John R. Houk
© April 27, 2017
I wonder why you believe Trump not involved as he made money firing of the tomahawk missiles as he owns shares raytheon stock.He also ought to know the sad story media maintained for fifteen and a half years absurd defies known laws of physics and the deep state that actually always in complete control our country since the jfk coup calling themselves neocons did this with aid or phony ally Israel, ie mossad.Have you never read neocons very own web page PNAC.I never got far your comment until hear an answer to this question do you believe Arabs with boxcutters pulled this crime off? (unedited, which goes against my nature)
Donald Trump making money from Raytheon made Tomahawk missiles:
Snopes (Left Wing Fact Checker) – Doubtful
Then Snopes shows numerous FEC Documents disclosing finances concluding with this obvious analysis:
“Line 23 of that July 2015 form also disclosed that that portion of Donald Trump’s portfolio had a value of between $1,001 and $15,000 and brought him $201 or less in income”
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) rates the Trump profiting from Tomahawk missile launch as Unverified. MBFC is suspicious of medias bias which indicates their fact checkers have a mistrust of the Mainstream Media (MSM). Yet MBFC cites Snopes as its source. MBFC chose Unverified rather than Doubtful because there is no record to show if Donald Trump currently owns Raytheon stock. But remember, Snopes is MBFC’s source; hence, if Trump made money, he added less than $200 to his billion-dollar fortune.
“… Bill Palmer states “Donald Trump owned stock in Raytheon up through at least the start of the presidential election cycle. There is no record that he subsequently sold that stock.” This claim is factually accurate because there isn’t a record that he sold it, however there also isn’t any record that he didn’t sell it. Without this information we rate this Unverified until more information is available.”
The “Deep State” argument is something I agree with. My sense though is the American Deep State has factions that disagree with each much like or greater than the factions operating within the scope of the U.S. constitutional government. That is an opinion I can’t really back up right now but is something I sense intuitively.
I have a huge difficulty in calling Israel a “phony ally” or talking of Israel most notable Intelligence agency Mossad as evil. That simply smacks of the incoherent belief that Jews are out to control the world. That is downright Antisemitic false thinking!
Even though many Americans were sympathetic to the creation of a sovereign state called Israel after the Nazis murdered 6,000,000 Jews, the American government offer little support other than full diplomatic recognition. This excerpt shows the reason the USA became so supportive of Israel:
Whilst the help of the United States helped the establishment of Israel in 1947, this did not mean resounding support for the Jews’ military activities throughout the 60s and 70’s. Even within the American government itself, there was worry that the creation of the Israeli State would jeopardize their trade relations with the Middle East.
So much so was the United States’ desire to maintain diplomacy with the Arabs that in the middle of the 50’s they managed to dissuade the British-Franco-Israeli alliance from military intervention in Egypt by nationalising the Suez Canal, which had been controlled up until then by the English and French. Furthermore, despite the fact that during Kennedy’s government the first important trade of weapons to Israel was authorised, the relations between both nations rose to a commercial plane, thanks to the arms race.
It was not until the end of the 1967 six-day war, that the Americans started to value Israel’s military power and to see in it, a strategic ally. Thus during this conflict, caused amongst other things by Israel’s proclamation that is was going to divert the Jordan River in order to build an aqueduct, the Jews had impressively defeated the Arab coalition’s troops, allowing them to expand their territory to the Golan Heights, the West Bank (including Eastern Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula.
… Adrienne Weller summarises the mindset which Americans had towards their ally on the Middle East border.
“Alexander Haig, U.S. Secretary of State for the Reagan government, is one of the many officials who has recognised Israel’s value to the U.S. as a military power”, according to Haig himself: “It is the largest American aircraft in the world’, one which cannot be destroyed, and which carries not one U.S. soldier.” (When did the United States ally with Israel? By The Prisma; The Prisma; 2/17/13 22:29)
Here is some info on Israel’s early military help:
Jewish Attempts to Buy Arms and Czech Approval
The major Arab armies who invaded the newly born Jewish state were British led, equipped, trained and supplied. The Syrian army was French-equipped and had taken orders from the Vichy government in resisting the British led invasion of the country assisted by Australian troops, Free French units and Palestinian-Jewish volunteer forces in 1941. In their War of Independence, the Israelis depended on smuggled weapons from the West and Soviet and Czech weapons.
The leaders of the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine), already in the summer of 1947, intended to purchase arms and sent Dr. Moshe Sneh (the Chief of the European Branch of the Jewish Agency, a leading member of the centrist General Zionist Party who later moved far leftward and became head of the Israeli Communist Party) to Prague in order to improve Jewish defenses. He was surprised by the sympathy towards Zionism and by the interest in arms export on the side of the Czech Government. Sneh met with the Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Clementis, who succeeded the non-Communist and definitely pro-Zionist Jan Masaryk. Sneh and Clementis discussed the possibility of Czech arms provisions for the Jewish state and the Czechs gave their approval,
In January, 1948 Jewish representatives were sent by Ben-Gurion to meet with General Ludvik Svoboda, the Minister of National Defense, and sign the first contract for Czech military aid. Four transport routes were used to Palestine all via Communist countries; a) the Northern route: via Poland and the Baltic Sea, b) the Southern route: via Hungary, Yugoslavia and the Adriatic Sea, c) via Hungary, Romania and the Black Sea, d) by air, via Yugoslavia to Palestine.
Czech assistance to Israel's military strength comprised a) small arms, b) 84 airplanes –– the outdated Czech built Avia S.199s, Spitfires and Messerschmidts that played a major role in the demoralization of enemy troops; c) military training and technical maintenance. On January 7, 1949, the Israeli air-force, consisting of several Spitfires and Czech built Messerschmidt Bf-109 fighters (transferred secretly from Czech bases to Israel), shot down five British-piloted Spitfires flying for the Egyptian air-force over the Sinai desert causing a major diplomatic embarrassment for the British government. (Who did what for Israel in 1948? America did nothing; By Norman Berdichevsky; Sullivan.County.com; 8/4/10)
Next – French-Israel alliance:
The French-Israeli relationship began in the mid-1950s, when Israel became a major customer for the French arms industry. But the bond was not merely commercial: at the time France was trying to quash a rebellion in Algeria, and it shared with Israel a strategic interest in combating radical Arab nationalism. In 1956, France and Israel even fought together against Egypt in the Suez crisis.
The tacit alliance, championed by Israel’s deputy defense minister, Shimon Peres, deepened during the late ’50s and early ’60s through military cooperation and cultural exchanges. French technical assistance helped Israel get nuclear weapons, and France supplied the advanced military aircraft that became the backbone of the Israeli Air Force.
The relationship only grew warmer when Charles de Gaulle, the World War II hero, took over as French president in 1959. He recognized the historic justice of a Jewish “national home,” which he saw “as some compensation for suffering endured through long ages,” and he heaped praise on David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister, as one of the “greatest leaders in the West.”
The bilateral bonds ran outside the government, too, with strongly pro-Israel public opinion, both among French Jews and non-Jews. But with the end of the Algerian war in 1962, de Gaulle began mending France’s ties to the Arab world and the relationship came under strain. For a while, France tried to balance its relationships: Israeli officials were heartily welcomed in Paris, and de Gaulle continued to speak of Israel as “the ally and friend” of France.
This double game, however, ended when the Six-Day War in 1967 forced France to pick a side. In a shock to its Israeli allies, it chose the Arab states: despite aggressive moves by Egypt, France imposed a temporary arms embargo on the region — which mostly hurt Israel — and warned senior Israeli officials to avoid hostilities. (When Israel and France Broke Up; By GARY J. BASS; NYT; 3/31/10)
After Israel’s impressive victory in the Six-Day War in 1967, THEN the USA began to view Israel as a valued military ally that would complement American National Interests and National Security. If anything, Israel has been used by the American government, not the other way around.
Now, unless a blatant diplomatic error by Israel, the American government have a little difficulty in pulling away from Israel because a majority of American voters are quite enamored by the little David-Israel withstanding the gigantic Goliath-Jew-hating-Arab World. In this representative Republic members of Congress (Senate & House) are answerable to an Israel-loving American constituency.
Religious Jews have no desire past the ancient Kingdom of David. More Left Wing Israeli Jews simply want defensible borders from Jew-hating Muslims determined to exterminate them because of the idiotic Islamic Supremacist concept – once imperialistically conquered for Islam then it is always Islamic.
I understand the Left’s hatred of Neocons. For the most part Neocons are former Leftists that have become disgusted with the failures of Marxist/Socialist ideals that have led more tyranny than a pipedream utopia. Thus, I am certain the Left views a Neocon as a traitor.
I have a bit of a problem understanding any Conservative hatred of Neocons unless on is an old-fashioned pre-WWII isolationist Paleocon. A Paleocon can be quite intractable in a different kind of pipedream utopia that will never be realized as long as America is a military superpower with other nations desiring our protection from tyrannical military powers.
The biggest lesson Neocons have learned is that the nation-building paradigm fails when the culture has been brainwashed into a socio-political system that is antithetical to Western values and particularly antithetical to the way of life Americans have lived with based on the U.S. Constitution.
Prior to the emergence of Neoconservatism, nation-building proved quite successful with cultures that had a heritage with Western culture (Nazi Germany) or a culture that was more than willing to adapt to enough Western principles to be a viable Western style sovereign nation (Japan).
Nation-building will never work toward Western expectations among a people brainwashed for centuries with Islamic principles of governance as if that is a good society.
Unless a Neocon is full of intractable hubris, they have learned that lesson. Even so, the classic Neocon will still promote less government domestically and bigger government militarily as well as in Foreign Policy.
Below are some Neconservative basics that any American Patriot not a Paleocon or Leftist would find very acceptable. The basics are excerpted from Wikipedia and a pdf from the now defunct Neocon think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."
PNAC's first public act was to release a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997. The statement had 25 signers, including project members and outside supporters (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). It described the United States as the "world's pre-eminent power," and said that the nation faced a challenge to "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." In order to achieve this goal, the statement's signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of "political and economic freedom abroad." It said the United States should strengthen ties with its democratic allies, "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values," and preserve and extend "an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Calling for a "Reaganite" policy of "military strength and moral clarity," it concluded that PNAC's principles were necessary "if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power.
But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Edward I hope a response to my stand has actual documented facts more than anecdotal conjecture. As I said in the post “Disagreement on Conspiracy Theory Pt 1”:
“There are many Conspiracy Theories I concur with, yet many are simply beyond the believability scale especially when I know some facts that contradict a Conspiracy Theory accepted by way too many people.”
I cannot concur with the Conspiracies that you support as credible or factual.