Articles

Monday, January 02, 2012

Ron Paul's Soros Defense Plan

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. Korb 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 MoveOn.org, 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.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sultan, excellent article as usual. Soros's tentacles are incredibly widespread. David Horowitz gives a relatively detailed account of the organizations Soros works through. http://discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589

Lemon said...

I think György Schwartz would very much like to ruin the USA while taking it for all he can.He is a destroyer it seems.

Márcia said...

"Ron Paul is the most consequential guy running for president,” said Grover Norquist.
Ron Paul is a multitasking man. As the second-leading GOP candidate, his role is to guarantee Romney's nomination, which in turn...

Some dude said...

Thank you Sultan.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul must be stopped!
Photos of him Fwank together should be seen everywhere!

Ted said...

Certainly no other republican (nor democrat) deserves my vote. If not RP, than whom?

Lev Tannen said...

Daniel, You are right, Ron Paul is terrible. Hopefully he will not win the nomination. But he paves the road for Mitt Romney to win. Obviously Romney is much better then Paul, but still is not good and is definitely means the win for Obama. Only one pretender is good enough and had a potential to stop all three: Paul, Romney and Obama. It is Newt Gingrich. However you sank him. By you I do not mean you personally. You, means you, conservatives. Most notably Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter. I do not know what we can hope for now. Bachman - no chances, Santorun -very good, but again no chances. Perry the same. So, what?

jnet said...

I went to the Huffington Post article posted: July 6, 2010 09:02 AM
.
Here is the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/why-we-must-reduce-milita_b_636051.html

It says this in the Huffington Post article:
In order to create a systematic approach to reducing military spending, we have convened a Sustainable Defense Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum. The task force has produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas….

Earlier in the article is this:
We are not talking about cutting the money needed to supply American troops in the field. Once we send our men and women into battle, even in cases where we may have opposed going to war, we have an obligation to make sure that our servicemembers have everything they need. And we are not talking about cutting essential funds for combating terrorism; we must do everything possible to prevent any recurrence of the mass murder of Americans that took place on September 11, 2001.
Immediately after World War II, with much of the world devastated and the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it, and currently American military spending makes up approximately 44% of all such expenditures worldwide. The nations of Western Europe now collectively have greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense.

I see nothing in the Huffington Post article that contradicts how Ron Paul stands on National Defense. Here is how he stands on National Defense: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

Over half of Washington DC has ties to Soros.
Soros has most of DC in his back pocket...except for Ron Paul.
How could Ron Paul meet with anyone in DC that is
not tied to Soros? That is the question needing to be asked.

Daniel Greenfield, in his article “Ron Paul’s Soros Defense Plan”
uses a deceptive age old devious tactic of "guilt by association". Because the people on the committee are somehow associated with Soros, does that mean Ron Paul is associated with Soros???????????? NO !!!

Anonymous said...

The photo of Ron Paul at the end of the article looks like the Guy Fawkes / Anonymous mask. Is that intentional?

Anonymous said...

With deficits now exceeding 100% of GDP, long term economic growth is being dragged down. Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to even talk about the radical budget trimming needed. He's always been consistent in his goal of reducing the overall size and scope of govt, including the military, to something that is sustainable. Without a sustainable economy, there is no sustainable military.

Anonymous said...

If Soros was KGB this would be treason, yet there are idiots posting above totally ignoring what was said. Mindless Ideologue much?

Keliata said...

"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."

Exactly. We do need to question more. I'm surprised that Ron Paul is so popular. I regarded him as more of fringe or novelty candidate. Thank you again for this article.

dorothynoonan9 said...

Directly from the Huffington Post article written by Paul & Frank:

"As members of opposing political parties, we disagree on a number of important issues. But we must not allow honest disagreement over some issues to interfere with our ability to work together when we do agree."

This was the very first paragraph. And from the last paragraph:

"We may not agree on what to do with the estimated $1 trillion in savings, but we do agree that nothing either of us cares deeply about will be possible if we do not begin to face this issue now."

I don't see how this connection makes Ron Paul a co-conspirator with Soros. What it does prove is that Paul and Frank agree on reducing military spending, which bothers those who strongly believe we owe it to other nations to protect them or get involved in their governments or rebellions.

Thanks for your blog - I'm enjoying reading it!

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

If you read this article which deals with Paul and Frank's board of Soros employees deciding what to cut on national defense, I think the answer to your question becomes fairly apparent

Anonymous said...

Ignorance is bliss.

Anonymous said...

and what does Ron Paul and Barney Frank have in common? hatred of Israel...

Anonymous said...

and I also forgot Soros...

lilarose4truth said...

HAHAHAHAHAHA....Stench of death & stale cabbage. You got me laughing. It feels good to laugh at a time when everything's so deadly serious. Thank you. Your articles are never boring.

Post a Comment