Sunday, April 30, 2017

New Conservative News Network?

John R. Houk
© April 30, 2017

Yesterday I posted my concerns that Fox News was moving leftward on the political spectrum. Today I discovered that typically Left oriented Mediaite broke the story that Conservative media moguls are mulling over the idea of beginning an alternative Conservative News Network due to the Murdoch boys primping Fox toward the Left.

Then in trying some confirmation to Mediaite I ran into a Freedom Outpost article claiming there is ample proof that Bill O’Reilly’s termination from Fox News was a smear campaign from uber-Left media outlet Media Matters:

Liberals everywhere are rejoicing at the latest news that their TV boogeyman, Bill O’Reilly has been forced out of Fox News, his longtime home, for alleged sexual harassment. Those on the left shouldn’t be too quick to cheer however; the only reason these allegations are surfacing is because of a targeted smear campaign by politically-linked parties, further jeopardizing the independence of the media. Or perhaps they just don’t care?

Right Wing News shows the evidence that the George Soros-funded group Media Matters was behind the smear campaign against O’Reilly. The smoking gun was an email from the Bonner Group, a leftist fundraising Super PAC for Hillary Clinton, which openly thanked Media Matters for the exposé. Whether O’Reilly is guilty or not, this is further proof of the tactics the globalists will resort to in order to silence dissenting media opinions. Who’s next on their list?

Are Fox News execs about to hand over the scalp of their ratings king to the smear group Media Matters? (UPDATE: Yes.)

On Wednesday, talk radio host Glenn Beck tweeted an email from the Bonner Group, a leftist fundraising firm that works for Media Matters.

The April 13 email is an invitation to join a briefing call on Media Matters’ campaign against the network’s biggest star.

“Thanks to Media Matters, O’Reilly and  READ ENTIRETY (Did George Soros Orchestrate the Firing of Bill O'Reilly from Fox News? By MICHAEL DEPINTO; Freedom Outpost; 4/24/17)

If I didn’t receive email alerts from Liberty Headlines, I would never have heard (at least at this point) that an alternative Conservative News network might be in the future. The Independent Sentinel uses Mediaite as a source, but does add this:

Axios claims he’s one of the people meeting with “high-powered television executives and potential funders” to talk about a new network.

Roger Ailes is said to be involved in the talks.

The “pitch is that the network could immediately reach at least 85 million homes,” Mediaite writes.

There are certainly plenty of conservative powerhouses – some out of work – to pick from that could star on a new network. They might even be able to lure some executives away. (Serious Discussions of a New Right-Leaning Network Are Taking Place – Updated; By S. Noble; Independent Sentinel; 4/29/17)

Here is the Mediaite story.

JRH 4/30/17

April 28th, 2017 10:45 am

On the heels of major shakeups at the Fox News Network, an alternative conservative network is being actively discussed amongst conservative fat cats.

A well-placed source close to the proposal tells Mediaite that serious discussions are underway to create an alternative conservative cable network on the belief that the Fox News Network is moving too far to the left. The source, who is engaged in the talks, says a meeting is planned for today with two prominent high-powered television executives, some underperforming conservative networks and people who have an interest and the ability to fund a new network.

The potential aim? Putting “the old band” back together. There are certainly plenty of (out-of-work?) conservative powerhouses to pick from that could star on a new network, and perhaps even some executives from within Fox News who might be lured by the new opportunity. Could the new channel include stars like the ousted Bill O’Reilly, who didn’t waste much time hitting the podcast waves after he was fired amid a sexual harassment scandal? Could Tomi Lahren, the conservative mega star, who was recently sidelined at The Blaze also take on a prominent role? The exact “who” won’t be clear until the deal is more defined but the source says the pitch is that the network could immediately reach at least 85 million homes.

This news comes on the heels of a long profile in last weekend’s New York Times which paints a picture of a changing Fox News Network with Murdoch’s sons, James and Lachlan, CEO and co-chairman of parent company 21st Century Fox, at the helm. The piece struck fear into the minds of some Fox News’ hardcore conservatives with talk of the sons wanting to rid the company “of the old-guard culture on which their father built his empire” and bringing “a warmer and fuzzier workplace” that would move away from an “anti-politically correct environment.”

On Thursday, New York Magazine‘s Gabe Sherman, a constant thorn in the side of Fox News, reported that “sweeping management changes” may be coming to the network as well. Sherman’s report cited three anonymous sources that contend that the network’s co-President Bill Shine recently asked the Murdoch sons to release a statement in support of him amid the roiling lawsuits and scandals. Both Fox News and 21 Century Fox have vigorously denied that Shine made such a request but the report by Sherman prompted a rather mysterious tweet about the “total end of the FNC as we know it” by the network’s biggest remaining star, Sean Hannity:

Gäbe i pray this is NOT true because if it is, that's the total end of the FNC as we know it. Done. Best Sean

“I just don’t see Fox News and Sean having a long relationship. If Sean becomes available, you have 100 percent turnover in primetime and a huge opportunity,” a television executive, who didn’t want to be identified, but is involved in some of the talks, told Mediaite.

“I’m working on it (the new conservative channel) hot and heavy,” the source said. “It’s live, it’s real.” The new channel could come to fruition within the next 10 to 12 months, the executive said.

It is no surprise that a savvy investor would see the turmoil within Fox News as a major opportunity. As The Times piece noted, analysts estimate that Fox News produced 25 percent of 21st Century Fox’s operating income last year or a whopping $6.6 billion. Conservative news remains a cash cow for investors, but the media landscape is quickly changing with younger viewers “cutting the cord” and turning to alternative over-the-top live streaming platforms like Hulu, Amazon, Roku and YouTube TV. Could a conservative alternative channel with some big names have an edge on the 20-year-old conservative network? Stay tuned. Our source is convinced it can happen.

Update 12:58 p.m: This article has been updated with a quote from a television executive who is involved in the talks.

New Conservative News Network?
John R. Houk
© April 30, 2017
EXCLUSIVE: Advanced Talks Underway For New Conservative Network Amid Fears Fox News Moving Too Far Left

© 2017 Mediaite, LLC

Saturday, April 29, 2017

The New Murdoch Left

John R. Houk
© April 29, 2017

I am a Fox News addict. It has not escaped my notice that Fox News has gone through a major shake-up. The shake-up really began with Gretchen Carlson exposing sexual harassment as an old boy culture pervasive at Fox. The now fairly documented sexual harassment culture on my Conservative channel was both disturbing and saddening.

Carlson’s successes have brought out into the public a slew of Fox News employees doing some finger-pointing. The finger-pointing has resulted in the revamping of the Fox News line-up largely with the demise with news icon Bill O’Reilly.

I suspect some of the finger-pointing has devolved into false accusations for a payday on the backs of actual victims. I wasn’t there ergo, all I have are suspicions of actual and mythological victimhood accusations.

With the demise of Roger Ailes as the one-time head of Fox News, I have noticed the undesirable lurch to the Left. Many have noticed this political spectrum shift before me, but I was unwilling to concur. It is now obvious.

Still, Fox News is more Conservative than the other news networks that seem more like Leftist propaganda machines than honest reporters of the news. Nonetheless, the Fox News lurch to the Left suggests another future outright Leftist propaganda machine coming soon to America’s news landscape.

The blame for Fox’s deviation Left seems to upon owner Rupert Murdoch’s sons – James and Lachlan Murdoch.

Pamela Geller has found the insights of Cliff Kincaid on the seeming impending death of a Conservative Fox News.

JRH 4/29/17
The Left-Wing Takeover of Fox News

April 28, 2017

Many of us have seen this coming for a long time. The more powerful Fox became (on the backs of the right), the more to Fox moved to the left.

Roger Ailes should never have been forced to resign, nor Bill O’Reilly (even though I am not a fan). Rupert Murdoch’s two silver-spooned stooges, James Murdoch (Tweedledee) and Lachlan Murdoch (Tweedledum) are systematically dismantling the once-great network. And like all true leftists, they are tone deaf to the cacophony of complaints.

The cringe-worthy Geraldo Rivera, Juan Williams, Martha McCallum, Bob Beckel (!), why not Tomi Lahren? . I turned it off after the election. The only place for Conservatives to get our news is online.

There is a great opportunity for a right-of-center news channel. It seems inevitable. And so we wait the second coming of a conservative network, where the work of my colleagues and I will have a home.

Serial plagiarists such as Fareed Zakaria are just as powerful as ever on CNN, but a hint of indiscretion, and Fox cuts you loose. We still have Hannity. But for how long? Only Rupert knows. Once Rupert goes, it’s over.


By Cliff Kincaid, April 28,

When Bill O’Reilly left Fox News he declared, “I am very confident the truth will come out and when it does I don’t know if you are going to be surprised, but I think you are going to be shaken as I am.” Some observers think he was referring not to the sexual harassment allegations against him, but to behind-the-scenes maneuvers by one of Rupert Murdoch’s sons, James, and his very liberal wife, Kathryn. Her bio says, “Between 2007-2011, Ms. Murdoch served as Director of Strategy & Communications for the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) where she also managed CCI ‘s partnership with Microsoft in the development of a global greenhouse gas emissions tracking software.”

In short, she is a globalist insider who sees the green hysteria as a viable way to control people and their lifestyles.

We warned back in 2007 in our column, “Rupert Murdoch Picks Liberal Son as Successor,” that James Murdoch was maneuvering to take control of Fox News. We also noted that James Murdoch “buys into global warming hysteria,” and that his liberal philosophy on environmental and other matters “could become the party line” of the Fox News Channel.

It turns out that his wife is more of an environmental zealot than he is.

Accuracy in Media had attended the annual meeting of the Fox News parent company, raising concern about James Murdoch’s increasing influence in the company and his attacks on conservative groups, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). He wrote an article for the Guardian attacking CEI for dispensing “inaccurate propaganda” about the global warming issue.

Of course, many conservatives regard the theory of man-made global warming as a hoax and a means by which government at many levels hopes to control, regulate and tax the use of natural resources.

Referring to the alleged effects of global warming, now called climate change, James Murdoch said, “We can have an enormous impact if we encourage our customers to make simple, effective changes in their lifestyles.”

That’s easy for James and Kathryn Murdoch to say; he is the heir to a multi-billion dollar fortune. “The Murdoch fortune now stands at around $14 billion,” noted the publication Inside Philanthropy in 2015. “Because Rupert seems to have zero interest in harnessing this wealth to philanthropy, that challenge will fall to his kids.”

One of the “focus areas” of the Murdochs’ Quadrivium Foundation is “natural resources.” But rather than exploit them for the good of humanity, the foundation supports “innovation” in their use. This is code, as James Murdoch suggested in his Guardian article, for restricting the economic lifestyle choices of consumers.

A link from their foundation directs people to the webpage of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and an advertisement denouncing President Trump for “failing the environment.” Page 25 of the EDF annual report lists “Kathryn Murdoch, President, Quadrivium Foundation,” as a member of the Board of Directors. “At the end of fiscal 2016,” the report states, “EDF’s net assets stood at $217 million, providing a strong financial foundation as we pursue our ambitious environmental goals.”

With the Murdoch billions behind them, those “goals,” which include what the United Nations calls a new “economic development model” to replace global capitalism, could become a reality.

That was the goal, at least, until Donald Trump became president and, as AIM’s Roger Aronoff recently noted, indicated his determination to confront the global “climate change agenda.”

The Gateway Pundit website notes that Kathryn Murdoch regularly trashes Trump on Twitter. Indeed, her Twitter feed goes after many different conservative personalities and policies of all kinds. A collection of her most significant Tweets includes attacks on Trump aide Steve Bannon, and despondency over Trump’s election victory. On the other hand, she praised Fox News personality Shepard Smith for criticizing Trump.

Her Tweets have included messages such as:

§  A vote for Trump is a vote for climate catastrophe.

§  Can we impeach a candidate? Seriously.

§  Happy to see this on Fox News. The final argument for Hillary Clinton, based on 3 indisputable facts.

The latter was a reference to a Lanny Davis pro-Hillary article on the Fox News website.

When her husband and his brother Lachlan move to the left, she is quick to retweet those comments, such as when they sent a letter declaring, “We deeply value diversity and believe immigration an essential part of America’s strength.” The letter was intended as a rebuff to President Trump’s effort to restrict the entry into the U.S. of illegal aliens and Islamic terrorists.

Despite the Murdochs’ disdain for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the likelihood that the group will receive less and less coverage from Fox News, its staffers are demonstrating significant clout with the new Trump administration. In regard to Trump’s promise during the campaign to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, The Washington Times reports that Trump’s top advisers have received a unique proposal from CEI, arguing that the agreement be declared a treaty and sent to the Senate to be killed.

CEI’s interesting proposal would rectify former President Obama’s unconstitutional decision to make the Paris accord into an executive agreement, without the need for Congressional input or approval. By declaring it to be a treaty and sending it to the Senate, where it is not likely to get the necessary two-thirds vote for ratification, Trump could force lawmakers to take a stand on what CEI calls its demands for “regulations that will force Americans to pay more and more for energy.”

CEI’s message to Trump is, “Don’t listen to the Swamp. Please keep your campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the U.N. Paris Climate Treaty and send it to the Senate for a vote.”

The Fox News coverage of this showdown will be another indication of the pull that James and Kathryn Murdoch are starting to exert over the once “conservative” news channel.

The New Murdoch Left
John R. Houk
© April 29, 2017
Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

Friday, April 28, 2017

Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrate America

Muslim Brotherhood Motto

In an email alert, the Clarion Project has sent a link to Part 13 of their video series The Third Jihad. Take some time and educate yourself on the desires of activist Muslims against your life – to a Muslim, a kafir. The more you know, the better you can protect yourself.

Below is the email from the Clarion Project which includes the video of Part 13 entitled “The Third Jihad - Muslim Brotherhood”. There also a link to a page you can access the other 12 parts.

JRH 4/28/17
Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrate America

From The Clarion Team
Sent 4/27/2017 9:04 PM

We are excited to send you an advance copy of episode 13 of our film series The Third Jihad.

In this episode, Clarion Project exposes numerous groups such as CAIR, ISNA and the Muslim Students Association that would not condemn 9/11, Hamas and Hezbollah. Their parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood, is responsible for global terror and nurturing many well known terror organizations.

Posted by Clarion Project
Published on Apr 19, 2017

In episode 13 of The Third Jihad, Clarion Project exposes numerous groups such as CAIR, ISNA and the Muslim Students Association that would not condemn 9/11, Hamas and Hezbolla. Their parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood, is responsible for global terror and nurturing many well known terror organizations.

Previous episodes can be seen here.

Survey: Your support is very important to us and we wanted to know if you could kindly complete this survey.

It's one question and will take less than a minute.

Thanks for your support,

The Clarion Team 
Copyright © 2017 Clarion Project, All rights reserved.

About Clarion Project

Clarion Project is a non-profit organization that educates the public about the dangers of radical Islam.

Clarion’s award-winning films, seen by more than 85-million people, expose how radical Islamists use terrorism, murder, subjugation of women, indoctrination of children, religious persecution, genocide of minorities, widespread human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation and cultural jihad — to threaten the West.

The web site delivers news, expert analysis, videos, and unique perspectives about radical Islam, while giving a platform to moderate Muslims and human rights activists to speak out against extremism.

Clarion Project engages in grassroots activism to achieve its goals.
Clarion Project is a registered 501(c)(3) organization based in Washington, D.C.

New to Clarion Project? Start here.


Our experts are available to READ THE REST

Erroneous Vilification of Neocons & Zionists

John R. Houk
© April 28, 2017

The link’s title: “The Satanists who destroyed the Middle East are back in Washington”. The article is a hit piece against Neocons and Israel. Why? Prominent Neocons got caught passing classified info to Israel pertaining to the USA’s plans toward Iran’s nuclear program under the Bush Administration.

Jonas E. Alexis caption for Wolfowitz: Satanist Paul Wolfowitz

I do not find too much to condemn since I am a Christian Zionist as far as motive goes. President Bush took zero action to hamper Iran nuke aspirations in his lame duck year before the end of his second term in Office. And hindsight tells us that President Obama did nothing either other than a fake deal that enabled Iran to weaponize nukes after a period of time long after Obama would be gone from the geopolitical scene.

The Neocon accused had pure motives yet broke the law and were prosecuted. The accused received light sentences obviously because there was little damage to American National Security. The largest damage was knowing how Bush was going to deal with Iran which was do NOTHING. And Israel still withheld military action against Iran similar to their actions against Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plant at Osirak.

Paul Wolfowitz was not even prosecuted and went on to lead the World Bank until lust busted him for nepotism toward his girlfriend. Wolfowitz resigned from the World Bank and again not prosecuted. (See HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.)

Being a Neocon and a Zionist Jew are not crimes, particularly when the politics is Conservative rather than Marxist. Sadly, many Jewish Zionists are secular and Marxist oriented abandoning the faith of their fathers. Abandoning the Jewish faith is what has troubled Jews since Moses first led the Hebrew tribes out of Egyptian captivity. Jews have paid a price for abandoning God every time. But that is a different blog post.

Vilifying Wolfowitz for being a Neocon and a pro-Israel Zionist smacks of the kind of Antisemitism that falsely accuses all Jews of world domination ala the fake Protocols of Zion.

It is a little rough to call Wolfowitz a Satanist just because of being a Neocon that put America first and desired to attack Iraq out of protecting U.S. National Interests.

Dems, Republicans, Conservatives & Leftists all read the America (& foreign) Intelligence reports that concluded crazy Saddam Hussein was developing nukes and chem weapons. The Intelligence proved exaggerated (not completely wrong).

After the Iraq war about 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium were secretly removed by the U.S. from Iraq and transported to Canada. Most Leftist pundits and fact checkers will tell you that the yellowcake had been sitting around in containers since before 1991 and the 1st Gulf War. Ergo, Saddam Hussein’s massive amount of yellowcake had not been weaponized.

The Leftist denial largely came forth because they didn’t want on their face over the anti-Bush slogan: “Bush lied, people died.”

Check this out the process to weaponize yellowcake:

The power of the atomic nucleus can be harnessed in one of two ways: Fusion, when two hydrogen atoms fuse together, and fission, when the nuclei of larger atoms are split open. Both release tremendous amounts of energy, and both are used in nuclear weapons. In nuclear energy plants, scientists rely on nuclear fission. Plants split open molecules of highly enriched Uranium. Uranium ore is found in the Earth's crust and mined in Canada, Australia, Niger, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Namibia. In order to get it to become "highly enriched", it has to be processed, and this is where complicated chemistry and physics come into play. First it's made into "yellow cake" uranium through a number of chemical reactions, and then it's centrifuged until the final fuel is at least 5 percent U235 and 95 percent U238. This highly radioactive combination of the two uranium isotopes is extruded into tiny ceramic pellets which are embedded into metal rods.

The rods are placed into the core of a nuclear reactor, which is where the fission takes place within a highly controlled containment structure. (How Uranium Becomes Nuclear Fuel; By TRACE DOMINGUEZ;; 5/2/15)

Here is a simpler example of weaponizing yellowcake:

1 Uranium ore The mildly radioactive ore is mined from underground or open cast deposits. Iran has mines at Gchine on the Persian Gulf and at Saghand, in the middle of the country.

2 Yellowcake When ore comes out of the ground it can be less than 1% uranium oxide. Uranium oxide is leached out of the ore with strong acids or alkaline solutions and dried to 'yellowcake', which is more than 80% uranium oxide. Iran has mastered this process.

3 Conversion Yellowcake is processed into a gas, uranium hexafluoride. Iran's conversion plant is at Isfahan.

4 Enrichment Uranium hexafluoride can be fed into centrifuges which separate out the most fissile uranium isotope U-235. Low enriched uranium for civilian reactors has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235. 'Weapons-grade' uranium is 90% enriched.

5 Fuel fabrication The uranium hexafluoride can be converted back to uranium oxide, which is pressed and baked into pellets. The pellets are put in metal rods, which are used in a reactor. Iran has yet to master this stage.

6 Reactor The fission of U-235 produces energy which heats water into steam that drives turbines. Iran has a research reactor in Tehran and an industrial-scale one at Bushehr.

7 Reprocessing Uranium and plutonium can be removed from the spent fuel, and reused. The plutonium can also be used to make weapons. (Weapons-grade uranium process explained; By Julian Borger; The Guardian; 12/5/10)

Saddam Hussein the means to weaponize nukes but appears not the patience for the complicated process to take place. The world can thank Israel for hampering that process. Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plant:

Thirty-five years after Operation Opera – the Israeli air attack that destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, retired IAF officers and Mossad agents revealed hitherto unknown details of the operation on Friday.

In an exposé aired on Channel 10, Col. (Ret.) Ze’ev Raz, who led the June 7, 1981 raid, said that  (35 years on, IAF pilots recall daring mission to bomb Saddam’s nuke reactor; By TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF; Times of Israel; 6/4/16 6:34 am)

The only way for Saddam Hussein to weaponize his yellowcake is with a little help from a potential ally – hmm like Russia.

Speaking of Russia and Iraq. It was a proven fact that Saddam Hussein has a very active chemical weapons program.

Discover The Networks (DTN) has a detailed account of the mystery of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons ranging from the exaggerated intelligence reports that inspired President G.W. Bush to invade Iraq through about 2006 when actual chemical weapon cache was located in Iraq. Again, the Left has downplayed chemical weapons discovery as old or defective, but I do not completely buy it. Here are the last few paragraphs of the DTN report:

Eventually, Wurmser said, Sunni insurgent groups did gain access to the shells in 2005. “There were to my memory at least two attacks on our soldiers using chemical weapons-rigged shells as [improvised explosive devices]. Fortunately, they were ineffectively weaponized and soldiers were wounded but not killed.”

Wurmser, however, grew more frustrated over time. “After waiting a year—during which we asked that the source of the batches be traced and followed to the location where the shells were being retrieved—we continued to see the trickle, but then discovered nobody was making any effort to track the source to the location of retrieval,” he said. “Instead, we were continuing to try to buy up some of the stuff in the market.”

After the U.S. found thousands of the old chemical-weapons shells, Wurmser and others at one point argued that they had an obligation to declare the stocks of chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention and destroy them. The United States was, after all, the occupier of Iraq and had assumed the country’s sovereign responsibilities as a signatory to the convention.

“It was all for nothing; Rove wanted the issue buried,” Wurmser said. (WMD: PRE- AND POST-INVASION INTELLIGENCE; DTN)

At least pertaining to Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons, I find this Conspiracy Theory very credible:

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein’s weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

“The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units,” Mr. Shaw said. “Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units.”

Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.

Most of Saddam’s most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.

The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam’s weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.

The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment.

The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam’s government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq’s Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.

The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.

The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.

Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a “redoubt” in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.

The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.

Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.

“Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border,” the defense official said.

Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.

Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam’s minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.

The Russian “spetsnaz” or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.

Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.

The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military “plastic” high explosive.

Under the failed Neocon paradigm of nation-building to transform a despotic nation into a nation of laws, in which citizens were able to choose between war or the prosperity of a Western economy, would benefit U.S. National Interests.

The reason the paradigm failed in Iraq (& for the most part Afghanistan), is Islam. Islamic theopolitical brainwashing has existed for several centuries. Islamic brainwashing washed the Christian ethics that dominated the Middle East prior to Islamic imperialism that began in the late 600s AD.

Such brainwashing would take another several centuries of deprogramming to eliminate the violent and intolerant social structure of Islam. Iraq was a learning experience. Only nations amenable to Western principles would ever successfully be molded (Germany & Japan).

Calling Neocons evil merely because nation-building among Muslim nations is quite erroneous! Equally erroneous is vilifying Neocons for being pro-Israel as if being a Conservative Zionist is evil.

I am not pleased with Zionist that have a Marxist slant. Those Zionists are leading Israel to destruction much like the American Left is leading America to destruction. The curse is Marxist-Communism and not Neoconservatism or Zionism.

JRH 4/28/17

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Trump Profits, Deep State, Jews Run America & Neocons

John R. Houk
© April 27, 2017

I have a bit of a disagreement with Edward Abbey over credible and not credible Conspiracy Theories. Here is the comment he left to the post “Disagreement on Conspiracy Theory Pt 1”:

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.

Interestingly MBFC said this about the Trump profiting from Raytheon according to a Bill Palmer article dated 4/7/17:

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 PrismaThe 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;; 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[1][2][3] 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.[4][5] PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[6] 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."[7]

The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006;[19] it was replaced by a new think-tank named the Foreign Policy Initiative, co-founded by Kristol and Kagan in 2009.

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."[5]

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.

JRH 4/27/17