OpEdNews » The Enemy Within: Cato and its Covert Agenda

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Agriculture; Animals; Conspiracy; Corporations; Credit; Day; Freedom; Fundraising; Government; Hampshire; (more...) Hampshire; Heroes; Indictments; Issues; Libertarian; Money; Money; Money; Other; People; People; Personal; Polarization; Rights; Truth; Work; Work (less...)
Add to My Group

October 5, 2007 at 15:57:39

The Enemy Within: Cato and its Covert Agenda

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

No one at Cato does anything without an agenda. Over the last 30 years Cato has positioned itself as a major 'think-tank' in DC, becoming a proponent for policies that further the agenda for federalization when all is said and done. For months the institution behind the white marble walls in Washington DC has remained mostly silent on the Ron Paul Campaign, discussing the 'real' candidates and ignoring Dr. Paul.

Ask yourself why all of a sudden David Boaz at Cato and the gang at Reason would suddenly discover that there is a lot of support for Ron Paul's candidacy? Earlier this year Boaz went out of his way to say in a comment written on 04.17.07 @ 9:46 pm,“And apparently, the most notable contributor to Ron Paul is . . . Rob Kampia, director of the Marijuana Policy Project. It’s going to be a long campaign.”

It could be that a continued silence would prove to be embarrassing, hence, this new comment from October 4th, 2007 by Boaz on the Cato Dispatch? Or are there other reasons as well?

David Boaz, a long time Cato employee said of the 3rd Quarter fundraising numbers, “Ron Paul's amazing fundraising success -- with no support from the Republican establishment and little attention from the mainstream media -- is an indication of the wide appeal of his message of Constitutionalism, reduced spending, and an end to the Iraq war. In some ways Ron Paul is the antidote for every problem that plagued Republicans in 2006: Voters were tired of Republican corruption, and Ron Paul has never succumbed to the temptations of Washington. They were fed up with overspending, and he's the original anti-spender. They're disillusioned by the seemingly endless war in Iraq, and Ron Paul opposed that war from the beginning. He's appealing to fed-up traditional Republicans and to younger voters who haven't yet been Republicans.”

But what follows is actually more interesting. In another location, conveniently located at the bottom of the page comes this from"The Libertarian Vote. The Cato crowd have been watching developments for a long time, long enough to ensure their background positioning.

“"The main theme of political commentary in this decade is polarization. Since the battles over the impeachment of President Clinton and the Florida vote in 2000, pundits have been telling us that we're a country split down the middle, red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative. Political analysts talk about base motivation and the shrinking of the swing vote. But the evidence says they are wrong.

Not all Americans can be classified as liberal or conservative. For those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, it may be most notable that the libertarian vote shifted sharply in 2004. ... If that trend continues into 2006 and 2008, Republicans will lose elections they would otherwise win. The libertarian vote is in play. At some 13 percent of the electorate, it is sizable enough to swing elections. Pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media should take note of it."”

Cato knows all about polarization because for the last thirty years marginalizing and polarizing the electorate has been at the core of their own prosperity. Cato was founded by three people. Edward H. Crane, III, an eager financial adviser from Los Angeles with big ideas not matched with personal or professional ethics, Murray Rothbard, the honored but often volatile proponent for the free market, and Charles Koch, the CEO of a privately owned petroleum company that was profiting in Vietnam with Halliburton and is now profiting in Iraq with the same partners and receiving cost plus contracts in unlikely places. The links between the Kochs and Bushes are well known to insiders. One of the first acts of the Bush Administration in 2001 was to quash the nearly 400 major EPA violations enforced against Koch Industries.

Murray was ousted for asking questions at their first board meeting in 1981. His comments were loud. Murray was like that. At the time most of us thought the conflict was personalities. Today, the real explanation is more prosaic. Murray would be glad to know that he was right about the 'cloven hoof' exhibited by Crane and Cato.

Murray was clearly going to be a problem for Cato when they started positioning themselves as 'free market.' What was really happening was a broad sweep of corporatization coming in with the onslaught of the Reagan Administration. In case you had not heard Reagan was a NeoCon. The warning had gone out from United Republicans of California in 1975 with this Resolution, accompanied by three pages of documentation in 8 point type.

Some of the Cato donations still come from committed freedom activists and not major GRID corporations. But don't imagine for a moment that those bare mentions are without further agenda. Events out of sight of most Ron Paul Activists have continued to develop.

The third quarter fundraising reports showed Paul's official campaign bringing in slightly over $5 million from 127,000 small contributors. That is major because those involved know that means a mainstream breakout that cannot be accounted for by old line libertarians or even the whole of the previous freedom movement.

The remarks made by the arrogant Catoites are still snarky and positioned to marginalize Paul but provide a repositioning for them that doubtless presaged a further move towards safe ground. Those who have profited through the Cato strategy so useful to the NeoCons knew perfectly well they are between a rock and a hard place.

Cato, Crane, and the Howie Cogs need to reposition themselves desperately. They might have been useful to the GRID corporations but there is no sign they will be protected in the conflict now coming. Better to have a foot in both camps. For months now there have been signs they want to move back into the now burgeoning movement and bring their wealth and centrist attitudes with them. They have a beachhead right there in DC.

The Paul campaign is not really the badly run, self aggrandizing office staff in Arlington Virginia, heavily weighted to either incompetent retread Libertarians or Cato graduates, the REAL campaign is out in the hinterland taking the ideas into the mainstream through sheer grit and determination, despite those at Head Quarters. Early 'build out' in the HQ tried diligently to control those elements, but failed. Now they settle for taking credit for work they had no positive role in creating.

This unpalatable truth is widely under discussion among local activists. Those who know Ron report that he is very trusting but the question of why there is no steering committee must be taken up. Such a committee should be made up of old time, trusted friends who have no links to Cato.

Most of the new, committed, activists were never previously political but report the same problems of arrogant, incompetent 'directors' sent from the DC office. Typical of those local activists is Linda Hunnicutt, a grandma from North Carolina who, although she is fighting lung cancer, still painted her RV Red, White and Blue, slathered it with Ron Paul signs and took to the road for Paul. Linda founded the Warrior Grannies to take America back.

1 | 2

http://howtheneoconsstolefreedom.blogspot.com

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

13 comments

I am an average American citizen. I look around in shock at the condition of our Constitutional Republic. I am an angry peasant.
Angry PeasantI am an average American citizen. I look around in shock at the condition of our Constitutional Republic. I am an angry peasant.

Good information

Thank you for the article. I hope more people begin to realize the many ways that NGO's and other groups have of playing "an end run around" our Constitution. AND........3 cheers to the Granny warriors !!!

by Angry Peasant (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 4:08:44 PM

I'm a 29 year old male.
TyI'm a 29 year old male.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a phony. Paul isn't supporting Kucinich's bill to impeach Dick Cheney. Real constitutionalists support impeachment. Paul also doesn't support an independent investigation of 911. Paul wants privatization not local control. Paul also wants to criminalize abortion, wants to build a fence on the Mexican border, deport anyone who is an undocumented immigrant, wants to waste billions on a Missile Defense System, wants to eliminate all federal taxes, wants to get rid of social programs, and supports subsidies for oil companies and oil drilling. Paul also opposes a minimum wage and workers rights.

Support Dennis Kucinich the real champion of the people.

http://www.dennis4president.com

http://www2.kucinich.us/issues

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 868 comments) on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 7:01:27 PM

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather. Ms. Pillsbury-Foster has been active in politics since the Goldwater Campaign. She left the Republican Party to join and become active in the Libertarian Party in 1973, working as an activist and party officer until she left the Liber...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Melinda Pillsbury-FosterMelinda Pillsbury-Foster is the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather. Ms. Pillsbury-Foster has been active in politics since the Goldwater Campaign. She left the Republican Party to join and become active in the Libertarian Party in 1973, working as an activist and party officer until she left the Liber...

to see more of bio, click on member name

I understand how you feel - frustrated.....

...but calling names will not get you anywhere and it will not help your candidate. Kucinich and Paul get along well; their disagreements are on the tools used to solve the problems.

Ron has declined to sponsor impeachment measures. I wish he would but there it is. He may feel this would distract attention from his core message - or he may understand it is pointless given the present Congress. That is made up of people you probably worked hard to elect so you might reconsider who you supported.

Ron Paul is exactly what he says he is. The Defender of the Constitution. If elected he will dismantle the present Federal government. He will not pass any laws on personal behavior, leaving those to the various states. I have no worries on the abortion question - but that does not negate the need to understand the coercive nature of the conditions that push women into situations where they become pregnant against their wills. What have you done to ratify the ERA?

The original role of the Constitution was extremely limited. Government directly under the control of the people, for instance at the level of the town as it existed in New England before the Revolution, allows for people to relate to each other and moves them to using persuasion instead of force through government.

Leaving those issues to the states gives us better ground on which to work.

Paul does not support subsidies for anyone, including oil companies and has consistently said he thinks government should be left to that most local level. His election as President would give us the freedom to do just that.

Your position is that you want to use government to force choices on others that you approve of, that might even benefit you personally. The point is that govenment should not be used as a tool for forcing anyone. Government is just the tool we use to order our lives.

The appropriate way for us to live together is through persuasion and consent. Slapping down the guilty is necessary for demonstrating what is not allowed.

Americans are tired of being experimented on by theorists. You wouldn't buy an appliance that way and Americans should never have been subjected to anyone's unproven ideas. If you want to do that use your own family.

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster (139 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 121 comments) on Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 7:48:56 PM

Lenny Gray was, at one time, a Conservative Libertarian who eventually noticed the "well let them die" attitude that served his Right Wing compatriots as the common answer to the complex problems of the life of communities. He now considers himself a Leftist, where "Left" denotes the interests of the "common man". He's a computer programmer by trade.
lenngrayLenny Gray was, at one time, a Conservative Libertarian who eventually noticed the "well let them die" attitude that served his Right Wing compatriots as the common answer to the complex problems of the life of communities. He now considers himself a Leftist, where "Left" denotes the interests of the "common man". He's a computer programmer by trade.

Ultimately ...

you're saying that Ron Paul believes in isolationist no-government government. This would also explain why he couldn't care less about impeachment. There may be a lot of merit to that flavor, considering what we currently have operating. One thing I still can't understand, though, is why nobody calls that "anarchism" -- ie: "no king/no rules/no ruler".

by lenngray (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 61 comments) on Sunday, October 7, 2007 at 8:06:53 PM

Support Dennis Kucinich the real champion of the people???

Explain to me why someone who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment is a champion of the people. Do you trust your government so much that you don’t feel the need to have any means of protecting yourself? The reason we were guaranteed the right to bear arms is to have a chance against tyrannical forms of government. Aside from that "little" flaw in his logic, yes he does have a lot of good ideas and I do like to hear him speak. Although in the last debate, I did wonder why he said that 16 year olds should be able to vote. He does seem to be an honest man. Definitely an improvement to what we have had for the last few decades. But I kind of like the 2nd Amendment too!

by Angry Peasant (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 12:27:33 AM

A concerned citizen and former mathematician/engineer now retired and living in rural Maine.
PrMaineA concerned citizen and former mathematician/engineer now retired and living in rural Maine.

A Ron Paul Nomination?

One improbable scenerio I have toyed with in my mind is that a large number of Democrats might decide to vote in the Republican primaries in order to make Ron Paul the Republican candidate. So what would a Paul vs. Clinton presidential campaign look like? A hint comes directly from the author:

Ron Paul is an honest, straight forward man, very unlike those associated with Cato.

Consequently, the power centers of the Republican party would probably turn to supporting either Clinton or possibly a third party candidate. Either alternative would probably lead to a Democratic victory. The next question is whether this would be a good thing.

by PrMaine (11 articles, 9 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 391 comments) on Sunday, October 7, 2007 at 8:28:07 AM

Power goes Puff when the lights go on.

Actually, in that case the outcome would be a loss for Clinton - as long as Paul remains alive and effective. The Power that Be within the Republican Party are very vulnerable now because their agenda is out in the open. And Democrats are crossing over to vote for Paul.

That is why I have been outing the icons the NeoCons and their Rockefeller predecesors have been using to shore up their take over of Conservatism. See the articles on Reagan, Buckley, and Schlafly. More are coming. They breed like cockroaches.

Seeing how they accomplished this immunizes you from believing their next set of lies and liars.

Clinton is actually the Bush pick to replace him because she would give them a longer run. The same people are funding her. They liked Bill; he and the Bushies are now buds, in case you did not notice.

I know that a lot of people still have illusions. They need to lose those. This is not about right - left, it is about local, cooperative organizing vs. oligarchy as our tool set for government. The first affirms the original mission of the Revolution the second is the bait and switch installed by merchantilists and the robber barons and corporatists to came after them.

Their goal here is just money and staying in control of the GRIDS so the money will continue to flow. That agenda converted our political process and institutions to a PR arm of those same corporations. The solution is turning off the money flowing through those GRIDS. Then we rebuild our local communities. They will need that. They coming meltdown economically will destroy a lot of people.

Ron Paul is not the messiah, he is just the one to get them out of the way so we can get to work rebuilding. If he lives long enough.

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster (139 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 121 comments) on Sunday, October 7, 2007 at 9:05:04 AM

A concerned citizen and former mathematician/engineer now retired and living in rural Maine.
PrMaineA concerned citizen and former mathematician/engineer now retired and living in rural Maine.

A Ron Paul Nomination works against Clinton?

I agree that Clinton is the clear favorite of the Bushies to be the Democratic candidate. That has been clear for years, but not because they want her as President. They want her nomination because it is because she is so easy for them to demonize her, and they feel they can win against her. A Clinton candidacy would focus the Republican base on defeating her, provided that the Republican candidate were acceptable to them.

The nomination of Ron Paul by the Republican Party would change all of this. Beyond any doubt, they would prefer Clinton to Ron Paul as President.

by PrMaine (11 articles, 9 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 391 comments) on Sunday, October 7, 2007 at 9:27:24 AM

Their preferences are out of order

Their preference for Hillary is the truth that Dems had better get. All the other candidates, with the exception of Kucinich, are optioned by the corporates as well. They are insurance. That happens through one or another of their corporate affiliates. The ideal race would be Paul - Kucinich because either way we get an honest president. But in that case next year will also bring out the more drastic plans they have in motion to keep their GRID system stable. Making those impossible to carry out takes us away from partisan politics into other lines of action.

All that said, we have an opportunity here. We can take it back, not just by using politics but by a full press using the other available options. (All non-violent.)

In politics: We should start working together, starting with the whole electoral process.

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster (139 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 121 comments) on Sunday, October 7, 2007 at 10:51:35 AM

A concerned citizen and former mathematician/engineer now retired and living in rural Maine.
PrMaineA concerned citizen and former mathematician/engineer now retired and living in rural Maine.

The ideal race would be Paul - Kucinich

The ideal race would be Paul - Kucinich because either way we get an honest president.

I can't disagree with you in that I would prefer either of them to the President we are likely to get. But if that were the case, I suspect that the media would inform us that the independent, Geluani, is the only viable candidate for President. Or maybe it would be some other third party candidate.

I detest the thought, but I do believe that the majority of voters in this country are led by the nose by the mainstream media. If they are told that neither the Republican or the Democratic party is offering a viable candidate then somehow the majority of voters (or at least the majority of electors) will vote for a now-viable third-party candidate.

by PrMaine (11 articles, 9 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 391 comments) on Sunday, October 7, 2007 at 11:31:10 AM