Falsehoods and Facts about the Middle East Forum: A Top Ten List


Unsurprisingly, the Middle East Forum (MEF) has been the recipient of Fake News lies all based on the Multiculturalist accusation of Islamophobia. Evidently the lies have become so huge that the MEF has decided to answer those lies with a Top Ten List.

 

Below is an email alert introduction to that Top Ten List which I will follow with cross post of that list.

 

JRH 8/11/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

Falsehoods and Facts about the Middle East Forum: A Top Ten List

 

By Greg Roman

Sent 8/9/2017 3:22 PM

Sent by Middle East Forum

 

Dear Reader:

As the Middle East Forum’s reach and influence expands, so too does the flurry of ad hominem, distorted, and plainly false attacks on the organization, mostly from Islamists and the far Left.

Institutions leading this assault include the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), J Street, Jewish Voices for Peace, and most recently the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. George Soros’ Open Society Foundations has a special place in our hearts for funding anti-MEF research.

Our opponents attack us for different reasons. Islamist activists loathe our national security views, advancement of women’s rights, and efforts to protect freedoms of moderate Muslim authors, activists, and publishers. Israel-haters oppose our efforts to puncture Palestinian illusions. Academics want to discredit our efforts to improve Middle East studies in North America. America-haters can pretty much take their pick of reasons.

Regardless of their motives, they all draw on the same tired canards that we so often refuted on an ad hoc basis. To save the curious some legwork, we are publishing a list of the top ten falsehoods, refuting them all at once, and maybe once and for all. Please take a look.

Regards,

Gregg Roman
Director Middle East Forum

 

+++

Falsehoods and Facts about the Middle East Forum: A Top Ten List

 

August 9, 2017

Middle East Forum

 

The Middle East Forum (MEF) is the object of repeated falsehoods. To clear the record, here follows the top ten and our corrections.

 

Falsehood 1: The Middle East Forum is anti-Muslim, or “Islamophobic.”

 

False Statements

 

Center for American Progress: “The Middle East Forum is at the center of the Islamophobia network.”

 

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): Daniel Pipes is “considered by many Muslims to be America’s leading Islamophobe.”

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center: Daniel Pipes is “at the center of what is a large and evolving network of Islam-bashing activists.”

 

Fact 1: Far from being biased against Muslims, MEF challenges a radical ideology responsible for unfathomable Muslim suffering, and one which most Muslims reject. Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes has been emphasizing the distinction between Islamism and the Islamic religion – and between the “completely justified fear of Islamists and unjustified fear of all Muslims” – for decades.

 

The only people who maintain there is little or no distinction between detesting Islamism and detesting Muslims are Islamists themselves and fellow travelers of the sort quoted above. The “Islamophobia” accusations they level at MEF and others are designed to conflate Islamism and Islam, claiming an attack on one is an attack on the other.

 

This conflation also attempts to delegitimize non-Islamist Muslims working to free their faith from the grip of extremists, and it is no coincidence that Muslim reformers are often viciously attacked. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-left organization known for its often inaccurate claims, lists Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation alongside Mr. Pipes as an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

 

The SPLC has branded Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz as an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

 

A lot of money finances these allegations. The Center for American Progress, for example, received a $200,000 grant from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) to “research and track the activities” of the Middle East Forum and other NGOs working to combat the spread of radical Islam in America. The Brookings Institution’s recent focus on so-called “Islamophobia” in America likely has much to do with its decade-long partnership with Qatar, which provided it with a $14.8 million 4-year grant in 2013.

 

The latest organization to level the “Islamophobia” accusation at MEF is the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF), which lashed out after we revealed publicly that it had provided $330,524 to two extremist organizations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief. It turns out SVCF is getting paid too. According to its 990 form, the extremist International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) provided SVCF with $500,000 in “program assistance” in 2015.

 

Falsehood 2: Daniel Pipes regards Muslim organizations as subversive.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: “Pipes views almost every possible Muslim activity as subversive and threatening.”

 

Center for American Progress: “The alarmist rhetoric of Daniel Pipes … brand[s] Muslims, Sharia, and even the instruction of Arabic as affronts to American freedom.

 

Fact 2: In keeping with Mr. Pipes’ oft-repeated belief that “radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution,” MEF’s Islamist Watch project was established with a mission to “expose the Islamist organizations that currently dominate the debate, while identifying and promoting the work of moderate Muslims.”

 

MEF has a long history of supporting, employing, and collaborating with Muslims working to free their community and faith from the grip of Islamists.

 

See a list here of Muslim organizations the Forum regards as vital allies in this fight, some of whom it helps fund.

 

Falsehood 3: Pipes supports interning Muslims, akin to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: “The Southern Poverty Law Center notes that ‘Pipes endorsed the internment of Muslims in America,’ referencing WWII Japanese American concentration camps as a model to be used against Muslims today.”

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: “Daniel Pipes, president of Middle East Forum, has written in support of the model of Japanese internment camps in relation to American Muslims.”

 

Fact 3: This canard is a paradigmatic example of how charges initially levelled by one radical organization metastasize through repetition by others. The SPLC report misquoted at right by Jewish Voice for Peace actually states, “In 2004, Pipes endorsed the internment of ethnic Japanese in American prison camps in World War II and held that up as a model for dealing with Muslims today.”

 

But even this isn’t true. In 2005 an Islamist organization in Canada had to apologize and make a charitable donation to the Middle East Forum for making this claim.

 

The original article did not argue for internment camps as a model (a follow-up explaining how CAIR and others distorted Pipes’ position can be read here), but rather concluded with support for author Michelle Malkin’s thesis about threat profiling: “She correctly concludes that, especially in time of war, governments should take into account nationality, ethnicity, and religious affiliation in their homeland security policies.”

 

Falsehood 4: MEF is wrong to label CAIR as “terrorism-linked.”

 

Clockwise from top left: Randall (“Ismail”) Royer, Ghassan Elashi, Bassem Khafagi, Rabih Haddad, Nabil Sadoun, and Muthanna Al-Hanooti

 

Fact 4: Here are many reasons why MEF can reasonably describe CAIR as “terrorism-linked.”

 

  • CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.

 

  • During that trial, U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis concluded that, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR…with Hamas.”

 

  • In 2014, the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim ally of the United States, designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

 

 

  • CAIR itself implicitly acknowledged the truth when it settled a 2004 libel lawsuit against a group making this allegation called Anti-CAIR, with no apology, retraction, or removal of offending Internet materials.

 

Falsehood 5: CAIR, Islamic Relief, and other Muslim groups criticized by MEF are respectable civil rights organizations.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: “Contrary to the Middle East Forum’s smear campaign, CAIR is a nationally-recognized civil rights organization that has received praise from seventeen U.S. Senators and 85 U.S. Representatives from both sides of the political aisle.”

 

Fact 5: CAIR and Islamic Relief are focused on promoting social insularity and distrust of authorities among U.S. Muslims, not defending their civil rights. In fact, both groups frequently host and promote extremist speakers who advocate against civil rights as most Americans understand them.

 

Siraj Wahhaj, for example, preaches that homosexuality is a “disease” of society, that the punishment for adultery is death, and that Muslims shouldn’t have non-Muslim friends. Omar Suleiman has rationalized honor killings, telling women thinking of promiscuity that they could be killed by their fathers for “offending Allah.” Jamal Badawi has said that men have a right to beat their wives. Abdul Nasir Jangda has argued that they have the right to rape their wives.

 

Falsehood 6: CAIR and Islamic Relief have clean bills of health on links to terrorism from the federal government and from charity watchdogs.

 

False Statements

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief … are nonprofit organizations in good standing with federal agencies, and do not appear on any U.S. government list as having been tied to terrorism.”

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: “GuideStar reports … whether a nonprofit organization is identified as a ‘Specially Designated National’ on the Office of Foreign Asset Control’s list. In simpler terms, this is the list of U.S. organizations designated as having links to terrorist organizations. Neither CAIR nor Islamic Relief is on this list.”

 

Fact 7: MEF is a research institution that promotes American interests. Islamist Watch presents factual research on the influence and activity of non-violent U.S.-based Islamist groups and their leaders. Some oppose Israel, to be sure, but most are more focused on targeting women, homosexuals, and others.

 

Campus Watch researches, analyzes, and critiques the academic study of the Middle East. It argues against “analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students,” but it accepts divergent perspectives. Campus Watch recently published a favorable review of a lecture at the City University of New York (CUNY) by Sari Nusseibeh, a former senior PLO representative under Yasser Arafat whose views hardly qualify as pro-Israeli. A cursory examination of the project’s research articles demonstrates that the characterization of Campus Watch as Israel-centered is false. As for the “dossiers,” CW took down those initial eight profiles 15 years ago in favor of an institution-focused survey method.

 

Falsehood 8: Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Forum have funded the political campaigns of Dutch right-wing leader Geert Wilders.

 

False Statements

 

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes are reported to have put some $150,000 of foundation money into his campaign.”

 

Fact 8: Not a penny from Daniel Pipes or the Middle East Forum has gone to Wilders personally, his political party, or his campaign.

 

MEF did provide a grant to pay legal bills in Mr. Wilders’ trial over his film on radical Islam.

 

As the New York Times notes: “the funds that were sent to Geert Wilders were to help him in his legal cases and were not political donations.”

 

Falsehood 9: Campus Watch seeks to stifle academic freedom.

 

False Statements

 

CAIR: Campus Watch [is] part of a larger anti-intellectual campaign aimed at regulating discourse on the Middle East.

 

Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, The Nation: Campus Watch is “neo-McCarthyite” and part of the “New McCarthyism” that seeks to silence anyone with whom it disagrees.

 

Fact 9: Campus Watch critiques contemporary Middle East studies, which years ago jettisoned rigorous scholarship and teaching for politicized, biased, and inferior work. There is nothing wrong with scrutinizing and criticizing academic research.

 

No cliché is more hackneyed, no charge intellectually lazier than that CW engages in “McCarthyism” (see right). Unlike the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Campus Watch—a private organization—neither possesses nor seeks the ability to silence or persecute anyone.

 

Only in the fevered imaginations of some professors do rigorous critiques by outsiders equate with an anti-Communist witch-hunt.

 

Falsehood 10: Daniel Pipes has lost the support of his former academic colleagues

 

False Statements

 

Al Jazeera [interviewing a spokesman from the Center for American Progress]: Pipes has a “scholarly background, but … he has lost the support of many of the people he used to work with, and associate with, when he was a well-respected scholar.”

 

Fact 10: Mr. Pipes never stopped being a “well-respected scholar” When President George W. Bush nominated him to the board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2003, 30 academics signed a letter in support of the appointment. For a more recent example, Professor Edward Alexander of the University of Washington lavished praise in 2016 on Pipes’ Nothing Abides.

 

That said, it is true that a radicalized academia condemns Pipes and the Forum for their mainstream outlook – and especially for their role in exposing the failure of Middle East studies.

_________________

©1994-2017 The Middle East Forum  

 

MEF About Page

 

With roots going back to 1990, the Middle East Forum has been an independent tax-exempt 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization based in Philadelphia since 1994.

 

Mission

 

The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats.

 

The Forum sees the region — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, corruption, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, we urge bold measures to protect Americans and their allies.

 

In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with the great advances of anarchy.

 

At home, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, activists, and publishers; and works to improve Middle East studies.

 

Methods

 

The Middle East Forum realizes its goals through three main mechanisms:

 

  • Intellectual: The Forum provides context, insights, and policy recommendations through the Middle East Quarterly, staff writings, public lectures, radio and television appearances, and conference calls (see below for details).

 

  • Operational: The Forum exerts an active influence through its projects, including Campus Watch, Islamist Watch, Legal Project, Washington Project, Apartheid Monitor, and Shillman/Ginsburg Writing Fellowship Program (see below for details).

 

  • Philanthropic: The Forum annually distributes US$1.5 million in earmarked donations through its Education Fund, helping researchers, writers, investigators, and activists around the world.

 

Activities

 

 

MEForum.org (this website) hosts a complete archive of Middle East Quarterly articles; articles by MEF staff; audio recordings and summary accounts of guest lectures and conference calls; and MEF alerts for Forum events, media appearances, and news releases.

 

Middle East Quarterly, published since 1994 and edited by Efraim Karsh, it is the only scholarly journal on the Middle East consistent with mainstream American views. Delivering timely analyses, cutting-edge information, and sound policy initiatives, it serves as a valuable resource for policymakers and opinion-shapers.

 

Public Outreach. Television and radio rely on Forum specialists, who appear on virtually all the major American over-the-air and cable news programs, plus stations around the globe. MEF staff also brief ranking officials of the U.S. government, testify before Congress, and conduct studies for executive branch agencies.

 

READ ENTIRETY

 

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 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.

 

Advertisement

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)

 

SEE ALSO Wikipedia – France-Israel Relations: 1940s – 1960s

 

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)

 

Wikipedia on Project for the New American Century

Excerpts

 

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.

 

 

Statement of Principles

 

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]

 

PNAC—–Statement of Principles

 

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.

 

25 SIGNATORIES

 

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

Please Support NCCR