Ron Paul: Soros Puppet?

Dynamic Duo?

I don’t know how seriously to take this, but there are certain facts that seem unavoidable.  FrontPage Magazine is carrying a story alleging that Ron Paul may effectively have permitted himself to become a tool for George Soros’ agenda.  This all goes back to a July 2010 effort in which Ron Paul and Barney Frank jointly rolled out their Sustainable Defense Task Force.  This plan promised to cut more than $1 trillion in defense spending, scrapping carriers, and all sorts of current assets in our combined defense.  The panel was stacked with Soros-affiliated members, 9 of 14 members having direct links.  That Ron Paul actually took part in this, lending his name to this “bi-partisan effort” should tell you a bit about how he’s willing to lend his name to certain causes, but the troubling part is that he doesn’t seem to have noticed, or didn’t care that the panel was rigged with members of Soros-funded groups.

This wasn’t Paul’s only joint effort with Barney Frank, teaming up with the disgraced(and now retiring) Massachusetts Congressman in an effort to legalize pot.  Whatever else you may think of Ron Paul, I doubt he’s the sort that would knowingly lend himself to what many would consider a treasonous effort to reduce the United States’ defense capabilities, if he knew that was in fact what he had been doing.  The problem is that on the matters of foreign policy, Dr. Paul has seemed incredibly naive, and his fervor for reducing defense expenditures may occasionally lead him onto very shaky ground in the alliances he forges in the political realm.  I will not go as far as Daniel Greenfield in concluding that he might be knowingly involved in what clearly seems to be a Soros plot, but even if he didn’t know, didn’t he have a responsibility to find out?

In this sense, it’s one of the troubling aspects of Dr. Paul’s career that he will occasionally forge alliances in pursuit of an end without consideration of the character or motives of those with whom he is forging those alliances.  As the article points out, a Soros-funded organization, AAEI(Americans Against Escalation in Iraq) ran an ad in the last election cycle praising Ron Paul.  That Paul didn’t disclaim association with that group doesn’t speak well of him.  By now, somebody who’s been in Washington DC as long as Dr. Paul should be able to recognize a set-up of this sort fairly readily, and the fact that he lent his name to the effort is troubling, because he either did so without knowing it was a set-up, or because he didn’t care.  Either way, it’s one more reason Ron Paul probably shouldn’t be considered as presidential material:  We can’t afford a president who will lend his name to efforts that are effectively Soros-driven operations to undermine the defensive posture of the United States.

Note: Page 2 of the linked article by Daniel Greenfield at FrontPageMag.com contains some of the more damning allegations.

Advertisements
Leave a comment ?

19 Responses to Ron Paul: Soros Puppet?

  1. Dave says:

    I'm not taking it seriously at all.

  2. juneau says:

    I don't know, markamerica. The timing is certainly suspicious. I mean, we're only hearing about this on the morning of the Iowa caucuses? And, it conveniently mentions George Soros, who is a big demon among Glenn Beck listeners. I would have to say, as in everything political, there are probably nuggets of truth, but the rest of it is overblown, sensationalized and used to further someone's agenda. I doubt this will dissuade people who have already decided on Paul, and the undecided, I hope, are smarter than taking the word of one journalist who focuses on radical Islam, and though I have nothing against him or his cause, probably has his own agenda. The illusion of politics is coming apart.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Juneau, I don't doubt that the timing is a bit suspicious, but at the same time, it's hard to refute the evidence. I realize that last-minute disclosures about candidates are a normal 'dirty trick' we have come to expect, but not all of them are lies, irrespective of timing. I debated whether to release this article because of the timing, but the problem is that either way, then I'm guilty of tinkering with timing. I decided, as I always have, that timely information is more important than the notion of 'convenient timing' because if Paul is being used as a tool by Soros, even unwittingly, people ought to know that.

      The facts, however, are indisputable: Ron PAul did participate in this, and 9 of 14 members were people from Soros-funded organizations/front groups. There's really no doubt about that at all, and there's also no doubt that the resulting recommendations of the panel were extremely severe cuts in defense.

      The only question left unanswered is whether Paul knew this, or if he did know it, whether he continued in the endeavor because he didn't care, or even perhaps was a willing participant. I'm not prepared to go that far, as the evidence doesn't tell us anything substantial about his motives, but it remains possible.

      • juneau says:

        Yes, you're certainly in a tough position. I do have to wonder why the other journalist decided to wait until now. Anyway…I think there are a few more questions to ask: How many members of Congress are NOT tied to some Soros-entity in some way, and were they blocked from participation? And, using some of the logic of past administrations, doesn't it sometimes make 'sense' to work with the enemy if the end justifies the means? We know RP is all about cutting spending, and that includes defense spending. So, depending upon the answers to these questions, it is possible that, yes, RP knew with whom he was dealing, and yes, he cared because it cut spending. Finally, what other Republicans sat on the panel, and how did they vote? I think there are a lot of unanswered questions, and the timeliness of the disclosure does not allow for proper research.

  3. Seth says:

    I have not read the proposed legislation in question. For all I know it could mean destroying much of the mothball fleet, which we kind of maintain. It could mean upgrading to more efficient war machines that can do the job of several others. I've seen this in my 12 years in the Navy already, no big whoop and maximizes efficiency.

    On the other hand, it could have been a misjudgement on RP's part. If that's the case then I chalk it up to being human. We can all go into the past and put every President on blast for the decisions they have made.

  4. Texmom says:

    He also made numerous appearances on RT (Russia Today) TV, which is questionable to me.

    • Guest says:

       Because the American media ignores him, or puts him in a bad light. At least for the majority of the time.

  5. Thomas Dixon says:

    Thanks for opening the blinds, Mark. I strive diligently to stay abreast of the day's happenings and read a cross-section of publications. For a person it seems so overwhelming. And when articles, such as Daniel Greenfield's 'Ron Paul's Soros Defense Plan', highlight the degree to which organizations' tentacles interconnect, comprehension seems even more formidable.

    Even though we common Americans have heard and read that George Soros funds more than 500 organizations worldwide, I think that in our individuality we lose sight of his 'reach.' That hundreds of thousands of people are actively pursuing his goals while fully supporting their own beliefs (in consonance with his) is mind boggling.

    If Ron Paul at any time suffers from this inability to comprehend the complexity of interrelationships and pursuits, then it is incumbent upon this national leader to form a team with capable intuitive leadership. And if the staff that he gathered around him was unaware of or did not care about the influence Mr Soros would exert over the Sustainable Defense Task Force, then they were either incompetent or complicit.

    Either way, Ron Paul should NOT be considered a viable alternative to Barak Obama, if only for his view and past actions concerning national defense. As one of our four instruments of power, it leads all others in terms of survivability as a people. Without a strong national defense, there is no need for the others.

  6. hey_sherm says:

    This type of collaboration is why the Libertarian Party is being infused with far left anti military supporters.

  7. "Whatever else you may think of Ron Paul, I doubt he’s the sort that would knowingly lend himself to what many would consider a treasonous effort to reduce the United States’ defense capabilities, if he knew that was in fact what he had been doing."

    Why should you doubt it? In the debates he repeatedly said that he would reduce the budget by a trillion dollars immediately. In the last Sioux City debate, he said that HALF of all cuts would come from national defense. The 2012 defense budget is 682 billion. Half of a trillion is 500 billion. If he takes 500 billion out of defense, that is a cut of more than 73%.

    • Guest says:

       However, he would be cutting the amount of bases, and such, overseas. His argument is that we are not doing anything productive and in fact are just being aggressors overseas. He would plan to take many of our troops home and increase the literal defense of the homeland.

  8. juneau says:

    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/03/former-cia-… An endorsement for Ron Paul from someone who has an idea of what's going on with our foreign policy.

  9. You fail to distinguish between public tax dollars spent on "defense" vs. public tax dollars spent on "military". Defense of a nation can be assured in many ways other than "nuts and bolts" military hardware (for example, how about a revival of relationship with our Creator, you know "God Bless America"?).

    "For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom gives life to them that have it. Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which He has made crooked? In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God has also set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him."

    Sure you need a lot of carriers if you are going to circumnavigate the globe policing the world. We can’t scrap some old carriers as new ones come online? 15 trillion in debt, 100% of GDP in debt, it’s time to let the crazed notion of world domination go. A military force will never accomplish what you imagine.

    As for George Soros, I'm sure some of the credit card interest you pay goes into George's pocket; does that make you a co-conspirator with him?

  10. F*** Ron Paul, total attack on our 2nd ammend rights! the fruit are almost ripe to run into pauls….

    [Note: One word edited for language. Let's try to keep it clean[er], okay Keith? – Thanks, Mark]

  11. Rocky says:

    I think it's a bogus/smear issue. Ron Paul helped set up a bipartisan committee in 2010 with the infamous Barney Frank to find ways to reduce Defense spending. It was a Democratically controlled
    Senate, so there were 9 of 14 members of the group who were Progressives and Soros funded. The Obama administration is Soros funded.

    Five members were not Soros funded…two from the Cato Institute…hardly a Soros group!

    This is an attempt to label Paul a shill for Soros, which is dishonest and ridiculous.

    Big-R elation over this tempest shows too many of them for the shallow
    sycophants they really are.

  12. TC Avey says:

    This is the second time I have heard information related to this.
    For the past few years I have been researching Soros (check out my blog, tcavey.blogspot.com under the Label George Soros for more information on this man). Knowing Ron Paul has ties to Soros decreases my trust in him.

  13. Jeff Cambeis says:

    Hog wash…
    Ron Paul was a part of a bipartisan coalition to list some stuff that could possible be cut from military spending… You guys and your tin foil hats… Bush ties to Bin Laden are closer to RP with Soros… You conspiracy people are always coming up with some nut bag theory.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: