental abilities. We must keep up fighting the good fight against these amoebas.

THIS AMOEBIC PARASITIC DISEASE IS RUNNING RAMPANT THROUGH WASHINGTON AND WE MUST CLEAN UP THE BIOHAZARD WASTE COME NEXT ELECTION!!!!!

Obama is Weak on Terror

In the article, Krauthammer is spot on. From the very beginning, the Obama administration has been both callous and naive in their approach to the War on Terror. The Obama administration's use of euphemisms with regards to the War on Terror shows a complete disconnect from the reality of the dangers that terrorism poses to America and Americans. Starting from Obama's decision to close Gitmo, his decision to try KSM in a civilian courtroom in New York City, and the administrations's decision to treat terrorists and enemy combatants as mere common criminals shows that this administration doesn't understand what it takes to fight a war or what it means for America to be at War. This administration's actions have made it crystal clear that they have not a clue as to how to deal with the enemy in wartime and that they have gone back to a pre-9/11 mentality. This administration is giving the terrorists all the advantages, the upper hand, while putting constraints on our CIA, U.S. soldiers, have weakened our security increasing the the threat to American lives just to be "nice" and be "fair" to terrorists who will avail themselves of the use of any tactic to kill innocent lives all in the name of Allah. The Obama administration is living in the normative, a non-existent world, instead of what it is in the present - REALITY - which is the grave threat that terrorists pose to America.


Here is Krauthammer's article:

Janet Napolitano — former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security — will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked."
The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.
Heck of a job, Brownie.
The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9-11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantánamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.
And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over — that is, if it ever existed. Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaida has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare.
And produces linguistic — and logical — oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" — code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology.
Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.
More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaida in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved.

This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaida training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the act of mass murder, he's instantly protected.

The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Dec. 29, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab as "extremist."

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is a jihadist. And unlike guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and openly pledge war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses to name the enemy, turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

H/T to Orlando Sentinel

Blast From the Past: Previous Articles of Mine

A very good blogging buddy named Bunni brought to my attention that she hadn't seen one of my earlier postings. Since most of my blog followers have not seen some of the articles that I posted earlier on this blog, or on my Town Hall blog, which is where I first started blogging, I have decided to give some links to blog articles that I posted previously.

A /t goes out to Bunni for inspiring my idea to post some of my past articles.
Please check out her blog, Amusing Bunni's Musings

Blast From The Past:

1) You Might Be a Left-Wing Extremist If....

2) The Farce of Peggy Noonan as a Conservative

3) Devil-in-Chief! - My Response to David Limbaugh's Review of Levin

4) Regarding National Security: Obama Blames and Cheney Fires Back

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