Ron Paul’s Soros Defense Plan

By: Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
Cross-posted with permission…

It was recently observed that Ron Paul was to the left of Obama on national security and the best evidence for that statement can be found when one year ago Ron Paul joined forces with Barney Frank on a proposal to gut national defense via a panel of experts, quite a few of whom were tied to George Soros.

In July 2010, Barney Frank and Ron Paul co-authored a Huffington Post article rolling out their Sustainable Defense Task Force. The Task Force “consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum” would recommend a trillion dollars in defense cuts. The experts however didn’t quite “span the ideological spectrum”, more like float under it.

The panel of experts who would decide how to best gut national defense featured such independent thinkers as William D Hartung of the New America Foundation. Hartung’s main expertise was appearing in “Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire”.

Then there was Lawrence J. Kolb of the Center for American Progress and Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies. If you want to know what the Center, the Foundation and the Institute all have in common, it’s Hungarian and smells like stale cabbage and the death of nations.

The rather creepy Institute for Policy Studies issued a paper proposing that Obama act as king and rule through executive orders. The New American Foundation is not only backed by Soros but has his son on its leadership council. The Center for American Progress is run by the co-chair of Obama’s transition team and is all for 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. 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. The CDI’s goal is to strengthen “national and international security through international cooperation, 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 Soros’ Open Society Institute where the stench of death and stale cabbage never goes away.

Then there’s Charles Knight and Carl Conetta of the Project for Defense Alternatives which appears to be a subset of the Commonwealth Institute. Of its Board of Directors, S.M. Miller is also the founder of United for a Fair Economy which enjoys generous support from a certain philanthropic chap who occasionally destroys economies for sport. Another member Guy Molyneux has also worked with the OSI. A third board member Richard Healey, was formerly director of the Institute for Policy Studies and is on the advisory board of the Center for Social Inclusion, founded by two OSI veterans.

If you think this can’t get any worse, sorry to disappoint you but meet Paul Kawika Martin of Peace Action. You might know PA better by its old name of The Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy or just SANE. A Communist front group investigated by none other than Senator Thomas Dodd. PA has the same attitude toward American defense that burglars have toward alarm systems in other people’s homes. They don’t like them very much. And they have a “five year strategic plan” for the job.

Paul Kawika Martin travels around fighting progress on board The Rainbow Warrior and is also involved with Physicians for Social Responsibility. Martin has also collaborated with NIAC, a front for the Iranian regime. I think you can guess by now who funds Physicians for Social Responsibility. If you can’t, here’s a hint. The initials are GS.

Then there’s Laicie Olson of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The Center is actually a subset of the Council for a Livable World. Olson originally worked for Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Also on board was Heather Hurlburt of the National Security Network. The NSN’s goals are to “build a strong progressive national security and counter conservative spin.” Its founder was part of Obama’s transition team and resigned to work for Janet Napolitano. Soros’ OSI helped fund NSN and its Special Counsel was on the NSN Policy Committee.

If you’re tired of reading through all this, then good news because here’s the summary. Of the Paul-Frank Task Force, 9 out of 14 members were linked to Soros’s organs. Two were affiliated with the Cato Institute. One is indeterminate.

Ron Paul proposed to put a bunch of Soros funded think tank experts in charge of dismantling the US military. Think about that for a moment. And then think about it again. Ron Paul supporters can see conspiracies in a glass of water, can they see anything wrong with this picture? Can they see anything wrong with having a man from a group that was investigated for its Communist ties in the driver’s seat on national defense?

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.

Not only did Paul join forces with Barney Frank to slash military preparedness, but he ended up putting the experts of a foreign billionaire with global ambitions in charge of the project. And that was what he did as a congressman. Can anyone imagine what he would do as President?

But why would Ron Paul allow George Soros that much power and influence over America’s defense policy. There are a number of possibilities. There is the possibility that Ron Paul just didn’t know and didn’t bother to do his research. Which is not much of a recommendation for the job he’s running for. There’s another possibility that Ron Paul knew and didn’t care, that he had no objection to being part of a left-right alliance against the “American Empire” with Soros. But there’s also a third possibility.

During the previous election, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq ran an ad praising Ron Paul for his position against the war. AAEI was an umbrella group for, the Center for American Progress, SEIU, Americans United For Change, the National Security Network and others in the progressive bestiary. A number of those beasties were Soros groups.

I’m not one to dabble in conspiracy theories, but when Soros pays for an ad praising you during the Republican primaries and then you put his experts in charge of America’s defense policy, then maybe some questions should be asked.


Author: Admin

Related Articles

21 thoughts on “Ron Paul’s Soros Defense Plan

  1. Mr Ron Paul – a member of Lamda Chi Alpha (Secret Society) Rosicrucian/Freemason, which was started by John E. Mason, Grand Master. Try and keep track of all these secret society members – if you can.

    1. Peter Thiel, Bilderberg Group (planning World Government) funded Mr Paul — Mr Paul is just another ‘secret society lackey’ – as they all are. If you have a couple billion laying around you don’t know what to do with, you can get an honest politician elected into office.

  2. Why is it that you don’t mention that those working for the CATO Institute is funded by the Charles Koch- yes, one of the Koch brothers who fund:

    American Legislative Exchange Council
    Cato Institute
    Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation
    George Mason University
    George Mason University Foundation, Inc.
    Heritage Foundation
    Institute for Justice
    Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
    Reason Foundation
    Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
    Institute for Humane Studies
    Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
    Washington Legal Foundation
    Capital Research Center
    Competitive Enterprise Institute
    Ethics and Public Policy Center, Inc.
    National Center for Policy Analysis
    Citizens for Congressional Reform Foundation
    Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.
    American Legislative Exchange Council
    Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
    Political Economy Research Center, Inc.
    Media Institute
    National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship
    University of Chicago
    Defenders of Property Rights
    University of Kansas Endowment Assocation
    Texas Public Policy Foundation
    Center for Individual Rights
    Heartland Institute
    Texas Justice Foundation
    Institute for Policy Innovation
    Center of the American Experiment
    Atlas Economic Research Foundation
    Young America’s Foundation
    Henry Hazlitt Foundation
    Atlantic Legal Foundation
    National Taxpayers Union Foundation
    Families Against Mandatory Minimums
    Philanthropy Roundtable
    Free Enterprise Institute
    John Locke Foundation
    Hudson Institute, Inc.
    Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
    National Environmental Policy Institute
    Washington University
    Pacific Legal Foundation
    American Council for Capital Formation
    Institute for Political Economy
    State Policy Network
    Fraser Institute
    Mackinac Center
    Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation
    Institute for Objectivist Studies
    Americans for Prosperity Bill of Rights Institute
    Mercatus Center
    Whitman College

    Here are the candidates they have funded (just for one year):

    They are also tied to Tea Party funding.

    I’m not saying the Koch’s are bad. I’m saying it because they are the anti-Soros. Speaking of which, they are part of the lot that Glenn Beck was talking about when he said: “I’m not even going to go through all the people” like they were all the same anyways.

    Additionally, this is in the report: “The Sustainable Defense 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.” If you look at the newspapers of the time, they say that Barney Frank put the “Task Force” together himself and asked for the support from these people after. Ron Paul didn’t pick the people that were involved. It is his policy to close the bases that are located in other countries and bring them home… so yes, he endorses that approach to reducing the defense budget. Reducing the budget would be anti-Soros legislation. He is trying to destroy the country from within through overspending (i.e. the Soviet Union), not through cutting it.

    Nice try at a hit-piece though.

  3. George Soros’ people & Barney Frank working on our Defense — for RON PAUL????


    Remember how Obama was just an accidental neighbor of Bill Ayres? Remember how he never heard Rev. Wright’s anti-American diatribes? anti-Semitic diatribes?

    1. LOL! We’re such a nation of non-critically thinking sheeple. And sadly ignorant people like crookedwren vote!

  4. What a load of balogna. Ron Paul is NOT proposing to gut our military and leave us as a weak defenseless nation. Anyone with half a brain who has listened to his speeches would understand he is proposing the shutting down of all overseas military bases and bringing our troops home where they belong, in our own borders. We are NOT the UN Global Police Force, We are NOT the guardians of foreign nations such as Germany and Israel who have their own militaries and are fully capable of dealing with their own threats.

    1. SDT, Have a listen to this video clip! Alex delves into the Iowa caucus and the attempt by the establishment to derail Ron Paul’s campaign and the prospect of chicanery and dirty tricks during the event tomorrow. He also takes a look at Ron Paul’s “Closing Argument” ad.

  5. A usurper in the Oval Office and all “candidates running against him now” did what about it back in 2007-2008 during the campaign when he should have been stopped ? We’re supposed to shut up and choose one of ’em to lose in what has taken on the look of just another sham election ? Looks as if the U.S. is far, far up the old proverbial creek. Republicrats… Demoblicans… Hmmm, who should I vote for? Gee, I dunno… What difference will it make for a peasant such as I ?

  6. Ron Paul is NOT a genuine conservative! Just because Soros pays for an–does not mean he supports Ron Paul–he knows he can divert winning votes away to losers like Ron Paul to keep Barack Obama in office!

    1. C.R.,
      What do you consider a “winning vote?” anything that gets Obama out of office?

      Well, I guess you enjoy oversimplification of the real issues, so here is one for you:

      Can you explain why Goldmen Sachs is the #1 contributor to both the Romney and Obama Campaigns? Hmmm. well, I guess one of them will be a “winning vote”

      Happy banking.

      1. firedup49, Paul wants to cut military spending because he’s responsible with your tax dollars. Hopefully the government will redirect military spending to national defense rather than policing the world. Don’t you agree? Or do you rather spend money you don’t have or sacrifice national defense to police the world?

    1. Then maybe you could explain this article?? Could it be that Paul is just another politician appeasing everyone?

      Why was Paul flirting around with Barney with the idea of trashing the military funding?

      I’m listening!

      1. B. Hill,

        What are you looking for? Yes, politicians DO reach across the isle and work with other groups for a common goal.

        Do I agree with defunding the military? After having received first hand reports from guys coming back saying that they don’t have the equipment, intel, or tactical permission needed to end the war it makes you wonder what is really going on.

        Meanwhile, defense funding trickles down in the form of dollars in the millions to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, you have to further ask “why?” or you can shake it off and realize that the government is not the troops and start taking action that really DOES help the troops.

        Consider where the arms and tactical expertise came from in Afghanistan … any answers to that one?

        Bring the troops home; end the wars; quit policing the world so Exxon, BP, and Occidental can rake in the billions during the distraction.

        Yes, Soros is a scumbag but if he is behind defunding the wars too then by all means ride that horse.

        I am sure you listen to G. Beck as do I but he is off his rocker on foreign policy. He decides that it is O.K. to ignore the constitution on this issue; well, that makes him, by his own definition, A PROGRESSIVE.

        If you get too caught up in associations, and I mean too caught up, you end up standing in the middle of the room by your self getting nothing accomplished. move in the right direction and your road will eventually intersect with some others that are not going in that same direction but just happen to be on that part of the road.

        Keep thinking; it all works out.

        Ron Paul 2012

      2. Paul doesn’t want us to spend money we don’t have and wants the rest of the world to take care of their own interests. What’s wrong with this? The letter they all signed…

        Dear Gentlemen:

        We write to ask for a review of our worldwide military commitments with the outcome of reduced expenditures. The signers of this letter disagree on a number of public policy issues, but we are in strong agreement on two very important points.

        First, it is essential for our economic future that we adopt a binding plan for substantial deficit reduction over the next several years.

        Second, we do not believe that this can be done in an acceptable manner if we do not include substantial reductions in the plans for military spending during that period, and this requires a reevaluation of the mismatch between our current national security structure and overseas commitments, and the genuine security needs of the American People.

        At the close of World War II, when many democratic nations were devastated by the results of the war, and an aggressive and brutal Communist regime threatened freedom in much of the world, it was vital for America to take an assertive role in defending our allies all over the world. But things have changed substantially since then in a number of ways. What has not changed is the dependence we have allowed to grow on the American military budget by many of our strong, wealthy allies.

        More than 21 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and over 18 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, our military planning and appropriations process go on largely as it has since the 1950’s. This has continued despite the fact that NATO and our allies in Asia have not only rebuilt their economies, but have done so largely at our expense. As during Cold War, we largely provide for their defense, leaving them free to take funds that otherwise would have gone into their militaries and redirecting them towards growing their own economies – in many cases for state-subsidized industries that gave them an unfair competitive advantage over our own.

        The role of America as the worldwide first responder was a necessary one sixty years ago. Today, our allies can – and should – bear the primary burden of defending their own nations and interests.

        As the 9/11 attacks demonstrated, the kinds of threats we face today are very different than those of previous eras. We live in an age where a few determined individuals with minimal financing, good planning and training, and a willingness to die can inflict billions of dollars in damage and kill thousands in a matter of hours. None of the billions of dollars of Cold War-era weaponry in our arsenal on September 11, 2001 stopped Al-Qaeda.

        Our defense budget should provide for our legitimate national defense needs, including a capacity in those few cases where it is necessary to be able to come to the aid of nations genuinely in need of our protections from outside forces, but in ways that are appropriate to the asymmetrical, distributed threats of today.

        An example of our concern is the situation in Libya. One thing is very clear: despite the professed desire of President Obama for America to play a supportive as opposed to a leading role in this effort, and in spite of the fact that our European allies are much closer to Libya physically, America once again had to bear a disproportionate share of this activity in the early stages. And while our participation has subsequently been reduced, it has been widely reported in the press that England and France have been pressing the United States to resume its earlier role because they are unable to assume it themselves. The explanation of this is that only America had the capacity to respond. But that is precisely our point. We have allowed a situation to grow in the world in which an overdependence on America’s military – and America’s tax dollars – results in the expenditure of American money – and lives – far beyond what is an appropriate share of our global responsibility. We support an American military budget that is the largest in the world, but not one that is so much larger than our fair share of global security responsibility.

        Achieving the consequential deficit reduction necessary to ensure our nation’s fiscal health requires bold thinking and action. We therefore call on those with major responsibilities in the budgeting area to begin an immediate reexamination of our self-imposed worldwide military commitments, and to take subsequent action to ensure we have a defense force that is both affordable and necessary to meet our legitimate security needs.

  7. This is really a reach — a liberal smear on the most conservative candidate and man of best character in the whole race.

    Then again we have Romney who changed to Democrat to support far leftist Paul Tsongas, and Gingrich who was a Democrat who supported 418 of Pelosi’s bills incuding Kyoto Treaty and Dep of Ed and who said he should use terror attacks to keep us in line.

    Really Trevor, do not fall for this, the establishment is on the run. Paul is the only patriot in the bunch, always has been. He’s the only one who is not a filthy globalist doing the bidding of the UN here and overseas. He is trying to cut the budget which we need badly. I am not sure how New Zealanders can talk coming from a most socialist country!!!

    Plus we all voted for this guy when we were dumb didn’t we???

    Please stop smearing the only tea party candidate worth his salt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *