Pilot Shortage: Declaring the USAF a Disaster Area

This entire article is spot on, and I will address a few parts of it, but this part hits especially close to home because I know firsthand that it is already taking place.

“An internal memo obtained by John Q. Public clearly states how bad the crisis has become and seems to point towards the possibility of lowering standards to help solve it. Such a move woud (sic) not only put national security at risk but it also puts other aircrews in danger that have to fly alongside sub-par individuals.”

Pilot training in the Air Force (and military in general) is designed like a Bell curve. Given limited time and resources, the military must have trainees with a minimum level of ability and aptitude who can learn tasks to a specified level of competency within an allotted time. If you fall more than one standard deviation left of the top of the curve as indicated by inability to meet syllabus requirements within the allotted amount of training sorties, you require more time and resources than Air Force can afford to allot to training you, and you have shown that you are not who the Air Force needs to fill their cockpits. It is not a personal reflection on the individual. It is just a reality that must be understood and applied in order for the Air Force to be the most capable it can be in performing its part of the mission of defending America.

But the sad truth is that shortcuts in training have been occurring for a LONG time, specifically to increase the numbers of trainees who make it through the pipeline to fill cockpits, regardless of the quality of that trainee. Why? Several reasons. One of the biggest is pilot training bases that were closed rashly, reducing capacity. None of our political class of Air Force “leaders” will admit that we cut too deeply. When faced with the consequences of those decisions, rather than reversing them, and/or lobbying congress to reverse them, they try to show what stellar leaders they are by burning the candle at both ends to get short term results at the expense of long term security. They increase ops tempo, burning out a shrinking pool of manpower at an increasing rate. The ops tempo wears out airplanes and equipment at a faster rate resulting in declining mission capable rates as we are seeing now. All for performance report “bullets” that make them look good on paper, but ignore reality. As the standard becomes more difficult, or even impossible to achieve because of the declining resources and manpower, the only answer left to bureaucratic “leaders” who will not address the real problems is to simply quietly lower the standards. Again, to make themselves look good in the short term.

Back when we had enough pilot training bases, enough training airplanes, and enough instructors to do the job, large numbers of trainees were brought in, run through the mill, and around 50% were found to be short of the standards and were eliminated. But even with such high attrition, cockpits were filled, and the mission was accomplished with the most capable and qualified pilots available. Did a few rotten apples get through? Sure. There are always a few. However, the standards were much higher, were more thoroughly enforced, and fewer people who didn’t truly meet standards managed to get through. As bases were closed, and the instructor force began shrinking, it became evident that holding trainees to the same standard while getting the same number trained pilots was impossible. So the answer has been over time a steadily lowering bar that must be hurdled to get wings. When the requirement to fly a straight in approach to a “good” level in an early block of training was resulting in too many “hooks,” the syllabus was changed to require only a “fair” on the maneuver. When large numbers of students bust their midphase checkride resulting in several ineffective sorties, check pilots are “leaned on” to have a bigger picture. When IPs, flight commanders, ops officers, and squadron commanders who actually trained a student universally agree that a student being sent to the wing commander for elimination doesn’t have what it takes, and the wing commander keeps re-instating these students, it sends a direct message that the wing commander does not trust is people. It also short circuits what is left of the quality control mechanism in the syllabus.

The article does a very good job of touching on the many issues affecting pilot retention. The bottom line here is that the highly politicized senior “leadership” doesn’t seem to have any idea of what to about it. Instead of shifting focus and resources to retaining experienced pilots, and training new ones to high standards, we see the Air Force being turned into a liberal college campus where the force is being divided into disparate factions. The politically appointed “leadership” is failing miserably at playing an already bad hand dealt them by congress. They have hit rock bottom and continue to dig.

+

---

---

The USAF’s Pilot Shortage Has Reached Disastrous Levels

The Air Force is falling apart.

By Tyler RogowayJune 2, 2016

 

A shrinking and rapidly aging aircraft fleet. An underperforming, “bet it all” fighter program that is grossly over budget and many years behind schedule. A tactical air plan that will be insolvent in just five years. A culture that is laughably slow at adapting to the unmanned aircraft revolution, and a totally irrational vendetta towards the most effective tactical platform it has to fight ISIS, the A-10 Warthog. These are just a handful of the USAF’s many problems.

Now, you can add a pilot shortage that has quietly escalated to near dire proportions to the top of the list.

We’re training the Taliban to kill us — and take back Afghanistan

Under pressure from President Obama, the military rushed to recruit local Afghans to stand up a national army and police ahead of his hasty year-end troop withdrawal. To process some 7,000 new recruits each month, corners were cut on background checks, allowing insurgents and terrorists to fill the ranks of the now-350,000-member security force.

At the same time, the Pentagon allowed the Afghan government to take over and empty US prisons of Taliban and other terrorists as part of a mass amnesty program. It also funded a terrorist “reintegration” program that pays Taliban fighters to surrender and join the government…

US military intelligence now fear as much as 25% of Afghan security forces are Taliban or al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers, which means we may be arming and training an army of some 87,500 enemy infiltrators with easy access to US personnel and intelligence…

Thirteen years after toppling them, we’re training the Taliban to retake Afghanistan.

---

By Paul Sperry

August 9, 2014 | 8:12pm

The assassination of an American general by a Taliban terrorist posing as an Afghan soldier exposes the lunacy of the administration’s Afghanistan strategy.

Under pressure from President Obama, the military rushed to recruit local Afghans to stand up a national army and police ahead of his hasty year-end troop withdrawal. To process some 7,000 new recruits each month, corners were cut on background checks, allowing insurgents and terrorists to fill the ranks of the now-350,000-member security force.

At the same time, the Pentagon allowed the Afghan government to take over and empty US prisons of Taliban and other terrorists as part of a mass amnesty program. It also funded a terrorist “reintegration” program that pays Taliban fighters to surrender and join the government.

More shocking, the two programs feed a recruiting pipeline for Afghan security forces whom US troops are training to take over for them, further endangering them to insider attacks and jeopardizing our mission there.

US military intelligence now fear as much as 25% of Afghan security forces are Taliban or al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers, which means we may be arming and training an army of some 87,500 enemy infiltrators with easy access to US personnel and intelligence. The massive infiltration puts the entire Afghanistan exit strategy at risk. The compromised Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) takes over the country’s security on Jan. 1, 2015.

Thirteen years after toppling them, we’re training the Taliban to retake Afghanistan.

Soldiers Donating To Tea Party Now Face Punishment Under The Uniform Code Of Military Justice?

Military, REMEMBER YOUR OATH. Now is the time to act on it. If you are a Christian or support that faith (which doesn’t advocate the harm of others), and/or you support an organization whose mission is the support of very same Constitution which our military swore an oath to protect and defend, you are now being classified as an enemy of America. The actual enemy of America is anyone who would have you believe this drivel. It is time to clean this mess up. Military, do your duty.

As a reminder, here’s what you swore:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” 

+

---

TERRIFYING! Soldiers Donating To Tea Party Now Face Punishment Under The Uniform Code Of Military Justice?

 AP

(by TODD STARNES, Fox News Radio) — Soldiers attending a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood say they were told that evangelical Christians and members of the Tea Party were a threat to the nation and that any soldier donating to those groups would be subjected to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The U.S.’s Stealth Fighter Is Too Heavy and Slow, So the Pentagon Made Its Performance Tests Easier

Wait. Let me find my ‘shocked’ face. I know it’s in here somewhere…

“At this point, the Pentagon is literally rewriting its rule book so that the dumbed-down superjet will pass muster. The Defense Department’s annual weapons-testing report reveals that the military actually adjusted the performance specifications for the consistently underperforming line of F-35 fighter jets. In other words, they couldn’t get the jets to do what they were supposed to do, so they just changed what they were supposed to do.”

Further evidence that our acquisition system is broken. The contractors submit bids to RFP’s (request for proposal) for weapon systems that are gross underbids because they know that WHEN they have cost overruns, the government will simply bail them out. Much of this comes from the incestuous relationship between lobbyists, contractors, the military, and government. It is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and compromising the defense of our nation.

---

 By Adam Clark Estes

The Pentagon’s pursuit of the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jet has been a heartbreaking one. If you’re a tax payer, the program’s estimated $1 trillion price tag probably breaks your heart a little bit. If you’re an aviation enthusiast, the constant whittling away of the do-it-all aircraft’s features, which in many cases actually amounts to adding weight and taking away maneuverability, must hurt a little bit, too.

If you’re just an everyday American, though, you should be downright shattered that after a decade and a fortune spent, the F-35 will actually be more vulnerable than the aircraft it’s replacing. At this point, the Pentagon is literally rewriting its rulebook so that the dumbed-down super jet will pass muster.

Death From Behind

In a potentially controversial move, the Pentagon will announce the formation of a new all-gay, all male company tentatively named the “Fighting 69th Sodomites.” Sources credit the creation of the 69th to House member Barney Frank, who has reportedly been working “very, very closely” with gay Pentagon officials. THEIR MOTTO IS: NEVER LEAVE YOUR BUDDY’S BEHIND!

Liberals see opportunity for big cuts in defense – Washington Times

Why is it that liberals and progressives want to continually weaken the single institution in America that is the protective umbrella for all others?

Further commentary embedded in the story below.
+

---

Liberals see opportunity for big cuts in defense – Washington Times.

Liberals see opportunity for big cuts in defense

Push for troop, arms levels after Cold War

By Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
9:10 p.m., Monday, July 18, 2011

The political left is pressing the White House and Congress to inflict a wave of Pentagon budget cuts not seen since the post-Cold War 1990s.

Liberals are citing the debt crisis and troop drawdowns from Iraq and Afghanistan to argue that now is the time for the Defense Department to shed people, missions and weapons after a decade of doubling arms spending after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. (Should we come home from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and all the other places we are flushing money down the toilet because we aren’t really there to win? Yeah, we should. Should we then consolidate, modernize, and re-equip that military to continue to act as the deterrent it is supposed to be, and the weapon it MUST be if deterrence fails? Or should we just dismantle the military altogether and spend that money on more social programs? Will those social programs protect our borders? Will the “free handouts” do battle with an attacking enemy? Call me crazy, but I don’t think food stamps will stop the Chinese, Russians, or terrorists when they choose to attack us.)

The proposals, including one from the Center for America Progress, go well beyond President Obama’s call in April for $400 billion in defense cuts over 12 years. The center — run by John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to President Clinton — wants that much in reductions over the next three years and $1 trillion from what had been projected increases over the next decade.(Liberal/progressive/communists who want the destruction of America. Don’t get me wrong. I think there is a lot of waste in military spending. Most if it comes from how the politicians MANDATE that we spend our money. We have to buy from politically favored vendors and exorbitant prices, and we aren’t rewarded for SAVING money. Cut out the corruption and waste, and spend that money more effectively to by the military even MORE effective equipment, and a larger force for the same money.)

Chaplains: Troops May Fear Sharing Beliefs on Gays

Jesus told us that Christians and Christianity would be persecuted. We will continue to be persecuted by until His return. It’s not going to get any better. We have to keep proclaiming His name in the public square and continue to combat the attempts to condemn more people to Hell by depriving them of the chance to hear the name of Jesus.

And on a less spiritual level, there’s this little thing call the !st Amendment to the constitution that supposedly guarantees our right to speak of Him. Not only on the the subject of Christianity, but on many other things, we have allowed our constitutional rights to be eroded. If we don’t fight for them, we will indeed lose them.
+

---

http://www.military.com/news/article/chaplains-troops-may-fearing-beliefs-on-gays.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

May 24, 2011

Associated Press

SAN DIEGO — Military chaplains are concerned troops could be punished for expressing objections to homosexuality once the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is lifted.

Leaders of 21 religious groups that provide chaplains to the U.S. military on Monday sent a letter to the chiefs of chaplains of the Navy, Army and Air Force. They want Congress or the Pentagon to guarantee troops won’t be punished if they openly discuss their objections to homosexuality.

“This is already an assault and a challenge on individual conscience and some Soldiers may think it’s forcing them to abandon their religious beliefs or being marginalized for holding to those beliefs,” said Douglas E. Lee, a retired Army brigadier general and chaplain, whose signature was the first on the letter.

Chaplains who preach at base chapels that homosexuality is a sin will still be entitled to express their beliefs during worship after the military’s adopts its new policy allowing openly gay troops, according to training materials given to Marines.

But the organizations say it is not enough to state that servicemembers and chaplains remain free to exercise their faith in chapel services.

“Servicemembers should know that chaplains’ ministry and their own rights of conscience remain protected everywhere military necessity has placed them,” the letter states.

Officials for the Navy, Army and Air Force did not immediately respond to calls and emails from the AP seeking comment.

Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, which pushed for the repeal, said the Department of Defense has made it clear that there will be no change in the way chaplains conduct their business once the ban is lifted.

“This is yet another example of people with traditional and, quite frankly, anti-gay views demanding protection for something that doesn’t need protection,” he said.

Military training to apply the new law allowing gays to serve openly began earlier this year and is expected to be completed by midsummer.

Concern about the repeal of the 17-year ban on openly gay troops peaked after the Navy said it would allow chaplains to perform same-sex unions in states where gay marriage is legal. The Navy abruptly reversed that plan earlier this month after coming under pressure from lawmakers, saying its lawyers wanted to do a more thorough review of the decision.

The controversy was enough to make the organizations, including the North American Mission Board, which provides about 450 of the roughly 3,000 chaplains in the military, convinced a clear directive is needed.

“Though this revision is now temporarily suspended pending further review, we are genuinely concerned that this might be a sign of things to come,” the letter states.

---

9/11 Nine Years Later – NEVER Forget

September 11, 2001. Never forget.

Never forget where you where. Never forget what you thought and felt. Never forget the images of the airplanes piloted by terrorists hitting the towers. Never forget the images of people jumping from over 100 floors up, some holding hands, to avoid being burned alive. Never forget the sight of the …towers collapsing.

Never forget.

Never forget that this was an unprovoked attack. Never forget how Americans came together after the attack. Never forget that this was an attack on ALL Americans, regardless of skin color or where you or your family came from. Never forget that if you cheered this attack, YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN, and you should leave this country.

Never forget.

---

+

---

AF Launches Space Plane Amid Secrecy

At this point, it looks cool, carries stuff into space, doesn’t put astronauts at risk, is cheaper than the space shuttle, and preserves our ability to lift things into space independent of the Russians or Chinese, so right now I’m not too worried what they carry into space with it.

---

http://www.military.com/news/article/af-launches-space-plane-amid-secrecy.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

April 23, 2010

Christian Science Monitor|by Gordon Lubold

WASHINGTON — The X-37 unmanned spacecraft blasted off into its mysterious orbit Thursday night and may be gone for the better part of a year.

The 29-foot spacecraft resembles a mini space shuttle and launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida at 7:52 p.m. Eastern time atop an Atlas V rocket.

Other than the launch itself, which Air Force officials jokingly conceded they couldn’t keep secret even if they tried, most of what the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle program is all about is classified.

That has led to speculation that the spacecraft is an American step toward the militarization of space -– an assertion that the Pentagon refutes. The craft could also be used to conduct experiments in space, or to fix or return to Earth damaged satellites, experts say.

As the launch approached, however, some details about the spacecraft and its mission began to surface.

(Click link above for complete article)

---

PROMISES, PROMISES: A closed meeting on openness

This is the same thing we are seeing from the democrats as the develop their plan to take over the health care system. They are doing it all behind closed doors, with no supervision, and no accountability. They shut the republicans out of the meetings, and then turn around and cry that the republicans won’t offer any ideas. This is like punching you in the face and telling you to quit hitting my fist with your head.

---

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5joOOsTVD57lFwm_InpZY_nRbg4KQD9CDRVOO0

By SHARON THEIMER (AP) – 12 hours ago

WASHINGTON — It’s hardly the image of transparency the Obama administration wants to project: A workshop on government openness is closed to the public.

The event Monday for federal employees is a fitting symbol of President Barack Obama’s uneven record so far on the Freedom of Information Act, a big part of keeping his campaign promise to make his administration the most transparent ever. As Obama’s first year in office ends, the government’s actions when the public and press seek information are not yet matching up with the president’s words.

“The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails,” Obama told government offices on his first full day as president. (In that case, WHERE’S THE D@$& BIRTH CERTIFICATE?) “The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.” (…and your Occidental College records, and your Columbia College records and thesis paper, and your Harvard records, and your Selective Service registration, your Illinois State Senate schedule, your law practice client list, your record of baptism, and…)

Obama scored points on his pledge by requiring the release of detailed information about $787 billion in economic stimulus spending. It’s now available on a Web site, http://www.recovery.gov. (Turns out most of it is made up. Non-existent congressional districts, “created or saved” jobs based on faulty and coerced reporting, etc.)Other notable disclosures include waivers that the White House has granted from Obama’s conflict-of-interest rules and reports detailing Obama’s and top appointees’ personal finances. (This wasn’t so much an Obama victory as it was him thumbing his nose at us. No lobbyists in the White House? If you believed him on that or anything else, I have beachfront property in Florida I’ll sell you when the tide goes down.)

Yet on some important issues, his administration produced information only after government watchdogs and reporters spent weeks or months pressing, in some cases suing.

Those include what cars people were buying using the $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program (it turned out the most frequent trades involved pickups for pickups with only slightly better gas mileage); how many times airplanes have collided with birds (a lot); whether lobbyists and donors meet with the Obama White House (they do); rules about the interrogation of terror suspects (the FBI and CIA disagreed over what was permitted); and who was speaking in private with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (he has close relationships with a cadre of Wall Street executives whose multibillion-dollar companies survived the economic crisis with his help). (…despite the fact he doesn’t seem to be able to do his own taxes.)

The administration has refused to turn over important records. Obama signed a law that let the Pentagon refuse to release photographs showing U.S. troops abusing detainees, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates then did so. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has refused to release details about the CIA’s “black site” rendition program. The Federal Aviation Administration wouldn’t turn over letters and e-mails among FAA officials about reporters’ efforts to learn more about planes that crash into birds. (You either decide airplanes full of people are more valuable than birds or you don’t. If you choose people and planes, then you smack the Green Peace/Sierra Club idiots in the mouth and issue more hunting permits.)

Just last week, a State Department deputy assistant secretary, Llewellyn Hedgbeth, said at a public conference that “as much as we want to promote transparency,” her agency will work just as hard to protect classified materials or information that would put the United States in a bad light. (A worse light than an idiot president portraying us as week by apologizing for our great accomplishments all over the world?)

People who routinely request government records said they don’t see much progress on Obama’s transparency pledge.

“It’s either smoke and mirrors or it was done for the media,” said Jeff Stachewicz, founder of Washington-based FOIA Group Inc., which files hundreds of requests every month across the government on behalf of companies, law firms and news organizations. “This administration, when it wants something done, there are no excuses. You just don’t see a big movement toward transparency.”

The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, said it filed 45 requests for records since Obama became president, and that agencies such as NASA and the Energy Department have been mostly cooperative in the spirit of Obama’s promises. But the FBI and Justice Department? Not so much, said Nate Cardozo, working for the foundation on a project to expose new government surveillance technologies.

The FBI resisted turning over copies of reports to a White House intelligence oversight board about possible bureau legal violations. The FBI said it’s so far behind reviewing other, unrelated requests that it can’t turn over the reports until May 2014. (That is simply BS. They are stonewalling to keep incriminating stuff from coming to light.)

“This administration started with a bang, saying this was going to be a new day, and we had really high expectations,” Cardozo said. “We haven’t seen much of a change. The Justice Department said there would be a stronger presumption in favor of disclosure, but that hasn’t been the case.”

Obama has approved startup money for a new office taking part in Monday’s closed conference, the Office of Government Information Services. (Sounds pretty Soviet-esque to me. It should be called the “Ministry of Information.” It’s just another layer of bureaucracy to hide behind.) It was created to resolve disputes involving people who ask for records and government agencies. But as evidenced by the open-records event behind closed doors, there is a long way to go.

“We’d like to know, when they’re training agencies, are they telling them the same thing they’re saying in public, that they’re committed to making the Freedom of Information Act work well and make sure that agencies are releasing information whenever possible while protecting important issues like individual privacy and national security,” said Rick Blum, coordinator of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, of which The Associated Press is a member.

The closed conference will provide tips for FOIA public liaisons on communicating and negotiating with people who make requests, and introduce the new Office of Government Information Services to them, said Melanie Ann Pustay, director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy, which takes the lead on government openness issues.

Pustay said she planned to say the same things at the private workshop that she would say publicly. (Riiiiiight.)She offered these reasons to explain why it was closed: She wanted government employees to be able to speak candidly, and the conference would be in an auditorium at the Commerce Department, where she said a government ID was required to be admitted. The AP and others news organizations routinely enter government buildings to cover the government. Excuses, especially government ones, and ESPECIALLY Obama government ones, are like sphinchters. Everybody has one, and most of them stink.)

Pustay said she is looking for ways to improve how the government responds to information requests, which costs roughly $400 million each year.

The director of the new Office of Government Information Services, Miriam Nisbet, said the event was closed to make sure there would be room for all the government employees attending. (Refer to previous comment about “excuses.”)

“I can understand skepticism anytime a meeting for government people is not necessarily open to the public,” Nisbet said. “However, everything that is discussed there is absolutely available for the public to know about.”

Associated Press writer Ted Bridis contributed to this report.
+

---

9/11/2001: The Alamo and Pearl Harbor of Our Generation

Americans, remember.  Remember where you were on this pivotal day in American history.  Remember the anger you felt.  Remember the fear you felt for the day and for the future.  Remember that we did not attack them, they attacked us.  Remember that 9/11 was not the 1st time they attacked us.  Remember that all over the world, the U.S. had actually been and continues to free and defend MUSLIMS.  Yet they came.  They tried unsuccessfully to bring down the towers the first time.  They attacked the USS Cole.  They bombed our embassies, and other places where Americans could be found.  They attacked us repeatedly.  They attacked because we showed weakness.  Yet we did nothing.  We sat back on our heels and absorbed body blow after body blow.  Finally, after these camel-shagging little sheet heads killed 3,000 some odd American people in one morning, America retaliated.  Yet even in our retaliation we attempted to free oppressed muslims from their own muslim oppressors.  Ironic, huh?  Now, after landing a few good blows of our own, we are retreating to the ropes.  We, led by our Islamic Sympathizer-In-Chief Barack Hussein Obama, are again showing weakness to the Arab world.  Arabs/muslims respect strength.  It is one thing they definitely understand.  Yet what are we doing?  Our “president” is bowing to everyone he can find.  We are letting crackpot dictators have their way with us.  We are letting the Taliban and Al Qaeda regain their strength when we nearly had them defeated.  We are dismantling or allowing our military might to go fallow.  We are sowing the seeds of our own destruction.

Watch these videos and remember.  Show them to your children and explain that the world is not as nice as the Disney Channel portrays.  Explain to them what America stands for, or used to stand for.

EVERY American should watch this next video Daniel Pearl being beheaded, especially the spineless, yellow bellied pole-iticians we have been foolish enough to elect to high offices.

When Nazi Pelosi and Harry Reid or their family members are beheaded on the main street of their home towns by these Islamic cancers, then perhaps they will wake up to the fact that MUSLIMS WANT US DEAD.  What is more likely to happen is that the liberals who dismantled, under funded, and otherwise prevented the military from defeating the muslims on OUR terms, will likely point their fingers at said military and ask “Where were you and why didn’t you defend us?”  Both Bush and Obama said that we “are not at war with Islam.”  They are right about that, but Islam is at war with us, and has been for a long time.

As gruesome as this video might be, EVERY American, and every non-muslim for that matter, needs to see this video to be reminded of what muslims wish to happen to us.

WARNING: THE VIDEO BELOW CONTAINS GRAPHIC VIOLENCE AND GORE.  THOSE WHO ARE EASILY DISTURBED BY SUCH THINGS, AND/OR SMALL CHILDREN, PROBABLY SHOULDN’T WATCH IT.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Who Do You Trust to Keep America Safe?

Square-Filling Yes-Men Compromising National Security

What is our idiot, box-checking, square-filling, yes-man Air Force “leadership” doing? Who’s running the show in the Pentagon? The square-filling, yes-man careerists are just doing what short sighted Gates is telling them to do. You can’t honestly tell me that anyone with some knowledge of history, military matters, and airpower would in good conscience and in good faith from an educated point of view say that we can defend America and her interests with 187 air superiority fighters. Nearly every trustworthy, respected expert on the subject has said that 187 F-22’s would leave us vulnerable. You can only spread them so thinly, and there is much that the F-22 can do that the F-35 that is being touted as the gap-filling solution simply can’t. We are seeing a systematic weakening and destruction of our military. Under Carter it was done mostly due to his naievity. Now I fear that there is a much more sinister motive behind what is going on.

Freedom has a price.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com daily update, 15 July 2009

“Not So Much a Study”: It now turns out that a recent “study” touted by Pentagon leadership as the justification for terminating the F-22 fighter isn’t really a study at all, but a series of briefings by DOD’s Program Analysis and Evaluation shop and the Air Force. That word comes from the Pentagon’s top spokesman, Geoff Morrell, who told the Daily Report late Tuesday that the study, ah, whatever it is, is “not so much a ‘study'” as “work products.” Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman Gen. James Cartwright told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, “There is a study in the Joint Staff that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force” which, he said, nailed the F-22 requirement at 187 aircraft—not the 243 that the Air Force says is the minimum requirement. Asked to describe the nature and timing of this study, Morrell told the Daily Report , “What I think General Cartwright was referring to … is two different work products”—one by the PA&E shop and one by the Air Force—”and not so much a ‘study.'” Morrell said work on the F-22 issue was done by “both entities” and that each was likely “informed by the other,” but they didn’t amount to “formal studies,” and they had no formal name, such as the last known DOD analysis of fighter requirements, “Joint Air Dominance,” dating to about 2004. Cartwright, in his testimony before the committee, wasn’t clear about how many studies had been done, but said that 187 F-22 s would be enough for a one-war strategy. He assured SASC chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) that he’d get whatever justifying analysis exists to the committee right away. However, Morrell said yesterday that “I don’t know that it has been provided, yet.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been claiming a rigorous analytical basis for stopping the F-22 since early this year. Congress has been pressing the Pentagon for a vetted analysis of F-22 requirements since 2007, when then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England was directed to provide, within a year, a comprehensive tacair plan that would specifically explain how the number of F-22s had been determined. According to various members of Congress, he never complied with this directive.

Obama’s Pentagon Cuts

Obama doesn’t know Bo, Jack, Diddley, or Bubkiss.  Not only is he the driving force in the destruction of our economic system, he is doing everything he can to destroy our military capability and ensure our removal from the world stage as a superpower.  The one and only thing the constitution provides the authority to tax for is national defense.  Yet defense is being sacrificed for vote-buying give away programs funded involuntarily with our money.  But we the sheeple have allowed our morals and ethics to be eroded, and our government to take so much of our freedom, that there may be no turning back.  America, it’s time to take back our country.

Obama’s Pentagon Cuts

by W. Thomas Smith Jr. (more by this author)

Posted 04/07/2009 ET
Updated 04/08/2009 ET

The unclassified version of the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) — the U.S. Defense Dept.’s four-year strategy planning exercise — has yet to be released. But an unprecedented gag order placed on those responsible for developing the QDR, combined with Monday’s proposed terminations of programs — like the Air Force’s newly operational air-superiority fighter, the F-22 Raptor — has military experts concerned the writing may already be on the wall.

“I am appalled at the decisions just made by the secretary, as are other very senior Air Force general officers,” retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (U.S. Air Force), told HUMAN EVENTS following U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ press conference yesterday.

Gates proposed delays and terminations of current and next-generation platforms and weapons systems programs, which included, among other particulars:

• cutting aircraft carriers from 11 to 10 and decreasing production of other surface combatants
• delaying amphibious ship programs
• halting the planned increase of ground-based interceptors in Alaska
• cancelling a second airborne laser (antimissile) aircraft
• terminating the ground-vehicle element of the Army’s Future Combat Systems (essentially killing the program)
• delaying production of a new presidential helicopter
• ending development of a new Air Force search and rescue helicopter
• canceling the development of a new bomber
• ending the C-17 transport aircraft, and
• stopping production of the F-22 at 187 fighters

Additionally, the secretary of defense vowed to “maximize the production” of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and up the purchase of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps’ F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from 14 to 30 in Fiscal Year 2010.

“But the F-35 cannot survive a Russian S-300 surface-to-air missile, and the F-22 can,” says McInerney, a former assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force. “The question should be, why don’t we have a fly-off between the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter?”

McInerney adds, “He [Gates] is trying to make the Air Force a supporting service. He does not understand airpower.”

Among the concerns expressed — in the wake of yesterday’s proposed cuts before the QDR — is that the current crop of defense planners and policymakers may be suffering from shortsightedness. They may be dismissing potential strategic military threats to the U.S. as overblown. They may be capitulating to the “change” crowd in Washington. Or all of the above.

Asked if he was “walking into a buzzsaw,” Gates responded: “There’s no question a lot of these decisions will be controversial. My hope is that — as we have tried to do here in this building [the Pentagon] — the members of Congress will rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole.”

But Gates’ remarks in 2008 in which he said, “I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called ‘next war-it is,’” have fueled fears among many retired generals. And the QDR gag order (a non-disclosure agreement reportedly signed by defense officials stating they will not discuss the QDR) is certainly not alleviating any concerns.

“It’s the first time it [the agreement] has ever been done in history,” says McInerney. “If I was one of the chiefs, I would have said there is no way I’m signing anything.”

A general who spoke on condition of anonymity added, “[A] serious naiveté has begun to fester [in the Beltway],” and the White House and senior defense officials “want to shape the military the way they think it should be without debate. They don’t see Russia or China as a threat. And the idea that we should not focus on future potential conflicts — from guerrilla operations to even air or sea battles — is troubling.”

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (U.S. Army), former deputy commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Pacific, tells HUMAN EVENTS, “There is no overriding strategy, not only for the war against radical Islam — the planners don’t even know what to call it anymore — but no broad strategy for the Middle East and beyond. We do not seem to have senior people — particularly among the political appointees — who understand the threats against us, much less how to develop a strategy to meet those threats.”

McInerney says — based on information he and other retired general and flag officers are gleaning — whatever strategy is being planned seems to be too narrowly focused on ground-centric, irregular warfare operations and forces. Though, he adds, those forces are critically important in the 21st century, so are sea, air, and space forces which must never be neglected in the face of emerging and yet-unseen threats to national defense.

“Ground forces will not deter China from going into Taiwan,” says McInerney. “The Air Force and the Navy’s carrier strike groups have been fighting for 19 years. They are worn out. They need money.” The money, he argues, is desperately needed for recapitalization (also known as resetting — essentially putting a new engine in an old F-15) and modernization (replacing an F-15 with a brand-new F-22).

Retired Brig. Gen. Jim Cash (U.S. Air Force), former vice commander of the 7th Air Force, agrees.

“I think there is some shortsightedness,” Cash tells HUMAN EVENTS. “The Sec. Def. does not seem to realize that the major long term threat to this country may well come from Russia and China. The only way to negate that threat is through development and maintenance of a continuing strong deterrent. The F-22 will provide that deterrent by insuring command of the skies over the battlefield for the next 50 years. UAVs will not.”

Cash says U.S. Army and Marine forces have enjoyed air-superiority above their battlespaces “almost continually since the inception of air warfare” without which those ground forces could not survive.

Therein may lie one of the problems: America’s air and sea forces are indeed so dominant — the equipment and technology so superior to anything fielded by other nations, and the training of American airmen and sailors so effective — that much of America has grown to take that dominance for granted. “Our equipment and people are simply so good, they make warfighting look easy. But there is nothing easy about what we do,” Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, commanding general of U.S. Central Command’s Air Forces, told me back in 2007.

Peter Brookes, a former CIA operations officer who also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs, tells HUMAN EVENTS, “The QDR needs to show a balanced force capable of dealing with a range of contingencies because the next war is not necessarily going to be like an Iraq or Afghanistan. It could be with Russia, China, even a conventional war with Iran or North Korea. And because of the lag time [from drawing board to fielding] of these weapons systems, we must be moving out smartly on next generation systems.”

As Brookes says, “You can build a second lieutenant in six weeks, but you can’t build a ship or a tank in that same time.” And the longer we postpone production of a new weapons system, the more expensive that system becomes.

But it’s not simply development lag time and increasing costs: America’s Defense-Industrial base cannot afford to atrophy. If production of ships, planes, and tanks is halted, it will be difficult — perhaps impossible — to reengineer and retool from “cold iron” quickly enough to defend the country in a 21st-century environment. “The world is far different today than it was in World War II,” says Brookes. Time is critical.

Maj. Gen. George B. Patrick III, former special assistant to the director of Air National Guard and chief of staff U.S. Air Force, believes that much of what we will see in the forthcoming QDR will reflect Gates’ belief that the focus should be on the near-term threat. “But some of our high-tech weaponry that has been broadly listed under this ‘next-war-it is’ heading, is very effective in the global war on terror,” Patrick tells HUMAN EVENTS. “And if we do not continue to leverage the technology that’s available to us, and if we don’t pursue the fifth-generation fighters and other systems, potential peer competitors will.”

Patrick adds, “In my opinion, the QDR over the years has become something of a budget drill, making the threat and the resources needed to address the threat match the reality of the projected budget. It should, however, be a true empirical analysis of what our threats are regardless of budget.”

Barack Obama’s 2010 baseline defense budget is $534 billion: Still, “$26 billion below four percent of GDP, according to the Senate analysis,” writes Rowan Scarborough. Four percent is what many analysts and experts believe we should be spending as a minimum on defense.

For perspective, the U.S. was spending a whopping 34.5 percent of GDP for Defense in World War II. We spent 11.7 at the height of the Korean War, nearly 10 percent at the height of the Vietnam War, six percent under President Reagan in 1986, and 4.6 percent in 1991, the year of Gulf War I.

“Four percent for baseline Defense budget is certainly not too much to ask,” says McInerney. “After all, we spent $787-billion on a stimulus package that gives $3-billion to ACORN.”

Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. E-mail him at marine1@uswriter.com.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

‘Manchurian Candidate’s War on the U.S. Military

Yes, war on the military. This is just the tip of the iceberg. When this Saul Alinsky patterned Marxist/communist is finished, our military will be in worse shape than it was under Carter. He wants to destroy the military that has taken an oath to “support and defend the constitution,” and replace it with his brown-shirt militia that whose allegiance is to Obama and the left.

From Air Force Magazine Online, 11 Mar 2009:

Nightmare Scenario: The White House has purportedly given the Defense Department guidance to delay the KC-X tanker program by five years and cancel plans for a new bomber. CQ Today reported this March 9, citing sources close to the ongoing budget discussions for Fiscal 2010. It said this guidance is not yet the final word on what will emerge from DOD’s $533.7 billion topline. Rather, this guidance is part of Office of Management and Budget and Pentagon deliberations over possible budget trade-offs. Still, it is alarming to see how ready some in the Administration are to dismantle the service’s No. 1 acquisition priority by delaying KC-X significantly. And, it is equally disturbing to see the White House’s willingness to scrub the bomber project. We’re talking here about a new aerial tanker to replace a fleet of KC-135s built in the Eisenhower-era. Without tankers, global reach, power, and vigilance cannot be sustained. And, without a new bomber coming along near the end of next decade, the Air Force’s ability to penetrate deeply into heavily defended airspace and hold targets at risk with a good-size load of weapons will fall on the backs of 20 B-2s.