4 votes

Glenn Beck demonizes Paul for 'alignment' with "progressives and communists"

Thought his might be beneficial to those unaware of Glenn Beck's recent baleful attempt to defame the good Doctor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFSHGhq19CM

Beck's use of a lackadaisically constructed "straw man" and an anemic "guilt by association" tactic demonstrate his obtuse logic lacks the intellectual and moral high ground.

The straw man is the supposed associations of task force members serving on the "Sustainable Defense Task Force" (http://www.comw.org/pda/1006SDTF.html).

How does Dr. Paul fit into all of this?

Well, the 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."

So, because Ron Paul serves as one of four on the Congressional Oversight to this PDA (Project on Defense Alternatives) coordinated Task Force, which might have members with links to George Soros, Beck endeavors to vituperate Paul's integrity. According to Beck, "President Ron Paul wants to hand over the task of cutting the military to a bunch of Soros funded progressives and communists."

Maybe Ron Paul is exactly what Vasilly Orlov, from the 2010 movie "Salt," was talking about when he warned the CIA of English-speaking Russian sleeper agents trained from birth to destroy the United States on "Day X?"

Or maybe "Task Force members serve as individuals" and "Affiliations are listed for identification purposes and do not imply organizational endorsement of the Task Force findings" making the supposed associations of Task Force members of no consequence to Dr. Paul's philosophic sincerity.

More importantly, as you all know, it "is irrefutably clear to us that if we do not make substantial cuts in the projected levels of Pentagon spending, we will do substantial damage to our economy and dramatically reduce our quality of life" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/why-we-must-r...) and Congressman Paul is earnestly seeking to do so.

Either way, the Sustainable Defense Task Force's proposed cuts (http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf) aren't anything "radical communists" would propose.

Because in reality, "the Task Force has used a set of criteria to identify savings that could be achieved without compromising the essential security of the United States" finding cuts on:
"- Department of Defense programs that are based on unreliable or unproven technologies,
- Missions that exhibit a poor cost-benefit payoff and capabilities that fail the test of cost-effectiveness or that possess a very limited utility,
- Assets and capabilities that mismatch or substantially over-match current and emerging military challenges, and
- Opportunities for providing needed capabilities and assets at lower cost via management reforms."

Further details on proposed cuts can be found here:
http://newwars.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/the-sustainable-defe...
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf

So, is Ron Paul some kook secretly aligned with "progressives and communists" plotting the destruction of America? Or a Congressman who actually sees the number one threat to our national security is the foreseeable economic crisis and is actively looking and providing oversight for "Defense Alternatives" with a goal to:
"- Guarantee reliable, cost-effective defense against aggression;
- Rely on military structures that do not contribute to interstate tensions, crisis instability, or arms racing;
- Allow significant reductions in the level of armed forces and military spending;
- Foster progress in arms control and in the gradual demilitarization of international relations; and,
- Facilitate an increasing reliance on collective and global peacekeeping agencies and nonmilitary means of conflict prevention, containment, and resolution."

You decide.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

such an angry troll

Is this paul Krugman?

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

Ron Paul says to follow the Constitution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKRu86nJR5s

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

And an abortionist says he's providing healthcare.

Frauds say a lot of things.

Pretty far off the mark

Ron Paul is not an anarchist...he believes in the need for government, though limited. Anarchists may or may not be Communists...they could also be Anarcho-Capitalists like Rothbard.

I don't know where you get your information from, but it is wrong on many levels.

I am what I am. Are you?

Ron Paul is a Voluntarist, and Voluntarism is called Anarchism. Those who advocate Anarchism are called Anarchists.

Murray Rothbard is an Anarchist. Anarcho-Capilaists ARE ANARCHISTS. That's all Ancaps are, another Anarchist wearing a costume. Like I said, Anarchists need to masquerade as something they aren't because people already know what an Anarchist is.

They're two faced liars and frauds trying to destroy your government, and as Michaelwiseguy so eloquently stated: "Never trust a two faced person."

I am what I am, a Libertarian, a Republican and a Cosntitutionalist. If what that article says is true, Ron Paul isn't. Are you debating that what the article says is true or just don't like seeing it in print?

I say he and his crew of Communists and Anarchists are terrified of what kind of power the United States could project to defend our liberty and right to self determination. It's over for them as soon as we wake up and see these two faced Anarchists and global government advocates for what they are.

Lew Rockwell, founder and chairman of the Mises Institute and executor of Murray Rothbard's estate: "It would be a great thing to break up the US, just like it would be a great thing to break up the European Union."

Anarchists are terrified of justice for a VERY good reason.

"these two faced Anarchists and global government advocates"

Am I missing something here? An Anarchist, who, by definition, is opposed to ALL governments, is "an advocate of global government?" Mister, you've got to screw your head on a little straighter.

Here's a hint; it won't matter what you think anymore.

"An Anarchist, who, by definition, is opposed to ALL governments, is "an advocate of global government?" Mister, you've got to screw your head on a little straighter."

Do you not have eyes, ears and a functioning mind? You tell me 'smart sane guy'; how is it that creating a world filled with sovereign rulers who can rule and defend nothing, least of all their own lives and liberty be used to promote global governance?

Can you figure it out?

Here's a hint; it won't matter what you think anymore.

There has never been an unprovoked attack

on American territory by a foreign power. That is historical fact. There have certainly been unprovoked attacks on American's liberty by "our government." Voluntaryists are trying to "destroy our government?" If so, we should be leading the cheers!

Cheer all you want, just don't ever pick up a gun Anarchist

"Voluntaryists are trying to "destroy our government?" If so, we should be leading the cheers!"

Cheer all you want, just don't ever pick up a gun Anarchist and think twice the next time you go to put on your mask and start throwing rocks, because Americans are done playing around with you. They'd line up volunteering to serve justice on the Anarchists who wanted to destroy their government.

You are a powerless slave who

You are a powerless slave who is afraid of the fundamental truth that no man has any inherent dominion or authority over any other man.

Justice is going to be served on tyranny enablers even if the sins of enabling fathers and mothers are visited on several generations of posterity. What comes around goes around and there has been plenty of victimless persecution going around for justice to come around.

People who are not threatening, raping, pillaging, and plundering their fellow man are not the object of justice. I welcome justice. When can I expect taxpaying tyranny enablers or their posterity to start eating the cake of tyranny they have baked? As far as I am concerned justice can be served upon taxpaying tyranny enablers right now! I hope the bankers do a Cyprus event in the US and steal money out of all taxpaying tyranny enabler bank accounts to pay off the trillions in debt they have enabled.

Another wannabe king speaks.

"You are a powerless slave who is afraid of the fundamental truth that no man has any inherent dominion or authority over any other man."

You are an Anarchist, a liar, and fraud who hasn't figured out that serving justice isn't about having dominion over you, it's about imposing a negation on those who'd claim to.

You just keep screaming about slaves and power, and we'll see how that works out for ya Anarchist.

If you really believe what you write, you're not a libertarian

Threatening people who do not believe in the legitimacy of government is hardly libertarian. If it is, then the word 'libertarian' no longer has a meaning.

Libertarians believe in individual liberty. Governments, to the extent they protect individual liberty, are consistent with libertariianism, but when governments become the prime violators of liberty, then it is right and proper to oppose the government, even to work for its' destruction.

I couldn't agree more.

"If it is, then the word 'libertarian' no longer has a meaning."

I couldn't agree more. In an Anarchist dictionary, Libertarian is a meaningless word with no value, a noise they emit from a hole in their face, something they hide behind and squeal instead of calling themselves what they are.

Anarchists aren't Libertarians. Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty. In an Anarchists world, Libertarian is a word without meaning or value, because they serve no value to liberty. They don't know what it is that threatens their liberty and condemn the very idea of defending it with force. Getting rid of government doesn't get rid of injustice, just like it doesn't get rid of collective force, coercion, extortion, rape, murder, looting, or mans covetous nature.

If you want to serve liberty, you'll need to advocate for and serve justice.

An Anarchist can't explain what it is they hope to create, because they'll need to start talking about justice, and when they do, they'll need to start telling you about their free market of collective violence and goon squads. They'll need to sell you on free range warlodism.

They're frauds hiding behind a word they squeal, but an Anarchist knows what they are, and it's CERTAINLY NOT something that defends liberty.

The governnment is neither good nor bad, but the people are

If you think that government is the root of good, then think again. Government is a tool that, in the hands of immoral people, is worse than no government at all. We are witnessing the destruction of the American Idea by a cabal of immoral criminals who lie, cheat, steal, torture, kill by wielding the power of the State. Millions suffer. Millions die. All because the levers of power are concentrated into the hands of a few demented individuals. The great Sin is that the People have not risen up against these tyrants. The People are getting what they deserve, in a sense.

That is the danger in any government. The immoral are attracted to power, and they use it to magnify their immoral deeds.

A society that has no concentrated power(anarchy) is not subject to the overwhelming power of the State Criminals. The criminals will still be out there, and they will still be plying their trade...stick ups, pickpocketing, flim flam frauds, etc., but the damage they do is limited by the diffusion of power to every individual. In an Anarchy there are no levers of power (IRS, DEA, CIA, FBI, etc.) to grab, so they can't force their will on society in general, just on the unfortunate victims they can get their hands on. It's a crime, but it's not an existential disaster.

All that being said, Anarchy can be just or unjust. It depends on the moral character of the People. If, today, all governments went 'poof' and a state of anarchy resulted, it would be a nasty and violent place. Too many people have come to expect to live at the expense of others, and I suspect they would steal and intimidate to get what they want. It would be Road Warrior time.

If, on the other hand, there is a moral character common amongst the people that respects individual property rights, then an anarchistic society could be civil, polite, and safe. Indeed, there are examples during the colonization of North America of societies self-organizing and living peaceably with respect for each other's private property. Each such example was squashed by government power.

You could make the argument that, being unable to defend itself against government power, anarchies fail. True, to a point. But let's not condemn the victim. It was government power that killed the anarchies; the anarchies did not fight amongst themselves and committ hari kari.

Anarchy is impossible today because the People believe in living at the expense of others. You have nothing to fear from anarchists, they are tiny and powerless. But you have a great deal to fear from the government you so strongly support.

Point out where I said government is the root of good.

"If you think that government is the root of good, then think again."

Point out where I said government is the root of good. Can't? Nope... You need to something to argue against rather than the truth don't ya.

As for the rest, I didn't even read it. Why should I when you lead in with that kind of dishonesty?

You rail against those who oppose government

You have nothing but negative things to say about anarchy, so logically you believe government is good.

Since you didn't bother reading what I had written the first time, I won't bother repeating myself.

Is a gun in your hand the source of good? No.

To try and blame injustice on government is akin to trying to credit government as the source of good.

Is a gun in your hand the source of good? No. It's just a tool. The same goes for government

What purpose does Anarchy serve?

To what purpose do we create governments?

Read an Anarchists words and you'll understand what purpose they serve, and their purpose has nothing to do with defending liberty. Their purpose is to get rid of what stands between them and their real purpose. Anarchists are why we create government in the first place, to keep all the wannabe free range Warlords in check.

A society will only be as good as the people

If the people are corrupt, the society will be corrupt. If they are violent and immoral, the society will be, too. If, however, the people are generally moral, honest, and peaceful, then society will tend to be, also.

The problem is that no matter how good the people are, there will always be some sociopaths who wil lie, cheat, and murder to get what they want. When those people get the reins of government in their hands, they use the power of government to turn a good society bad.

In an anarchy, you will still have the problem of sociopaths doing bad things to good people. but they will be limited to the individuals they can touch. Their power is limited; they cannot initiate general tyranny...the government apparatus doesn't exist for them to do so.

The Warlords you talk about are nothing but another form of government. Anarchists would oppose them, too.

A tyrant doesn't need government to accomplish their goals.

"The problem is that no matter how good the people are, there will always be some sociopaths who wil lie, cheat, and murder to get what they want. When those people get the reins of government in their hands, they use the power of government to turn a good society bad."

A tyrant doesn't need government to accomplish their goals. Government was your chance, not theirs. All they need is people willing to use violence to take what they unjustly want.

"In an anarchy, you will still have the problem of sociopaths doing bad things to good people. but they will be limited to the individuals they can touch. Their power is limited; they cannot initiate general tyranny...the government apparatus doesn't exist for them to do so."

That opinion stems from your belief that collective force and tyranny are a byproduct of government and something that can't exist without it. Putting a whip on your back is a piece of cake without government.

Limits their power? What limits a mob bosses power?

"The Warlords you talk about are nothing but another form of government. Anarchists would oppose them, too."

They BECOME the Warlords. Anarchists love screaming about a monopoly of force and power. What I hear are covetous wannabe Warlords who oppose the very concept of justice and who want to be able to buy collective force in a free market of violence.

It's not going to happen and people will be acting justly when they meet you with violence. I say let your feet do your talking, and if you don't like it, GET OUT. That's what Anarchy boils down to, voting with your legs, so don't try and opt out; get out. It's not about wanting you to be gone. It's about wanting you to be free.

Fly away. Be free.

There are limits

Mob bosses are limited by the amount of intimidation they can bring to bear on a population. One of the things they do is recruit cops, judges, and politicians to give them security from the people and the government that is supposed to be protecting us from the Mob.

Anarchy does not guarantee that there will be a clash of warlords. Early in America's history, there were communities that grew up outside of the reach of the official governing bodies set up by England. Those communities were peaceful, not fighting each other. It was the governing bodies of neighboring colonies that attacked and subdued the 'anarchists.' The American Indian tribes of North America operated in near anarchy, believing that no man was subject to another man. They had conflicts, but it was in no way a society of warlords. Europeans who joined the Indians were said to 'go native,' and they almost never went back to the white world, prefering the relative peacefulness of anarchy.

I do not understand how you think you would get away with 'putting a whip on your back' would be easy if there were no government. The only time a whip was put on a back in this country, and gotten away with, was when government protected the institution of slavery.

I am sorry to hear that you (if I can assume that you will be one of the people to 'act justly') intend to do me harm. I have never called for violence, do not believe in violence, have never used violence, and will never initiate violence. Still, you find me to be such a threat that you will use it against me?

Woe be to us if you should put your hands on the reins of government power.

That's what I want.

That's what I want.

Well, you said it yourself:

Don't trust two faced people.

Ron Paul is a two faced person who masquerades as a Libertarian, a Republican, and a Constitutionalist, not because he wants you to have your liberty or supports and defends our Republic and Constitution, but because he wants to make sure all the worlds Republics get disarmed leaving them no protection against global authorities and to discredit the very idea of a Republic or a Constitution.

Never trust two faced people.

Never trust two faced people.

Haha! what did you expect?

Beck's shill job is to make sure the establishment stays in power. He only played to like Paul......until how he could explain that Paul is no good to his viewers! lol

What a cheap sell out POS. Like nearly every other national "news caster"....lol

When will everyone just stop watching their garbage? I did a while back and it's really a lot better and so easy to see what a fraud the national braodcast and media is.

Somebody had posted a few

Somebody had posted a few days ago how awesome Beck was for saying a few kind words about Paul. I knew this scumbag was being deceitful. He always is.

There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan

"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr

As the article says, Ron Paul

As the article says, Ron Paul made a coalition (the message of liberty usually does bring people together) to explore possible defense budget cuts that would not compromise the essential security of the United States.

What is so radically communistic about cuts in spending while not compromising current operations? I get the feeling that Glenn Beck calls anything he cannot understand either communistic, or an invisible act of George Soros.

I am not undermining the negative influence of persons such as George Soros, but at the same time Glenn Beck needs to be more careful at his separatist and offensive statements.

All due respect to Beck, but the context of the video he shows at 3:40 is misrepresented rather grossly. Dr. Paul was asked a question in a crowded and very noisy environment and Ron Paul simply listed the points that he was going to talk about. He did not avoid to answer the question and this is rather obvious.

As for the reason for 911, Dr. Paul's answer has always been the same - BLOWBACK. I would also suggest that next time Mr. Beck should be more careful with him calling someone else a "freak." I found this to be very childish and disrespectful.

Glenn Beck might gain more respect if he simply says that his mind cannot embrace the idea that US will no longer give foreign aid to Israel that represents 1% if Israel's GDP and that US will also stop giving 7 times more to dictatorial regimes that happen to be enemies of Israel (did I just say that US has been sponsoring terrorism?).

What is so strange about the truth? Get to know Muslims and learn from them whether they want to kill us all for our way of life.

Glenn Beck has interesting ideas, a good team of young researchers (on staff), and the financial backup of a millionaire. But sometime he is plain wrong.

You joking? "Glenn Beck has interesting ideas"?

The guy is finished. I continue to be amazed by how Paulites of all people still take this nincompoop with a hemorrhoid seriously. Beck is now a complete has-been who is desperately trying to get attention and resurrect his dismantled profile. Even this week he has become less relevant than last week! How? By the fact that the GOP candidate he endorsed i.e. Bachmann got destroyed in Iowa, the state she was born!

it's a big tent now

we even have a few socialists lurking around, environmentalists, ows, among others

i suggest engaging in ideas, don't attack personalities.