By Phil Kiver • Washington Times
As a former member of the military who served in multi-branch operations, I understand the need for diversity when equipping our service members. Our Air Force should not be one dimensional. The current fight over procurement of the Air Force fighter; the F-15X, is an easy decision, because having diversity in the air fleet provides flexibility that current conditions require. As I well understand, different missions require different strengths, capabilities and tools.
Some lawmakers are pushing the F-35 fighter jet over the F-15X because of the fear of budgetary constraints in the future. Defense News reported on February 27, 2019, “Lockheed Martin and U.S. Air Force officials may be downplaying the prospect of an upcoming budget battle surrounding the F-15X and the F-35 fighter jets, but F-35 supporters in Congress and around the Capital Beltway are mounting an offensive against Boeing’s new F-15 variant.”
The report indicates that “all signs point to the Air Force unveiling its plan to buy a new version of the F-15 in its fiscal 2020 budget proposal, tentatively scheduled for release in mid-March. Though numbers have fluctuated, a Feb. 19 report from Bloomberg says the service plans to purchase eight F-15X planes in FY20, with an expected total buy of about 80 jets.” Right now the plan is for the Air Force to purchase both the F-35 and the F-15X. The F-15X is an upgrade to existing F-15s in service.
By Bill Gertz • Washington Free Beacon
China is building a long-range cruise missile fired from a shipping container that could turn Beijing’s large fleet of freighters into potential warships and commercial ports into future missile bases.
The new missile is in flight testing and is a land-attack variant of an advanced anti-ship missile called the YJ-18C, according to American defense officials.
The missile will be deployed in launchers that appear from the outside to be standard international shipping containers used throughout the world for moving millions of tons of goods, often on the deck of large freighters.
The YJ-18C is China’s version of the Club-K cruise missile built by Russia that also uses a launcher disguised as a shipping container. Israel also is working on a container-launched missile called the Lora.
Spokesmen for the Defense Intelligence Agency and Navy declined to comment.
By Sumantra Maita • The Federalist
Bob Gates, perhaps the most farsighted post-Cold War defense secretary, presciently predicted in 2011 “that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”
Gates, who once rightly understood that the Saudis would fight Iranians to the last American, also essentially hinted the same with regards to Germany and Russia, “nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.”
Put simply, he was saying the Germans would talk about an international liberal order for as long as Americans would pay to defend it. The day they are caught not tangibly supporting this order, they would throw a tantrum and blame Washington. “Future U.S. political leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me—may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost,” he said.
By Bill Gertz • Washington Free Beacon
Two U.S. Ground-based Interceptor missiles destroyed a target in space during a successful test of the Pentagon’s strategic missile defense system on Monday.
The interceptor missiles were fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. In the first salvo-launch against a target intercontinental missile launched 4,000 miles away at Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, according to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
The first GBI destroyed the target missile’s reentry vehicle and the second interceptor zeroed in on debris and blew up the largest piece in a precision kill, the MDA announced.
MDA Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Samuel A. Greaves called the first multiple-interceptor test a critical milestone for advancing the missile defense system.
“The system worked exactly as it was designed to do, and the results of this test provide evidence of the practicable use of the salvo doctrine within missile defense,” Greaves said.
Puzzled by the glaring differences between the well organized and prosperous neighboring new republic, the United States of America, and the chaos as well as the impoverishment of the just emerging states of Central and South America, Simon Bolivar remarked in his “Letter to a gentleman showing great interest in South America’s republican cause”, in 1815:
“As long as our compatriots do not acquire the talents and political virtues that have characterized our northern brothers, I greatly fear that our completely traditionalist systems, far from being favorable for us, will be our demise. Unfortunately, the requisite level of these characteristics seems to be far from us; and, to the contrary, we are dominated by the vices acquired under the direction of a nation like Spain, which has excelled only in cruelty, ambition, revenge and greed.”
In addition to being prophetic, Simon Bolivar’s words still point to the enduring political tragedy of Spanish- Hispanic America, namely that history have not just repeated itself in regular intervals throughout the 19th, the 20th, and in the first nineteen years of the 21st centuries across Central and South America, but that it has run in ruthless as well as inhuman circles around their curious colonial heritage.
Simon Bolivar was one of those personalities who played a crucial role in initiating and then leading the independence movements across the southern part of the American continent. Yet, in the independence struggles of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, Bolivar’s vision of a multitude of independent republics unified under a pan-American umbrella with a single strong ruler ultimately failed to materialize. Born into the Caracas aristocracy, who lived and studied for an extended period of time in Europe, he embraced the philosophy of the French Enlightenment, especially the views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Accordingly, Simon Bolivar subscribed to the idea of “general will”, and to the principle of the rule of the majority.
When he was elected the President of Venezuela on December 6, 1998, the late Hugo Chavez Frias turned Simon Bolivar’s vision to its head and established under the deceptive idea of “Bolivarian Revolution” an authoritarian form of government with a populist overtone. Moreover, influenced by Fidel Castro’s distributive socialism, he focused on using Venezuela’s considerable oil resources to buy up the good will of the poor. Finally, to oppress the upper and middle classes, Chavez integrated the military and the intelligence services into his authoritarian domestic rule.
Under the strange slogan of “Motherland, Socialism, or Death”, which he changed before his death to an even more macabre one “Motherland and Socialism. We will live, and we will come out victorious”, Chavez succeeded to transform Venezuela from a rich nation to a dirt poor country. In addition to running Venezuela to the ground, Chavez’s autocracy produced a Stalinist constitution, a subservient legislature, a supreme court completely beholden to his command, and a laughable electoral law. All this was neatly subsumed into the Marxist myth of class struggle. Everything that happened before Hugo Chavez, such as slavery, feudalism, colonialism, and capitalism, were necessary evils on the prescribed Marxist road to socialism, where the truly egalitarian society will be erected without poverty and backwardness. The blood sucking bourgeoisie and their equally despicable imperialist masters will be left on the ash heap of history. Naturally, these ideas of historical materialism called for a singular foreign policy direction, namely an unequivocal anti-USA strategy.
By John Heubusch • The National Review
President Trump made headlines last week by walking out of his Hanoi summit meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The move came as a surprise, and many news outlets around the world have decried the summit. But Trump’s move recalled Ronald Reagan’s decision to walk out of an even higher-stakes summit, his 1986 Reykjavik meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev.
The two summits bear some similarities. Both were second rounds of negotiations with a foreign power to mitigate that power’s nuclear threat. Both presidents faced a Communist leader abroad and pressure for a deal back home. And both presidents made the right call in walking out to preserve their position of strength.
During the Reykjavik summit, Gorbachev pressed Reagan to scrap research on the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The initiative was a crucial point for Reagan. It served as the genesis of the effort that to this day provides some limited capability for the United States to protect itself from foreign ballistic-missile attack. The program had been allowed under previous treaties, and so Reagan refused Gorbachev’s demand, ending the summit. Afterward, Reagan explained his thinking to the American people: “I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things: our freedom and our future.” SDI was an integral part of that future, so Reagan stood firm.
Similarly, Kim Jong-un pressed Trump to lessen sanctions on North Korea as a precondition for any denuclearization. The United Nations–implemented sanctions had been key to pushing North Korea to the negotiating table in the first place, and Trump rightly recognized that they were his key source of leverage. Without a firm, enforceable process in place for denuclearization, history proves there can be no assurance that North Korea will stay true to its word. Weakening or scrapping the sanctions before that process has begun would be an enormous misstep. So Trump walked.
The pre-Trump policy of continuous sanctions with no communication or negotiation is no longer an option, because Trump has given Kim legitimacy by opening negotiations in a way Reagan likely never would have. But times and circumstances have changed. Despite leaving the negotiating table, Trump has maintained a cordial tone toward Chairman Kim in the days since the summit. He is clearly interested in cultivating a relationship for the future. And in the coming months, Trump would do well to continue drawing from the Reagan playbook.
To that end, his most pressing order of business is making goals and possible outcomes clear to Kim. Reagan laid out his goals in lengthy correspondence with Gorbachev. His “zero option” meant the elimination of intermediate-range missiles in Europe. He also refused to concede “our freedom and our future,” which to him included SDI. Trump needs to make his goals just as clear to Kim: Our future safety is not on the table, and denuclearization is a nonnegotiable first step to easing relations between North Korea and the rest of the world. While Trump touts his negotiating skills, he must have clear aims and be extensively prepared before any further summits occur.
Second, Trump must play hardball. Reagan imposed tough sanctions on the U.S.S.R. and commenced a massive military buildup, both for national-defense purposes and to further pressure the Russian economy and government. The mounting financial and political strain contributed both to Gorbachev’s willingness to negotiate and to the Soviet Union’s eventual collapse. Trump should increase sanctions and work hard to bring China and Russia on board with them for the same reasons. If it causes Kim to negotiate toward denuclearization, great. If it causes the regime to collapse, even better.
Finally, Reagan was willing to return to the negotiating table, even if he’d previously walked away without a deal. After Reykjavik, he said “we prefer no agreement than to bring home a bad agreement to the United States.” That’s why he was able to negotiate directly with Gorbachev three times after the summit collapsed and still win significant concessions. Trump, his top negotiators, and our legislators should likewise remain open to future talks. As long as America maintains its position of strength and is willing to walk away from a bad deal, we are unlikely to lose.
Trump’s talks with Pyongyang present a historic opportunity, but they are not without risk. If the president can maintain a Reaganesque resolve and continue to apply maximum pressure on the Kim regime, he may still be able to ensure a more prosperous future for North Korea and improved security for the people of the United States.
For the past quarter century four American presidents as well as the majority of the international community have unsuccessfully tried to convince the previous ruler of North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Kim Jong Il and recently his son and successor Kim Jong Un to relinquish their relentless drive toward building up the state’s nuclear arsenal in exchange for magnanimous economic assistance. Neither have been efforts to conclude a peace treaty between the two Koreas successful. The reasons for these failures have been bilateral as well as international. Bilaterally, the governments of North and South Korea, officially known as the Republic of Korea, have represented irreconcilable political principles and have continued to suspect each other of striving to reunite the two Koreas under their respective exclusive rule. Internationally, the peninsula in general and North Korea in particular have become the battleground for ubiquitous rivalry between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China.
By Aaron Kliegman • Washington Free Beacon
Hopes were high in Hanoi, Vietnam, this week, as President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un smiled and shook hands, ready for their second summit. Perhaps the United States and North Korea would finally reach a deal to denuclearize the latter, paving the way for a more benign, fruitful relationship between the two countries. Alas, it was not meant to be. Trump and Kim ended their summit on Thursday after failing to agree on any steps to curb North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program. But while the talks collapsed—at least for the moment—people should not view the result as a failure. Indeed, Trump should be commended for walking away from a bad deal.
Many observers thought Trump would be so desperate for a deal that he would agree to almost any terms, succumbing to dreams of diplomatic greatness. They watched Trump call Kim his “friend” and worried the president was too trusting. Perhaps Kim felt this way, too, hence his widely one-sided proposal (more on that in a moment). Ultimately, however, Trump did not do what his critics feared.
“I am never afraid to walk from a deal,” Trump told reporters after the summit ended. “Sometimes you have to walk.”
Lifting sanctions on North Korea seemed to be the main roadblock to further negotiations. According to Trump, Kim insisted that all of the United Nations’s sanctions imposed on Pyongyang be lifted in exchange for dismantling the Yongbyon nuclear facility, the site of a reactor and plutonium-reprocessing plant and a central piece of the North’s weapons program.
“It was about the sanctions,” Trump said. “Basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, but we couldn’t do that.”
North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho later disputed Trump’s account of what happened, saying his country asked for the removal of 5 of the 11 sets of sanctions imposed by the U.N., not all of them.
“We proposed to the United States to lift five sanctions—which [were] adopted between 2016 and 2017 and impede the civilian economy and the livelihood of our people—among 11 U.N. sanctions resolutions all together,” Ri said, according to a translation of his remarks.
Even if Ri’s account is accurate, Trump was right to reject the proposal. That North Korea only asked for a fraction of the U.N. resolutions can be misleading; the five that North Korea put on the table comprise most of the international pressure through sanctions on Pyongyang. Trump may have not been literally accurate about all sanctions, but he was right for all intents and purposes. And in exchange, the North would only destroy one nuclear site. What about the other sites in North Korea? And what about inspecting them? Like Iran during negotiations over its nuclear program, North Korea seems to want all the benefits without any of the costs: to obtain relief from sanctions while preserving the ability to build nuclear weapons. Only this time, Trump did not grant an adversary its wish—at least for now.
One does not need an MBA from an elite university to realize that making major concessions up front in a negotiation takes away leverage for later. If Trump agreed to lift most sanctions right away in exchange for less extensive nuclear concessions, then the United States would be in a far weaker position to act against North Korea in the future if necessary. What if North Korea cheats? What leverage would the United States have? Re-imposing sanctions at the U.N. does not happen with a snap of the fingers. Considering all North Korea has done is lie to the international community about its nuclear program, Pyongyang cheating is an outcome all too likely.
The United States should not provide North Korea any sanctions relief for something it has repeatedly promised to do. More generally, the United States should not lift any sanctions until North Korea has demonstrated beyond doubt that it has taken major steps to curb its nuclear program. Any agreement that falls short of this standard is not worth the paper on which it is written.
Trump’s decision to walk away from Kim’s proposal is a net positive not only for his policy toward North Korea, but also toward Iran. Had Trump agreed to North Korea’s terms, the Islamic Republic would have seen the United States make significant concessions while still allowing North Korea to keep its nuclear arsenal. Iran would be given greater incentive to undermine American sanctions and still seek nuclear weapons, believing that, once it gets the bomb, Washington will not have the will to do anything meaningful about it.
After the Hanoi Summit, the question is what happens next. Fortunately, the United States and North Korea are still talking, so high-level negotiations may resume at a later date. Whether they do or not, Trump and his advisers should consider one hitch that few people want to acknowledge, a hitch that explains why this summit failed and why future summits will likely fail: the United States wants North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons, and North Korea does not want to give them up. That basic point is the great obstacle to denuclearization. And unless it changes, do not bet on any grand diplomatic bargains.
Dear Secretary Mnuchin:
For decades the Chinese government has waged a sophisticated campaign to undermine the American economy and national security. Nowhere is this reality more evident than in the steel industry. That is exactly why President Trump has moved aggressively to combat Chinese steel dumping, understanding the grave implications that could arise if the U.S. is forced to rely on foreign steel to support our defense industry. However, we have grave concerns that China is now looking to subvert the Trump Administration’s efforts by turning to another well-known nefarious tactic – entering into arrangement with a key U.S. manufacturer – in order to weaken U.S. competitiveness in the steel industry and siphon off critical intellectual property.
Last year as the Administration was rolling out new tariffs on Chinese steel imports, an affiliate of China steel giant Tsingshan Group quietly formalized a joint venture with U.S.-based high-end stainless steel manufacturer Allegheny Technology Incorporated (ATI). Tsingshan is the world’s largest producer of stainless steel and as such is deeply intertwined with the communist government. As a supplier of not only various state-owned enterprises, but also the Chinese defense industry, it is readily apparent why the Chinese government would target ATI for a joint venture. ATI manufacturers advanced specialty materials and components that are used in airframes, jet engines, armor, and other products relied upon by defense contractors and the U.S. military in order to protect our troops and stay ahead of our adversaries.
On its face, the joint venture gives China a stronger foothold in the U.S. market and puts domestic manufacturers at a natural economic disadvantage, given that Tsingshan is heavily subsidized and supported by the communist government. While the degradation of the U.S. steel industry creates long-term national security implications for our country, China’s history of stealthy intellectual property theft triggers immediate concerns relative to the joint venture. By the very nature of its business and customer base, ATI possesses sensitive intellectual property that China could seek to extract and transfer in order to undercut U.S. economic and military advantages. In fact, this is not the first time China has targeted ATI. Hackers from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army were charged in 2014 for cyber intrusions and economic espionage aimed at three U.S. steel manufacturers, including ATI.
What is most troubling is that the joint venture does not appear to have gone through any review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), let alone the thorough vetting it deserves. These types of joint ventures are exactly the type of veiled transactions that Congress sounded the alarm about when it passed bipartisan legislation last year to expand the scope of reviews and powers of CFIUS. Allowing this joint venture to continue without scrutiny opens our defense industry and country to significant national security risks.
As the chairman of CFIUS, we encourage you to fully examine the national and economic security issues raised by this joint venture. China seeks to use our free markets against us at every turn and engages in these stealth campaigns to undercut our global dominance. The Chinese government and enterprises it controls have never been good faith business partners – rather it plans, coordinates, and finances foreign acquisitions and joint ventures with the explicit purpose of undermining national security and eroding economic financial stability of nations it views as opposed to its global ambitions.
On behalf of the millions of Americans that support our organizations, we believe CFIUS should immediately and thoroughly review this joint venture. Moreover, we believe you will find that there is enough evidence in the public domain alone for CFIUS to conclude the risks are simply too large and too significant to allow a state-backed Chinese company to integrate itself into such a significant player that is critical to the U.S. defense industry. We encourage you to weigh these factors heavily and deliver on President Trump’s promise of putting America first and holding China accountable.
Sincerely,
George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom
James L. Martin, Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association
Richard Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government
Jenny Beth Martin, Hon. Chair, Tea Party Patriots Action
Seton Motley, President, Less Government
Andrew Langer, President, Institute for Liberty
Judson Phillips, Founder, Tea Party Patriots
Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
Morton Blackwell, Chairman, The Weyrich Lunch
Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, President, 60 Plus Association
Dick Patten, President, American Business Defense Council
Hon. George Rasley, Managing Editor, ConservativeHQ.com
James Edwards, Executive Director, Conservatives for Property Rights
Michael Bowen, CEO, Coalition for a Strong America
Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US. Army, Retired), Member, 112th US Congress
C. Preston Noell III, President, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
Scott Vanatter, President, Last Best Hope on Earth Institute
Major Mike Webb, Candidate for U.S. Congress
Susan Taylor, President, Strengthening America for All
Willes K. Lee, Lt Col (Ret), Pres., National Federation of Republican Assemblies
Mark Thomas, Founder, Freedom & Prosperity Caucus
Nicholas Willis, President, Americans for Liberty & Security
John Cooper, President, Defending America Foundation
Ed Martin, President Phyllis Schlafly Eagles
Allow me to begin this article with a rather extensive personal note from my earliest professional life. I was born and initially educated in what commonly, yet imprecisely, used the be called Communist Hungary. Highly unprecedentedly, I never joined the Alliance of Young Communists (Hungarian acronyms: KISZ). As a matter of fact, one of the reasons that I defected was that individuals in high government positions wanted to recruit me into the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party (Hungarian acronyms: MSZMP). Upon finishing my studies at the Faculty of Political and Legal Sciences of the Eotvos Lorand Scientific University I was assigned to the Chief Prosecutorial branch of the Hungarian government. To protest would have been futile, since under the dictatorship most persons did not have the luxury to freely choose their employment. Thus, first I became an assistant prosecutor. After eighteen months, I took successfully the Hungarian bar exam and was sworn in as a prosecutor. After eight months on the job in the capital city of Budapest, I defected with my wife and three year old son to the Federal Republic of Germany. Setting aside my political views which were totally detrimental to the prevailing political direction in Hungary, I can state unequivocally that I was never instructed by my superiors to single out innocent individuals for persecution or prosecution in the absence of a well-founded suspicion that a criminal act was committed. Even more unequivocally, I was never instructed to create a crime where there was none.
Now, this introduction leads me naturally to the infamous Mueller investigation of the so-called “Russia Collusion.” Born out of the pathological hatred of the defeated Democrat Party and the Republican Party establishment of President Donald J. Trump, fueled by the misplaced conviction of their sickly entitlement, and driven by the insatiable and arrogant appetite for absolute power, they collectively decided that the voters are not mature enough to know what is the best political future for them. Illegally utilizing the anti-Trump sentiments of then President Barack Hussein Obama’s Department of Justice, the FBI leadership, and the highly politicized intelligence agencies, they put in motion a process which was designed to cause the paralysis of the federal government and the eventual overthrow of the duly elected President. The Mueller investigation is the bastard child of this criminally treasonous attempt to destroy the constitutional order of the United States of America by useless idiots masquerading as patriotic and politically impartial bureaucrats.
By Aaron Kliegman • Washington Free Beacon
To Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.), American support for Israel is based on Jewish money. Seriously, she actually said that on Twitter. On Sunday, the first-term Democrat accused American politicians of supporting the Jewish state because of the “Benjamins”—that is, money. When a journalist followed up by asking Omar who is paying American leaders to be pro-Israel, the lawmaker simply responded, “AIPAC.”
It’s all about the Benjamins baby 🎶 https://t.co/KatcXJnZLV
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 10, 2019
AIPAC! https://t.co/UdzaFUEfrh
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 11, 2019
If those tweets seem anti-Semitic, it is because they are. The notion that Jews use their wealth to acquire and wield their nefarious, outsized influence is one of the oldest anti-Semitic canards. Also implicit in Omar’s tweets is the charge of dual loyalty—the idea, in this context, that Jewish Americans put Israel’s interests above America’s. Continue reading
By • Frontiers of Freedom
The long overdue actions taken by the European Parliament on September 12, 2018, and by the United States Senate through Resolution 30 of January 25, 2019, authored by Senators Feinstein, Durbin and Murphy, condemn in no uncertain terms the Viktor Orban led government’s dismantling of Hungary’s fledgling democracy. Based on the Sargentini Report, the European Union charged the Hungarian government with political as well as economic and financial corruption. Pursuant to this Report, since 2010, Hungary has increasingly become a rogue state. Actually, Hungary has been taken over by political gangsters, headed by the Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, who have shamelessly robbed the Hungarian people blind. Democracy has been replaced by “illiberal democracy”, meaning the personal cult of Viktor Orban. The Alliance of Young Democrats (Hungarian acronyms: FIDESZ) dominated Parliament passed a new constitution which was already amended seven times to accommodate the changing needs of the Prime Minister and his accomplices. This new constitution has curtailed the independence of the judiciary, has made a mockery of the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, the freedom of association, the right of equal treatment, the right of minorities, and has practically abolished the main economic and social rights. Continue reading
By Bill Gertz • Washington Free Beacon
Chinese military forces have deployed multiple units armed with anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles that can destroy scores of American satellites, according to a Pentagon intelligence report.
The new report by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, known as NASIC, revealed that People’s Liberation Army units have begun training with the satellite-killing missiles.
The report warns that China, along with Russia, has developed an array of space arms designed to challenge U.S. space superiority. The report was made public last month.
The report for first time reveals that Chinese military units already are conducting training for space attacks with anti-satellites missiles. Russia also is developing a new anti-satellite missile the report said. Continue reading
Historically speaking, political hatred had been as old a human phenomenon as prostitution, alcoholism and drug consumption. Moreover, political hatred had always been destructive and never constructive. Finally, the most glaring characteristic of all politicians practicing politically motivated hatred had been their nauseating hypocrisy.
Since the unexpected election triumph of Donald J. Trump over Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrats have resolved not to accept the will of the American voters. Consequently, they declared total resistance to the Trump presidency. As a start, they have invented the myth about the “Russian Collusion.” Never mind that the real conspiracy was perpetrated by the Clinton campaign that commissioned and fully paid for the so-called Steele dossier. Never mind that the Obama FBI spied on the Trump campaign illegally. Never mind that high officials at the Department of Justice, the FBI, and heads of several intelligence agencies repeatedly lied and thus misled the FISA courts.
Never mind that the former head of the FBI and his friends have employed illegal deceptions to fabricate the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the duly elected president without even a single circumstantial evidence. Never mind that this ongoing investigative farce has divided the nation into two opposing political camps. Never mind that the international reputation of the United States of America as a constitutional republic and the shining example of a nation characterized by absolute respect for the rule of law has been gravely damaged. Never mind that the politicians who insist upon this macabre persecution of the highest office holder are considered to be both at home and abroad America’s useless idiots. Never mind that the near paralysis of legislative branch has perpetuated the maladies of the country and simultaneously has rendered both Houses of Congress dangerously ineffective. Never mind that this situation has forced President Trump to mostly govern by executive orders. Finally, never mind that the majority of Americans have gradually been radicalized and the federal government has been falling victim of a permanent lie.
By • Newsmax
The U.S. Air Force just changed the game when it comes to global air mobility by signing off on first delivery for Boeing’s KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tanker. The first KC-46 Pegasus Tankers will begin arriving at McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas in the coming weeks, where Airmen will begin training for their future mission.
The success and safety of our military forces responding to constantly evolving threats and crises around the world relies on our Air Force’s global reach, giving us the ability to hit targets and deliver troops and supplies anywhere in the world. Our global reach and that of our allies would not be possible without America’s superior air refueling capability — a capability that is limited and jeopardized by our current fleet of Eisenhower-era tankers.
The aerial refueling tankers our Air Force operates now are mostly KC-135s that date back a half-century. The fleet’s last real update was the KC-10 procurement over thirty years ago. These aircraft face serious limitations in responding to modern threats. Continue reading
