Category Archives: Military

Watch this man paint something amazing

On October 22, 2016, at a Toledo Walleye hockey game in Toledo, Ohio, artist Joe Everson kicked off the game by painting what appeared to be random blotches of blue on a black canvas, as he sang The Star Spangled Banner.

Watch what happened . . . .

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The painting, of course, is the famous “Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima,” of United States soldiers raising the American flag during World War II.

Here’s the YouTube video:

~Eowyn

Advertisements

Pentagon employees, some with top secret security clearances, busted for child porn

I am republishing this post from July 27, 2010 in view of Pizzagate, which gives this post a new significance.

When you read this post, just remember that a pedophile is defined as an adult with “sexual fondness for and activity” with children, i.e., minors below the age of consent. In other words, the definition doesn’t require that there be sexual abuse of a child; sexual attraction to children is definitive. That in turn means that the Pentagon employees busted for child porn are pedophiles.

Remember the news back in April 2010 that, while the economy crashed, senior staffers at the federal government’s Securities and Exchange Commission were spending hours surfing pornographic websites on government-issued computers while they were being paid to police the financial system?

Now comes news that employees and contractors of the Pentagon are buying and watching child porn on the taxpayers’ dime. Not only is porn-watching on government computers illegal, it is against the law for all Americans to purchase and view child pornography. Worse still, some of the Pentagon child porn creeps have high-level security clearances, which makes them national security hazards because their sexual perversion makes them vulnerable to blackmail.

On July 23, 2010, Dana Hedgpeth of the Washington Post reports that “Federal investigators have identified about 20 Pentagon employees and contractors accused of buying and downloading online child pornography and in some cases used their government-issued computers to view the illegal material.”

According to a 94-page report released by the Defense Department’s inspector general’s office, some of those involved possessed top-secret security clearances and worked for such divisions as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the National Reconnaissance Office. Those agencies deal with some of the government’s most sensitive intelligence and defense work.

The number of Pentagon employees investigated was not disclosed in the report, but a Pentagon spokeswoman said the probe involved about 20 people who had an “affiliation with the Defense Department” as full-time employees, former military members or contractors. Some of those people have been prosecuted, and some of their cases were dropped for lack of evidence. Other cases remain open.

The cases are part of a wider probe, Operation Flicker, which was started by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement four years ago and which has identified more than 5,000 people who subscribed to online child pornography websites.

The cases detailed in the new report include one involving an employee of Oracle Corp. who had a top-secret clearance and worked on a contract for the National Security Agency. The man subscribed to various child pornography websites and made 21 purchases. After authorities started investigating him, the report said, he attempted to tamper with computers at his office. He was put on administrative leave with pay. He later fled to Libya but was arrested and extradited to the United States.

Another case involved a government employee at the National Defense University in Norfolk who made two purchases from a child pornography website. He pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to five years in prison.

It is illegal to access pornography with a government computer.

UPDATE (Feb. 12, 2017):

Five years later, the Boston Globe discovered the Pentagon still had not investigated as many as 1,700 of the cases involving employees suspected of child-porn.

See also:

~Eowyn

Navy Special Warfare unit flies Trump flag

As America descends into Left-orchestrated protests and violent riots, a sign that the military has President Trump’s back was seen last Sunday in Louisville, Kentucky — a military convoy flying a Trump flag.

navy-special-warfare-unit-flies-trump-flag

Andrew Wolfson reports for the Courier-Journal, Feb. 1, 2017, that the military convoy seen flying a Trump flag belonged to a Navy Special Warfare unit, according to Navy spokeswoman Lt. Jacqui Maxwell of the Naval Special Warfare Group 2 in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Maxwell said the Special Warfare forces were training in and around Fort Knox, Kentucky, and that the Trump flag was “inappropriate” and “unauthorized” and that a command inquiry is underway. Maxwell said the infractions will be investigated by the unit’s commander, who will decide what discipline to impose, if any.

Military regulations say personnel should avoid implying Department of Defense sponsorship or endorsement of any “political candidate, campaign or cause.”

Photos and videos of the convoy were first posted by Indivisible Kentucky, a anti-Trump Louisville-based political organization. Witnesses variously described the convoy including four and 10 trucks.

Some motorists said they were alarmed by military units flying the flag of a national leader rather than the country, which they said is reminiscent of a fascist government or banana republic. Others noted that Trump is now the commander in chief, not a political candidate, and they saw nothing wrong with service members supporting him. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Navy Special Warfare Command is part of the U.S. Special Operations Command, which is responsible for overseeing and conducting special operations and secret missions. It specializes in unconventional warfare, direct actions, counterterrorism, special reconnaissance and personnel recovery.

~Eowyn

Trump is right: NATO allies are not paying their fair share

Throughout his campaign, President Donald John Trump had said that one of the things he’ll do as POTUS is to make fairer and better “deals” with supposed U.S. allies — in Asia (Japan, South Korea), and in Europe (referring to our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO).

In the case of America’s NATO allies, they are supposed to pay at least 2% of their GDPs as their “fair share” in defense costs — except they’re not.

Rick Clough reports for Bloomberg, Jan. 18, 2017, that “Donald Trump is right to say America’s NATO allies aren’t paying their fair share,” which you can see in the map below.

nato-defense-spending

Whereas the U.S. pays more than our “fair share” as a member of NATO (3.6% of our GDP), the vast majority of NATO allies pay less than their fair share:

  1. Albania: 1.2%
  2. Belgium: 0.9%
  3. Bulgaria: 1.3%
  4. Canada: 1%
  5. Croatia: 1.2%
  6. Czech Republic: 1%
  7. Denmark: 1.2%
  8. France: 1.8%
  9. Germany: 1.2%
  10. Hungary: 1%
  11. Italy: 1.1%
  12. Latvia: 1.5%
  13. Lithuania: 1.5%
  14. Luxembourg: 0.4%
  15. Netherlands: 1.2%
  16. Norway: 1.5%
  17. Portugal: 1.4%
  18. Romania: 1.5%
  19. Slovakia: 1.2%
  20. Slovenia: 0.9%
  21. Spain: 0.9%
  22. Turkey: 1.6%

In all, only four NATO countries pay their fair share:

  • Estonia: 2.2%
  • Greece: 2.4%
  • Poland: 2%
  • United Kingdom: 2.2%

Not only are our “allies” not shouldering their fair share, instead leaving it up to the United States, as usual, to fork up more than our share, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization itself should be mothballed, being a relic of the Cold War against a communist Soviet Union that no longer exists.

Bloomberg‘s Clough observes:

“He [Trump] reaffirmed his skepticism about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and his readiness to make deals with Russia, in European media interviews published last weekend. Trump isn’t famous for his policy consistency, but those positions have held fairly steady — leaving European leaders wondering whether they can still rely on the American security umbrella.

‘Let’s not fool ourselves,’ German Chancellor Angela Merkel said last week. ‘There is no infinite guarantee.’

So Merkel’s Germany, and many other European nations, are boosting military budgets.

[…] the prospect of a European arms-shopping spree is a win-win for suppliers. Investors have noticed: From Raytheon Co. to Lockheed Martin Corp. to Thales SA, defense contractors have hit all-time highs since Trump’s election. […]

Germany, which spent 1.2 percent of GDP on defense last year according to NATO figures, has announced the biggest increase in 25 years — an extra 10.6 billion euros ($11.2 billion) through 2020. France has approved increased outlays for 2017. Altogether, 19 of NATO’s 28 members have boosted military budgets in the past 18 months, according to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch report.

[…] The new administration isn’t all upside for defense contractors. Trump has already called out companies like Lockheed and Boeing Co. for their high prices.”

And both Lockheed and Boeing, even before Trump was inaugurated as President, already made concessions:

But neo-conservative Bill Kristol whines that he finds Trump putting America’s interests first to be “vulgar, embarrassing and depressing”.

See also “Pence says transition team returning 20 percent of budget”.

H/t ZeroHedge

~Eowyn

23 intelligence-military veterans demand Obama release proof of Russian hacking or admit it’s a lie

23 U.S. intelligence, military and diplomatic veterans have written an extraordinary letter calling on Obama to release the evidence that Russia had hacked the 2016 presidential election in order to elect Donald Trump, or admit that there is no proof.

You don’t and won’t see this letter on the MSM.

The 23 former officials are members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

In their letter, the former federal government officials:

  1. Point out that the Obama administration’s published intelligence report — on Russia’s alleged hacking of the election and transmittal of hacked Democrat emails to WikiLeaks to publish — lacks evidence and is unconvincing.
  2. Assert that, if Russia indeed had transmitted hacked emails to WikiLeaks, the NSA should — but does not — have the incriminating  electronic communications between the Kremlin and Wikileaks.
  3. Assert that the Democrat emails obtained by WikiLeaks were leaked, not hacked, which would explain why there are no electronic traces. By “leaked” is meant that someone(s) handed to WikiLeaks the actual physical hardcopies of the emails. (Note: That is what WikiLeaks has maintained all along. Julian Assange had implied that the source of the leak was a DNC staffer named Seth Rich, 27, who was shot and killed in a D.C. street on July 10, 2016. His murder is still unsolved. We want Justice for Seth Rich!)
  4. Convey their dismay that James Clapper, who oversees the entire U.S. intelligence system as Director of National Intelligence, is still in office despite him having lied under oath to Congress and made outright erroneous claims.

Below is their letter. You can read it in PDF format here. I supplied the red color for certain sentences and paragraphs that I believe particularly merit your attention.

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

MEMORANDUM FOR: President Barack Obama
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: A Key Issue That Still Needs to be Resolved

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take the oath of office Friday, a pall hangs over his upcoming presidency amid an unprecedentedly concerted campaign to delegitimize it. Unconfirmed accusations continue to swirl alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized “Russian hacking” that helped put Mr. Trump in the White House.

As President for a few more days, you have the power to demand concrete evidence of a link between the Russians and WikiLeaks, which published the bulk of the information in question. Lacking that evidence, the American people should be told that there is no fire under the smoke and mirrors of recent weeks. We urge you to authorize public release of any tangible evidence that takes us beyond the unsubstantiated, “we-assess” judgments by the intelligence agencies. Otherwise, we – as well as other skeptical Americans – will be left with the corrosive suspicion that the intense campaign of accusations is part of a wider attempt to discredit the Russians and those – like Mr. Trump – who wish to deal constructively with them.

Remember the Maine?

Alleged Russian interference has been labeled “an act of war” and Mr. Trump a “traitor.” But the “intelligence” served up to support those charges does not pass the smell test. Your press conference on Wednesday will give you a chance to respond more persuasively to NBC’s Peter Alexander’s challenge at the last one (on Dec. 16) “to show the proof [and], as they say, put your money where your mouth is and declassify some of the intelligence. …” You told Alexander you were reluctant to “compromise sources and methods.” We can understand that concern better than most Americans. We would remind you, though, that at critical junctures in the past, your predecessors made judicious decisions to give higher priority to buttressing the credibility of U.S. intelligence-based policy than to protecting sources and methods. With the Kremlin widely accused by politicians and pundits of “an act of war,” this is the kind of textbook case in which you might seriously consider taking special pains to substantiate serious allegations with hard intelligence – if there is any.

During the Cuban missile crisis, for instance, President Kennedy ordered us to show highly classified photos of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba and on ships en route, even though this blew sensitive detail regarding the imagery intelligence capabilities of the cameras on our U-2 aircraft.

President Ronald Reagan’s reaction to the Libyan terrorist bombing of La Belle Disco in Berlin on April 5, 1986, that killed two and injured 79 other U.S. servicemen is another case in point. We had intercepted a Libyan message that morning: “At 1:30 in the morning one of the acts was carried out with success, without leaving a trace behind.” (We should add here that NSA’s dragnet SIGINT capability 30 years later renders it virtually impossible to avoid “leaving a trace behind” once a message is put on the network.)

President Reagan ordered the U.S. Air Force to bomb Col. Muammar Qaddafi’s palace compound to smithereens, killing several civilians. Amid widespread international consternation and demands for proof that Libya was responsible for the Berlin attack, President Reagan ordered us to make public the encrypted Libyan message, thereby sacrificing a collection/decryption capability unknown to the Libyans – until then.

As senior CIA veteran Milton Bearden has put it, there are occasions when more
damage is done by “protecting” sources and methods than by revealing them.

Where’s the Beef?

We find the New York Times– and Washington Post-led media Blitz against Trump and Putin truly extraordinary, despite our long experience with intelligence/media related issues. On Jan. 6, the day after your top intelligence officials published what we found to be an embarrassingly shoddy report purporting to prove Russian hacking in support of Trump’s candidacy, the Times banner headline across all six columns on page 1 read: “PUTIN LED SCHEME TO AID TRUMP, REPORT SAYS.

The lead article began: “President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation’s top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.” Eschewing all subtlety, the Times added that the revelations in “this damning report … undermined the legitimacy” of the President-elect, and “made the case that Mr. Trump was the favored candidate of Mr. Putin.”

On page A10, however, Times investigative reporter Scott Shane pointed out: “What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission.” Shane continued, “Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’ There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow’s propaganda machinery.

Shane added that the intelligence report “offers an obvious reason for leaving out the details, declaring that including ‘the precise bases for its assessments’ would ‘reveal sensitive sources and methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.’”

Shane added a quote from former National Security Agency lawyer Susan Hennessey: “The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.” Ms. Hennessey served as an attorney in NSA’s Office of General Counsel and is now a Brookings Fellow in National Security Law.

Everyone Hacks

There is a lot of ambiguity – whether calculated or not – about “Russian hacking.” “Everyone knows that everyone hacks,” says everyone: Russia hacks; China hacks; every nation that can hacks. So do individuals of various nationalities. This is not the question.

You said at your press conference on Dec. 16 “the intelligence that I have seen gives me great confidence in their [U.S. intelligence agencies’] assessment that the Russians carried out this hack.” “Which hack?” you were asked. “The hack of the DNC and the hack of John Podesta,” you answered.

Earlier during the press conference you alluded to the fact that “the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks.” The key question is how the material from “Russian hacking” got to WikiLeaks, because it was WikiLeaks that published the DNC and Podesta emails.

Our VIPS colleague William Binney, who was Technical Director of NSA and created many of the collection systems still in use, assures us that NSA’s “cast-iron” coverage – particularly surrounding Julian Assange and other people associated with WikiLeaks – would almost certainly have yielded a record of any electronic transfer from Russia to WikiLeaks. Binney has used some of the highly classified slides released by Edward Snowden to demonstrate precisely how NSA accomplishes this using trace mechanisms embedded throughout the network. [See: “U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims,” Dec. 12, 2016.]

NSA Must Come Clean

We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks. If NSA can produce such evidence, you may wish to order whatever declassification may be needed and then release the evidence. This would go a long way toward allaying suspicions that no evidence exists. If NSA cannot give you that information – and quickly – this would probably mean it does not have any.

In all candor, the checkered record of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for trustworthiness makes us much less confident that anyone should take it on faith that he is more “trustworthy than the Russians,” as you suggested on Dec. 16. You will probably recall that Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 12, 2013, about NSA dragnet activities; later apologizing for testimony he admitted had been “clearly erroneous.” In our Memorandum for you on Dec. 11, 2013, we cited chapter and verse as to why Clapper should have been fired for saying things he knew to be “clearly erroneous.”

In that Memorandum, we endorsed the demand by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that Clapper be removed. “Lying to Congress is a federal offense, and Clapper ought to be fired and prosecuted for it,” said Sensenbrenner in an interview with The Hill. “The only way laws are effective is if they’re enforced.” Actually, we have had trouble understanding why, almost four years after he deliberately misled the Senate, Clapper remains Director of National Intelligence – overseeing the entire intelligence community.

Hacks or Leaks?

Not mentioned until now is our conclusion that leaks are the source of the WikiLeaks disclosures in question – not hacking. Leaks normally leave no electronic trace. William Binney has been emphasizing this for several months and suggesting strongly that the disclosures were from a leaker with physical access to the information – not a hacker with only remote access. This, of course, makes it even harder to pin the blame on President Putin, or anyone else. And we suspect that this explains why NSA demurred when asked to join the CIA and FBI in expressing “high confidence” in this key judgment of the report put out under Clapper’s auspices on Jan. 6, yielding this curious formulation:

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.” (Emphasis [bold], and lack of emphasis, in original)

In addition, former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray has said publicly he has first-
hand information on the provenance of the leaks, and has expressed surprise that no one from the New York Times or the Washington Post has tried to get in touch with him. We would be interested in knowing whether anyone from your administration, including the intelligence community, has made any effort to contact Ambassador Murray.

What to Do

President-elect Trump said a few days ago that his team will have a “full report on hacking within 90 days.” Whatever the findings of the Trump team turn out to be, they will no doubt be greeted with due skepticism, since Mr. Trump is in no way a disinterested party.

You, on the other hand, enjoy far more credibility – AND power – for the next few days. And we assume you would not wish to hobble your successor with charges that cannot withstand close scrutiny. We suggest you order the chiefs of the NSA, FBI and CIA to the White House and ask them to lay all their cards on the table. They need to show you why you should continue to place credence in what, a month ago, you described as “uniform intelligence assessments” about Russian hacking.

At that point, if the intelligence heads have credible evidence, you have the option of ordering it released – even at the risk of damage to sources and methods. For what it may be worth, we will not be shocked if it turns out that they can do no better than the evidence-deprived assessments they have served up in recent weeks. In that case, we would urge you, in all fairness, to let the American people in on the dearth of convincing evidence before you leave office. As you will have gathered by now, we strongly suspect that the evidence your intelligence chiefs have of a joint Russian-hacking-WikiLeaks-publishing operation is no better than the “intelligence” evidence in 2002-2003 – expressed then with comparable flat-fact “certitude” – of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Obama’s Legacy

Mr. President, there is much talk in your final days in office about your legacy. Will part of that legacy be that you stood by while flames of illegitimacy rose willy-nilly around your successor? Or will you use your power to reveal the information – or the fact that there are merely unsupported allegations – that would enable us to deal with them responsibly?

In the immediate wake of the holiday on which we mark the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it seems appropriate to make reference to his legacy, calling to mind the graphic words in his “Letter From the Birmingham City Jail,” with which he reminds us of our common duty to expose lies and injustice:

“Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up, but must be opened with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be exposed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”

-End of Memo-

The above memorandum to Barack Obama is signed by the following 23 former U.S. officials who represent the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS):

  1. William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military  Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
  2. Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret) and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research
  3. Thomas Drake, former Senior Executive, NSA
  4. Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
  5. Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
  6. Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
  7. Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
  8. Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, ret.
  9. Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
  10. Brady Kiesling, former U.S. Foreign Service Officer, ret. (Associate VIPS)
  11. John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
  12. Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
  13. Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
  14. David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
  15. Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
  16. Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
  17. Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
  18. Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
  19. Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
  20. Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
  21. Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)
  22. Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
  23. Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat

See also “Trump’s war with the CIA”.

~Eowyn

Trump tweets . . . and Lockheed pledges to lower $379B cost of F-35 fighter jets

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather stealth multirole fighters, designed for ground attack and air missions.

f-35-fighter-jet

The F-35 is the most expensive military weapons system in history, and has been much criticized — for its design flaws; the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time, instead of identifying and fixing defects before firing up its production line; and for its costs.

The Pentagon’s Office of Operational Testing and Evaluation said in a recently-released report that the F-35 program is plagued with:

“Significant, well-documented deficiencies; for hundreds of these, the program has no plan to adequately fix and verify with flight test…. The program currently has 17 known and acknowledged failures to meet the contract specification requirements…. The current schedule-driven program plans to close out testing in 2017 do not include enough time to fix these key deficiencies, nor time to verify corrections in flight test.”

The report recommends that Trump’s administration should “rigorously and comprehensively review” the aircraft’s effectiveness.

With flaws acknowledged by the Pentagon, the F-35 is prohibitively expensive. One F-35C fighter jet costs $116 million for just its low rate initial production without engine. By 2014, the program already was $163 billion over budget and seven years behind schedule. The entire F-35 program has cost taxpayers $379 billion to date, and is the Pentagon’s costliest program. Additional operating costs are likely to take the total to above $1 trillion.

On December 22, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump, a businessman, wrote a 24-word tweet, asking if American taxpayers can get a better deal from Boeing, Lockheed’s competitor.

trumps-tweet-on-cost-of-f-35-fighter-jets

Immediately after Trump fired off his tweet, Lockheed’s share price fell by 2%.

On January 13, 2017,  22 days after Trump’s tweet, Lockheed Martin Corp CEO Marillyn Hewson met with Trump, then announced that Lockheed is close to finalizing a deal that will significantly lower the cost of its F-35 fighter jets. Hewson also promised the company would create 1,800 new jobs in its Fort Worth, Texas facility. Those new jobs, in turn, will create “thousands and thousands of jobs” by bolstering domestic supply chains.

Hewson said:

“I had a very good conversation with President-elect Trump this afternoon and assured him that I’ve heard his message loud and clear about reducing the cost of the F-35. I gave him my personal commitment to drive the cost down aggressively. I know that President-elect Trump wants the very best capability for our military at the lowest cost for taxpayers, and we’re ready to deliver!”

Here’s what motivated Lockheed to lower its F-35 production costs:

lockheed-martin-stock-performance

Trump is the first President-elect — and will be the first President — to use Twitter, which unsurprisingly horrifies and scandalizes liberals and the MSM. Trump’s twitter strategy already has proven effective in motivating companies to invest billions in America — Ford, Chrysler, Alibaba, Amazon, and now Lockheed Martin.

H/t Public Interest Group

~Eowyn

Obama fires General of D.C. National Guard, effective 12:01 pm, Inauguration Day

The Left’s mental disorder is in over-drive with Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

They have vowed to make the upcoming inauguration of Donald Trump as America’s 45th President, the most chaotic Inauguration Day in U.S. history. There are plans to disrupt and cause maximum chaos. A full-page ad in the Wednesday, January 11 edition of the New York Times points the Trump-deranged to the website of the coordinating group refusefascism.org.

Obama gives America the finger

Knowing full well the Left’s plans, Obama, that petulant malevolent piece of turd, has fired the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, Maj. Gen. Errol R. Schwartz, to be effective at 12:01 p.m. on January 20 — that is immediately after Obama’s term of office expires, while thousands of D.C. National Guardsmen are deployed to help protect the nation’s capital.

But it isn’t just the D.C. National Guard. Schwartz would be commanding an additional 5,000 unarmed troops sent in from across the country to help, as well as overseeing military air support to protect the nation’s capital during the inauguration.

That’s Obama leaving a pile of his stinky excrement as his parting gesture — a gesture that endangers Trump’s life and the safety of thousands of Americans attending the inauguration.

flies on a dung heapAs reported by ZeroHedge, unlike in states where the governor appoints the National Guard commander, in Washington, D.C. it’s the President who appoints. Schwartz, 65, an African American who was appointed to head the guard by President George W. Bush in 2008, had maintained the position through Obama’s two terms.

In an interview with WaPo on Friday, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, a Democrat, observes that “It doesn’t make sense to can the general in the middle of an active deployment. The timing is extremely unusual.” Mendelson adds that Schwartz’s dismissal is a long-term loss for the District because “He’s been really very good at working with the community and my impression was that he was good for the Guard.”

maj-gen-errol-r-schwartz

The memo firing Maj. Gen. Schwartz was obtained by the Washington Post. Schwartz said his orders came from the Pentagon but that he doesn’t know who made the decision, nor is he told why he was asked to step down.

Schwartz said he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of battle” and that “My troops will be on the street. I’ll see them off but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” But since “I’m a soldier” and follows orders, he has no regrets — “I’m a presidential appointee, therefore the president has the power to remove me.”

The full-page ad in the Jan. 11 New York Times hysterically declares:

“Stop the Trump/Pence regime before it starts! In the name of humanity we refuse to accept a fascist America!”

The ad is signed by thousands of activists, journalists, intellectuals and entertainers, including Bill Ayers (domestic terrorist), Carl Dix (Communist Party USA), Chase Iron Eyes (Standing Rock Sioux), Marc Lamont Hill (CNN reporter), Alice Walker (author), Cornel West (professor), and Saul Williams (poet).

H/t John Molloy, OSJ, Chairman, National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition

~Eowyn