Displaying posts published in

2014

Egypt Miracle Hepatitis, HIV Cure Farce Continues:Ahmed Abdel-Raheem

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4810/egypt_miracle_hepatitis_hiv_cure_farce_continues
The incoherent mess that is the Egyptian coup leaders’ attempt to cling on to their claims to have invented a miracle cure for HIV and Hepatitis keeps on getting worse

According to Dr. George Lakoff, a distinguished professor of cognitive science, health means life. If you have a serious illness or injury, and cannot get it treated adequately, you die. And tens of millions, of course, do.

Health denotes freedom. Life and freedom are real moral issues. And therefore health is a moral mission of the highest order, as Dr. Lakoff states. Moreover, health is a patriotic issue. Health security is a problem for far more Egyptians than military security. Everyone can understand that.

When you lie to the people about their health, you represent a very real terror. You kill not just the body but also the soul.

And so we return to the farcical claims by the Egyptian coup leaders a short while ago that they had found a miracle cure for HIV and Hepatitis C. They’re still forlornly holding on to their claims, but they can’t quite hold the line, even in their own media.

Two days ago, Egypt’s national newspaper Al-Akhbar ran a jubilant news story saying:

“Immediately after the Engineering Authority of the Armed Forces announced its device for treating HIV and Hepatitis C, local and international reactions began to come through; for example, the device-inventing team has been invited to give a talk on the mechanism of the machine at the International Conference on Viruses that will be held in China from 26-29 June.”

The whole world is in awe of the coup leaders’ breakthrough!

The Israeli Solution By Janet Tassel

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/janet-tassel/the-israeli-solution-2/print/

Reprinted from The American Thinker.

To Caroline Glick, senior contributing editor at the Jerusalem Post, the concept of a “two-state solution,” carving an invented state of Palestine from the tiny body of Israel and hopefully expecting the two resulting entities to live in harmony is, at best, a “chimera.” Worse, it is a “humiliating, dangerous nightmare”; and worst of all, it spells the end of Israel.

What Glick proposes in her provocative new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, (available March 4) is to brush away the web of mischief, ignorance, deceit and hatred that surrounds the “peace plan,” and with newfound clarity, get rid of the misbegotten thing entirely. In its place, she proposes a one-state plan, the one state being Israel.

In Glick’s own words:

The Israeli one-state plan entails the application of Israeli law– and through it, Israeli sovereignty– over the west bank of the Jordan River: the area that, from biblical times through the 1950s, was known to the world as Judea and Samaria. In Israel, Judea and Samaria remain the terms used to refer to the territory….

Judea and Samaria are the terms she uses throughout. Israel having withdrawn from Gaza in 2005, Glick does not include Gaza in her plan, nor does she believe, for legal and strategic reasons, that it should be reabsorbed into Israel. Her one-state solution, the application of Israeli law and sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, which is “based on actual Israeli rights rather than fictitious Israeli culpability,”

would liberate Israel to craft coherent strategies for contending with the…evolving regional threat and the international assault on its right to exist….Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria will increase the security of all. It will transform the region from one governed alternatively by a military government and a terrorist kleptocracy into one governed by a unified, liberal rule of law.

The End of International Law By Daniel Greenfield

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-end-of-international-law/print/

“There has been no greater advance than this, gentlemen,” the President of the United States said. “It is a definite guarantee of peace. It is a definite guarantee by word against aggression.”

The year was 1919. The speaker was President Woodrow Wilson and the tremendous advance in human history was the League of Nations.

Then Japan seized Manchuria and turned it into a puppet regime. China turned to the League of Nations which ordered Japan to withdraw from Manchuria. Japan instead withdrew from the League of Nations. Five years later, Japan invaded China. China asked for help from the League of Nations. The League proved to be just as useless again.

Western sanctions against Japan were erratic. Chamberlain vowed that Britain would never submit to Japanese threats, but tacitly recognized Japan’s conquests. He called Japan’s repeated humiliations, “almost intolerable”.

Almost.

The UK had accepted the annexation of Austria and abetted the seizure of the Sudetenland. Japan knew that behind British diplomacy lay not strength, but fear of provoking the rising power of the Rising Sun.

A few months before WWII, British negotiators had finally convinced the Japanese to stop stripping British subjects naked, but by then the forcible stripping of British men and women had served its purpose of stripping British power naked.

“We lived on bluff from 1920-1939, but it was eventually called,” Alexander Cadogan, the Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, wrote.

Wilson’s “definite guarantee of peace” had failed miserably. International law had been exposed as magical thinking. When confronted with aggression, the diplomats who had talked boldly of ending war crawled on their bellies and proposed territorial partitions, desperately trying to appease Japan, Germany and Italy.

EU Report, EU Money Threaten Israel’s Security By Shoshana Bryen

http://pjmedia.com/blog/eu-report-eu-money-threatens-israels-security/?print=1

As Israelis in the southern part of the country have taken to shelters and safe rooms under a barrage of more than 60 (and counting) rockets from the Gaza Strip, and as the Israeli General Staff considers a response, it is worth a look at the just-released EU Heads of Mission [1] report on Gaza. It got a few things right, including:

Criticism of Hamas rocket fire at Israel. “Whilst the number of rockets has been lower in 2013 than in previous years, indiscriminate firing of rockets towards Israel by extremist groups in Gaza has continued, in violation of international law.” The report noted that 2013 was a quiet year [2], but Hamas is “nonetheless continuing to create fear for the population in southern Israel.”

The EU couldn’t have known about Wednesday’s attacks, but it was also the committee’s view that: “Despite Hamas’ calls for a return to armed resistance, there is little evidence that Hamas has changed its policy on the ground. The ceasefire … has largely held.” Though not for lack of trying. Hamas’ “policy” was and remains to acquire ever more sophisticated rockets and missiles with which to threaten Israel. Consider what this week’s attack might have looked like if Israel had not successfully intercepted the Iranian-sponsored shipment of Syrian missiles.

Harsh criticism [3] of Hamas for blocking freedom of assembly, freedom to demonstrate and freedom of speech. They condemn restrictions on NGOs, an increasing number of arrests, interrogation of social protesters, warnings to people against attending anti-Hamas demonstrations, closing media outlets, arresting journalists who criticize the authorities and prohibiting the distribution of West Bank newspapers. Executions without judicial processes, discrimination against women, and laws that violate women’s rights are also condemned.

Educating Conservatives About Modern ‘Shi’ite Quietists’ By Andrew G. Bostom

http://pjmedia.com/blog/educating-conservatives-about-modern-shiite-quietists/?print=1

The so-called “P5 +1” interim agreement [1] with Iran was announced on November 24, 2013, amidst great fanfare, and giddy expectations of continued diplomatic success. Putatively, these negotiations were going to eliminate Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, and constrain the regime’s hegemonic aspirations, including its oft-repeated bellicose threats to destroy the Jewish State of Israel.

Less than three months later, punctuated by cries of “down with the U.S.”—and “death to Israel”—Iranians took to the streets en masse, February 11, 2014, commemorating the 35th anniversary [2] of the 1979 Islamic putsch, which firmly re-established Iran’s legacy of centuries of Shiite theocracy, transiently interrupted by the 54-year reign (r. 1925-1979) of the 20th century Pahlavi Shahs.

Many alarming developments since the P5 +1 deal was announced epitomize the abject failure of a delusive and dangerous policymaking mindset I have dubbed, “The ‘Trusting Khomeini’ Syndrome,” in my new book Iran’s Final Solution For Israel [3]. This “Syndrome” is named after infamous Princeton International Law Professor Richard Falk’s February 16, 1979 essay, “Trusting Khomeini [4],” dutifully published in the The New York Times. The parlous denial—born of willful doctrinal and historical negationism—evident in Falk’s February, 1979 essay, now shapes formal U.S. policy toward Iran, merely updated as “Trusting Khamenei,” Iran’s current “Supreme Leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini. I further maintain that the sine qua non of this crippling mindset—bowdlerization of Islam—currently dominates policymaking circles, running the gamut from Left to Right.

The late Islamologist Maxime Rodinson warned [5] 40-years ago of a broad academic campaign—which has clearly infected policymakers across the politico-ideological spectrum—“to sanctify Islam and the contemporary ideologies of the Muslim world.” A pervasive phenomenon, Rodinson ruefully described [5] the profundity of its deleterious consequences:

Understanding [of Islam] has given way to apologetics pure and simple.

A prototypical example of how this mindset has warped intellectually honest discourse about Iran by conservative analysts, was published [6] February 17, 2014 in The Weekly Standard. The essayist decried [6] what he saw as misguided appropriation of Cold War era paradigms—“wishful thinking built around imagined Cold War analogies”—even by members of the Israeli “security establishment,” let alone their Obama Administration counterparts. Although correctly dismissive of the sham notion that Iranian President “Rouhani and his crowd are moderates,” the essayist also insisted [6] Iran’s “ayatollahs” have somehow “perverted Shia Islam with the state takeover of religion.” He then ads [6], “the older quietist school [ostensibly of Shiite Islam] still has many adherents.”

The Weekly Standard essayist’s authoritative sounding [6] reference to the “quietist school” of Shiite Islam and its “many adherents,” expressed the accepted wisdom on these matters published in a flagship conservative/neoconservative journal, and shared by a broad swath of like-minded conservative analysts. But who are exemplar modern Shiite “quietists” and what are their views (in writing and/or speech) on such critical matters as jihad, the imposition of the Sharia, including Shiite “najis,” or “impurity” regulations—and the Jews?

Decidedly hagiographic post-mortems written by American conservatives appeared immediately after the announcement of Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri’s death at age 87, on December 20, 2009. Neoconservative Michael Ledeen opined [7],

Some of us who have long fought against the terrible regime in Tehran were fortunate to have received wise observations from Montazeri over the years, and I am confident that, with the passage of time and the changes that will take place in Iran, scholars will marvel at the international dimensions of the Grand Ayatollah’s understanding and the range of his activities.

Perhaps the most curious of these early assessments included a contention [8] by Michael Rubin that “…the real Achilles Heel to the Iranian regime is Shi’ism.” Reuel Marc Gerecht, writing in October, 2010, ten months after Montazeri’s death, dubbed the Ayatollah [9], simultaneously, “the spiritual father of Iran’s Green Movement,” and the erstwhile “nemesis of Ali Khamenei, Iran’s ruler,” whom Gerecht derided (in contrast to Montazeri), as “a very mediocre student of the Sharia.”

These odd viewpoints were (and remain) merely the extension of a profoundly flawed, ahistorical mindset which denies the living legacy of Shiite Islamic doctrine and its authentic, oppressive application in Iran, particularly, since the advent of the Safavid theocratic state [3] at the outset of the 16th century. Iran’s Safavid rulers, beginning with Shah Ismail I [3] (r. 1501-1524) formally established Shiite Islam as the state religion, while permitting a clerical hierarchy nearly unlimited control and influence over all aspects of public life. The profound influence of the Shiite clerical elite, continued for almost four centuries, although interrupted, between 1722-1795 (during a period precipitated by [Sunni] Afghan invasion [starting in 1719], and the subsequent attempt to re-cast Twelver Shi’ism as simply another Sunni school of Islamic Law, under Nadir Shah [3]), through the later Qajarperiod (1795-1925), as characterized by E.G. Browne [3]:

The Mujtahids [an eminent, very learned Muslim jurist/scholar who is qualified to interpret the law] and Mulla [a scholar, not of Mujtahid stature] are a great force in Persia and concern themselves with every department of human activity from the minutest detail of personal purification to the largest issues of politics.

A gimlet-eyed evaluation of Montazeri’s recorded modern opinions—entirely concordant with traditionalist Iranian Shi’ism since the Safavid era—does not comport with the conservative eulogies of the late Ayatollah by Ledeen, Rubin, Gerecht, and their ilk.

Consistent with the institutionalized codifications of Islam’s classical Sunni and Shiite legists, Montazeri’s written views [3] (from his Islamic Law Codes [Resaleh-ye Tozih al-masael]) on jihad war reiterate the doctrine of open-ended aggression to establish global Islamic suzerainty, and the universal application of Sharia:

[T]he offensive jihad is a war that an Imam wages in order to invite infidels and non-monotheists to Islam or to prevent the violation of treaty of Ahl-e Zemmah [Ahl-al-Dhimma, the humiliating pact of submission binding non-Muslim “dhimmis” vanquished by jihad]. In fact, the goal of offensive jihad is not the conquest of other countries, but the defense of the inherent rights of nations that are deprived of power by the infidels, non-monotheists, and rebels from the worship of Allah, monotheism, and justice. “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world].,” (Koran 8:39)…This verse includes defensive as well as offensive jihad. Jihad, like prayer, is for all times and is not limited to an early period of Islam, such as Muhammad, Ali, or the other Imams. Jihad is intended to defend truth and justice, help oppressed people, and correct Islam. In the Mahdi’s occultation period, jihad is not to be abandoned; even if occultation lasts for a hundred thousand years, Muslims have to defend and fight for the expansion of Islam. Certainly, if in early Islam the goodness was in the sword, in our time the goodness is in artillery, tanks, automatic guns and missiles. . . in principle, jihad in Islam is for defense; whether defense of truth or justice, or the struggle with infidels in order to make them return to monotheism and the divine nature. This is the defense of truth, because the denial of Allah is the denial of truth.

How would non-Muslims fare under the Shiite Islamic order—forcibly imposed by jihad—as envisioned by Montazeri?

The late Professor Sorour Soroudi [3], and Professor Eliz Sanasarian, [3] have analyzed Montazeri’s views on najis (“impurity”), Sanasarian noting [3]:

Montazeri saw nejasat [najis] in twelve items including blood, dogs, pigs, wine, and kafirs [i.e., primarily, non-Muslims]…A kafir’s body, including hair, nails, and body fluids was to be avoided. The purchase, sale, or receiving of meat and fat from either non-Muslim countries or a kafir were forbidden.

Montazeri further argued [3] that a non-Muslim’s (kafir’s) impurity was, “a political order from Islam and must be adhered to by the followers of Islam, and the goal [was] to promote general hatred toward those who are outside Muslim circles.” This “hatred” was to assure that Muslims would not succumb to corrupt, i.e., non-Islamic thoughts. Montazeri’s Shiite Islamic political Weltanschauung was articulated [3] in his 4 volume treatise on the “Vilayat al-Faqih” [Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists], a key rationale for the post-1979 Iranian Shiite theocracy. These views—openly antithetical to Western conceptions of individual liberty, religious freedom, and democracy—were aptly summarized by Montazeri’s student, Iranian Sociology Professor Mahmood Davari [3], in 2005:

According to Montazeri, Islamic rule differs from Western democracy in two matters. While the people in a democratic system are supposedly free to elect any person as their ruler, in a Shi’i society Muslims may not choose any other ruler except a just faqih. In a democratic society, people are free to legislate any law according to their collective wishes, whereas in an Islamic regime the legislation must be in accord with Islamic laws and ordinances. Therefore, according to Montazeri, Islamic rule is essentially different from democracy in the West.

Montazeri also adhered—quite rigorously—to the traditionalist Shiite dogma regarding punishment for the offense of “sabb,” or blasphemy. Kamran Hashemi’s 2008 study summarized [3] the relevant Shiite jurisprudence:

… according to the majority of Shiite jurists, in cases of sabb, instant punishment [i.e., killing] of the offender, either Muslim or non-Muslim, is not only permissible, but also a religious obligation for any Muslim who realizes the offense, or any who comes to know about it. In this sense, as soon as the offense takes place, the offender must be killed immediately by any one who does not fear for his own life to be endangered.

Hashemi goes on to illustrate the “consensus among contemporary Shiite jurists on the instant punishment of an offender in cases of sabb,” 172 by referring to Montazeri’s opinion [3], specifically:

For example, in response to a question Ayatollah Montazeri [d. 2009] makes a reference to this issue: “In cases of sabb al-Nabi [blasphemy against a prophet, in particular Islam’s prophet, Muhammad]…if the witness does not have fear of his or her life and also there is no fear of mischief [mafsadeh] it is obligatory for him or her to kill the insulter.”

The practical consequences of Montazeri’s bigoted Shiite Islamic authoritarianism—which Ledeen, Rubin, and Gerecht all ignored—were highlighted by Iranian Studies Professor Jamsheed Choksy. In an essay (written with Nina Shea), published July 22, 2009, Choksy observed [10],

Iran’s constitution requires that laws and regulations be based on Islamic criteria, which mandate inferior status for three non-Muslim faiths, while withholding all rights and protections from all other faiths. Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian (specifically, Assyrian and Armenian) live in a modern version of dhimmi status — the…subjugated condition of “people of the Book” dating back to medieval times. While these three groups are allotted seats in the legislative assembly (a total of five out of 290 seats), they are barred from seeking high public office in any of the three branches of government….

Non-Muslim communities collectively have diminished to no more than 2 percent of Iran’s 71 million people. Forty years ago, under the Shah, a visitor would have seen a relatively tolerant society. Iran now appears to be in the final stages of religious cleansing. Pervasive discrimination, intimidation, and harassment have prompted non-Muslims to flee in disproportionately high numbers.

ANGELA HASEK: ISRAEL -HOW THE WORLD HAS BENEFITTED FROM THIS TINY NATION’S ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT

Israel: An LED Light Unto the Nations

http://americanthinker.com/assets/3rd_party/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/israel_an_led_light_unto_the_nations.html
Angela Hasek is a junior majoring in Entrepreneurship at the University of St Thomas in St. Paul, MN.

Israel has many awe-inspiring qualities. Its people are tenacious and brave. Its history is unmatched in depth and significance. And its society reflects the values upon which Western civilization is built. But discussions of the Jewish State tend to surround its battle for survival – this is a mistake. We should remember that there is a great deal more to this country and that we have all benefited from its existence.

Israel is a democracy, a strong ally of the United States, and the Middle East’s one true oasis of religious liberty. I saw all of these qualities during my recent trip there with Christians United for Israel. But I saw one more that my generation in particular has embraced.

Since our founding, American culture has been closely associated with the entrepreneurial spirit. That is in many ways the underpinning of the American dream, and that spirit is growing. In fact, a September 2013 Rasmussen poll revealed that 60% of Millennials want to work for themselves. Not simply at one point in their lives, but within the next two years.

I have studied entrepreneurship throughout the world and, save America, no nation celebrates that spirit more than Israel — and the world is better for it. From advancements in medicine to the technology behind instant messaging services and cell phones, Israel has improved the quality of life for billions — many of whom may not even know it. Israel is credited with creating one of the first SanDisk portable storage devices. They are responsible for an invention called the MobileEye that detects pedestrians and keeps my family members safer on the road. In the medical field, one specific company Given Imaging, has created a variety of patient-friendly mechanisms that detect disorders of the GI tract.

I have seen firsthand what Israel is doing to make my individual life and the world a better place. And that progress is driven by Israel’s open entrepreneurial spirit. Israel feeds the hungry not just by giving them a basket of food but by teaching the world how to make the desert bloom. Israeli entrepreneurs have developed an app that can dramatically decrease the response times of fire and rescue personnel — not benefitting just themselves, but everyone.

DEROY MURDOCK- THE NATIONAL DEBT IS NOT DOWN THE ROAD….IT’S HERE!!!

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/373348/print

The National Debt Now Arguing that it will menace “the children” down the road masks its urgency.

Budget hawks and free-marketeers very badly need to retool their rhetoric on the dangers of government borrowing and America’s ever-deepening national debt — last clocked at $17.4 trillion.

“How dare we pass along our bills to our children and grandchildren . . . yadda, yadda, yadda . . . ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . ”

Such ubiquitous references to indebted youngsters have grown hackneyed. These proverbial little boys and girls have zero practical impact on and limited emotional appeal to Americans who do not have and perhaps do not want offspring. Despite the widespread assumption that “everyone has kids,” tens of millions do not. Of the 226,249,370 adults between ages 18 and 88 in 2009, the latest year for which census data are available, 70,897,249 (31.3 percent) collectively had spawned a grand total of zero children — ever. While most of these voting-age Americans — enough to populate six Ohios — eventually will bear children (or have since this study), many others won’t.

Among those age 50+ in 2009, the Census Bureau’s most recent Survey of Income and Program Participation found that 7,354,970 (17.03 percent) of men and 7,558,026 (15.06 percent) of women never had reproduced. These 14.9 million Americans — nearly enough to inhabit three Colorados — have been childless for at least five decades and likely will remain so.

Thus, any given speech about “the children paying our debts” may stir parents and grandparents, but it will fall on at least 140 million deaf or disengaged ears.

(For further details on America’s childless-adult population, click here.)

JONAH GOLDBERG: The Most Cynical Generation – How are the Obama years workin’ out for ya?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373326/most-cynical-generation-jonah-goldberg

In case you hadn’t heard, young people these days — a.k.a “the Millennials” — are the most cynical and distrusting generation ever recorded. Only 19 percent think most people can be trusted. According to a big study from the Pew Research Center, they are less attached to marriage, religion, and political institutions than Gen Xers, Baby Boomers, and the other demographic flavors journalists love to use. They like their friends, their digital “social networks,” and their toys, and that’s about it. Not even a majority will call themselves “patriotic.” Probably more dismaying for liberals: Of any living generation, they are the least likely to call themselves environmentalists.

Now, I should say that I often find generational stereotyping pretty annoying. For instance, there was no “greatest generation.” Sure, there were a bunch of great Americans who stormed the beaches of Normandy. But is some guy who was in jail in 1943 for petty larceny deserving of special respect because he was born around the same time as a guy who won the Medal of Honor during WWII?

Honor, glory, and respect are earned individually, not collectively.

Politicians pander to young people, and lots of young people fall for it. And that speaks well of neither. Politicians pander to “youth” because it’s a time-saving way to trawl for votes and volunteer door-knockers wholesale. It’s the difference between using a gill net and a fishing pole. “You’re great because you were born more recently than other people” is the lamest form of flattery I can think of.

Allah Will Gather Israelis So Palestinians Can Kill Them, Says (“Moderate””) Senior Palestinian Official Abbas Zaki-by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=10921

Senior Palestinian official Abbas Zaki said in an interview broadcast yesterday on official PA TV that Israelis “have no belief, no principles” and that they “are an advanced instrument of evil.” Therefore, “Allah will gather them so that we can kill them,” he explained:
)

“These Israelis have no belief, no principles. They are an advanced instrument of evil. They say, the Holocaust, and so on – fine, why are they doing this to us? Therefore, I believe that Allah, will gather them so we can kill them. I am informing the murderer of his death.”
[Official PA TV, March 12, 2014]
Click to view

Zaki sitting in place of honor one seat from Mahmoud Abbas at Fatah event in 2011

Zaki’s public anticipation of the extermination of the Israelis is significant because, as Palestinian Media Watch has reported, he is a close associate of Mahmoud Abbas. He was sent to Syria as Mahmoud Abbas’ personal representative in October 2013, and he speaks at public events representing Fatah.

Missing From the Most Expensive Defense Program Ever: A Clear Purpose By Jed Babbin

http://washingtonexaminer.com/missing-from-the-most-expensive-defense-program-ever-a-clear-purpose/article/2545575

Jed Babbin served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration and is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.

The F-35 should be known as the fighter that ate the defense budget.

It’s the most expensive defense program ever. So far the cost is about $400 billion to buy them and an additional $1 trillion to fly and maintain over its service life. And its costs are still climbing.

And that’s not the only problem. There’s a shocking statement about the F-35 by a man who needs to be taken seriously: Gen. Michael Hostage, the head of Air Combat Command. He’s responsible for ensuring the Air Force has the right aircraft for the right missions. He’s also responsible for air combat strategies and tactics.

In an Air Force Times interview published Feb. 2, Hostage said, “If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet, I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.”