RUTHFULLY YOURS

When President Obama left the White House, he punted on a tough choice: how to modernize the U.S. nuclear force. In the coming weeks, the Congressional Budget Office is expected to release a report that estimates modernization as currently proposed would cost $1.2 trillion over 30 years, or about $40 billion a year. Congress and the Trump administration shouldn’t be intimidated by the ostensibly big number.

The plan analyzed by the CBO would replace the nuclear delivery systems of bombers, missiles and submarines with new ones that incorporate the latest safety and survival features. These changes would enable some systems to perform well into the 2080s. It’s ambitious, but this program isn’t the budget buster nuclear disarmament supporters describe.

Under the plan, spending on the nuclear arsenal would peak in the late 2020s at about 6.5% of the Defense Department budget, up from 3.2% today. Recall that military spending consumes only about 15% of the federal budget.

But determining whether modernization is affordable involves more than cost considerations. The Pentagon simultaneously has to consider its priorities and the costs of weapons systems when determining the best way to protect U.S. interests. According to the Defense Department, the two highest priorities of U.S. strategy are “the survival of the nation” and “the prevention of a catastrophic attack against U.S. territory.” The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review lists “a secure and effective nuclear deterrent” at the top of a list describing how to achieve such priorities.

Given that the U.S. nuclear arsenal helps to deter the only existential threat to the U.S., major nuclear war, its value can’t be measured by traditional dollar metrics alone. Budgets are about trade-offs and priorities. As the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Paul Selva, testified earlier this year, “We are emphasizing the nuclear mission over other modernization programs when faced with that choice.”

Critics will cry that every dollar spent on nuclear weapons, which have not been set off in anger since World War II, is a dollar taken from those who are fighting wars right now. But as then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter explained in a speech last year, U.S. nuclear forces are the “bedrock” of American security and the “highest priority mission” of the Defense Department. They enable current war fighters to achieve their missions. CONTINUE AT SITE

Nearly 25 years ago, Senator John McCain observed that “a force begins to go hollow the moment it loses its overall mix of combat capabilities in any one critical area.” Last week, Air Force Chief of Staff David Goldfein quoted those words when questioned about the posture of today’s USAF.

No, General Goldfein didn’t say that the Air Force is now hollow. He did, however, flesh out McCain’s definition of what makes a hollow force: “When we talk about a hollow force holistically, we have to talk about all of those things that go into producing a ready force. And it’s training and it’s personnel and it’s equipment, and they all have to come together.”

The Heritage Foundation published an independent assessment of Air Force readiness earlier this year that touched on several of those markers. That analysis was based on the testimony of senior Air Force leaders, historical readiness levels, current threats, funding levels, and operational insights gleaned from surveys and interviews with 46 active-duty Air Force fighter pilots.

That assessment found that only four of 36 active-duty fighter squadrons are ready for conflict with a near peer competitor. It also found that fewer than half of active fighter squadrons could be deemed “ready” to prevail in even lower-threat wartime missions. That could mean as many as 17 squadrons are not ready to succeed in combat.

The Air Force has determined that it needs 3,643 fighter pilots. At the end of 2016, it was 873 short. That might not be so worrisome if all the pilots on hand were at the top of their game. Unfortunately, they are not. Cuts in funding have resulted in lower standards of both flight-school training and what constitutes a “mission ready” pilot.

From 1981 to 1990, the average graduation rate for candidates going through basic flight training was 75 percent. The highest single-year rate recorded over that time was 81 percent, logged in 1981. But after 1990, the rate exploded. From 1991 to 2015, the graduation rate averaged 91 percent; the lowest graduation rate was 1991’s 85 percent.

At the height of the Cold War, the NATO standard for fighter-pilot flying time was 200 hours per year. Fighter squadrons would not take pilots who flew fewer than 150 hours a year into combat, as they were far less likely to survive their first missions and their lack of competence would put other pilots and the mission itself at risk.

Today, the average U.S. fighter pilot receives 150 hours of flight time in training each year, and even that low average is inflated by units that deployed to Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where threats in the air are rare, operational demands are low, and the ability to train for the real mission is non-existent.

One year ago yesterday, Omar Mateen went into a gay nightclub in Orlando and murdered 49 people. While on the phone with a 911 operator, Mateen made his motive clear: “Yo, the air strike that killed Abu [Waheeb] a few weeks ago – that’s what triggered it. They should have not bombed and killed Abu [Waheeb].”

There we have it. A radicalized jihadist self-identified as “Mujahideen” and an “Islamic soldier,” American born and raised, committed the deadliest mass shooting in American history, directly targeting the LGBTQ+ community in the name of a murdered Islamic State militant.

Yet the media, unhappy with this narrative, have constructed another one: “Why did this happen?”

The FBI destroyed the internalized-homophobia narrative constructed by unsubstantiated media reports in the weeks following the massacre, with law enforcement stating that the FBI had found zero credible evidence that Mateen, who had been married twice, secretly indulged in homosexual behavior or interests. With only an “Islamophobic” narrative remaining after those pesky facts, the media have decided to pay tribute to the barbaric murder of 49 infidels with a “senseless violence” narrative.

“Pulse gunman’s motive: Plenty of theories, but few answers,” read an Orlando Sentinel headline.

The Washington Post referred to the night 49 people “died” as having been “upended by gun violence.”

The New York Times equated the terrorist attack with “a year of racism,” with the insinuation that Donald Trump spearheaded the latter.

It didn’t matter that Mateen intentionally targeted the Pulse Nightclub as an attack on liberal values; his true crime was gun violence. An uptick of fear of Wahhabism and non-Westernized Islam is not a product of observation and inference; it’s irrational, a blanket Islamophobia.

Federal prosecutors have charged two U.S. citizens with providing material support to Hezbollah and helping the Iranian-backed Lebanese terror group prepare potential attacks in America and Panama. The charges, announced last Thursday after the men were arrested June 1, show that Iran’s terror proxies roam far beyond the Middle East.

The FBI and New York Police Department carried out the investigation, which resulted in a raft of terror-related charges for naturalized citizens Ali Kourani of the Bronx and Samer el Debek of Dearborn, Mich. Prosecutors say Hezbollah recruited the men as “operatives,” provided them with “military-style training,” then gave them a variety of ominous tasks.

Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York say the 32-year-old Mr. Kourani conducted “pre-operational surveillance” of military and law-enforcement sites around New York as well as Kennedy Airport. The feds allege that Mr. Debek, age 37, staked out targets in Panama that included the American and Israeli embassies as well as the Panama Canal. Attorneys for the two men did not respond to media inquiries.

Mr. Debek’s alleged Panamanian operations are consistent with Hezbollah’s presence across Latin America that goes back to the bombings of the Israeli embassy and a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, in 1992 and 1994 respectively, killing more than 100 people.

In 2011 U.S. investigators foiled a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador at a Washington restaurant, leading to a guilty plea by the would-be assassin. Hezbollah was also behind a 2012 bus bombing in Bulgaria that killed five Israeli tourists and their local bus driver.

Iran bankrolls Hezbollah to the tune of $200 million annually and provides most of the 80,000 missiles the group points at Israel. The latest allegations are a reminder that the Tehran regime still deserves its reputation as the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.

Mr. Thornberry, a Texas Republican, is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Ask anyone who served in the U.S. military in the late 1970s, and he will tell you it was a miserable time. Morale was low. Training was deficient. Weapons and equipment didn’t work. Good people left the armed services in droves. At the same time the world was growing more dangerous, with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, and multiple nations falling to communism.

A decade later the situation had turned around. How did America go from the hollow military of the 1970s to the strength that helped drive the Soviet Union out of existence? Are there lessons we could apply today?

A few months ago the vice chiefs from each branch of the military appeared before the House Armed Services Committee, which I lead. Their testimony certainly got my attention. Only three of the Army’s 58 Brigade Combat Teams are “ready to fight tonight.” More than half the Navy’s airplanes cannot fly because they are awaiting maintenance and spare parts. The Air Force is short 1,500 pilots and 3,000 mechanics, and its fleet is older and smaller than ever. All that is alarming enough, but what surprised me most was testimony that pilots today get fewer training hours in the cockpit than during the dire days of the 1970s.

How did this happen? Since 2010 the defense budget has been cut by more than 20%, but the world has not become 20% safer. To get planes, ships and equipment ready to deploy to the Middle East or elsewhere, the military has had to take parts off other planes, ships and units. This cannibalization has diminished American readiness. The military is not prepared to carry out all the missions it may be asked to do in time of war.

What is the answer? Rebuilding the military after the 1970s took serious and sustained effort. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Carter administration raised defense spending by 12% in 1979 and 15% in 1980.

Ronald Reagan added even more: 17% in 1981 and 18% in 1982. After that the rate of growth slowed a bit, but in all there were five straight years of double-digit increases followed by three more of nearly 10%. At that point the defense budget was about 6% of America’s gross domestic product. Today it is only 3.1%.

Repairing the damage done to the military in our time will require a similar sort of response. It is wrong to send brave men and women out on missions for which they are not fully prepared or without the best equipment the nation can produce. CONTINUE AT SITE

American Mosques: Warehouses of Jihad

They do it first by establishing mosques in every town and city. These meeting places are perfect warehouses of not only indoctrination, but future terrorists, who are made to read and understand the principles of jihad, martyrdom, and Dar-al-Harb (“land of war” – any place not Islamized).

Mosques cost money, and the money for these warehouses of hate is coming straight from Saudi Arabia. These mosques are being infused with an activist strain of Islam, Wahhabism. If you have to ask where the Saudis are getting their money, you are not paying attention…it’s coming from you. According to “The Mosque in America: a National Portrait,” a survey released in April 2001, there were at least 1,209 mosques in the U.S. Today, it’s estimated that that number has quadrupled.

Mosque Leaders Promote Sharia

Mosque elders tend to be sent to the U.S. with one clear mission: make sharia law the supreme rule within the United States, using any and all tactics necessary. Next, from within the safety of their local mosques, they begin to use their revolting practices, riotous youth, and wild sermonizing to force genteel Americans to relocate to safer, less threatening neighborhoods and cities. Of course, not all Americans will move or can afford to do so. To take control of a town, Muslims will not need to evict everyone. They probably need about 25% in order to make life very unpleasant for those who do not go along with their demands.

Political Islamist Infiltration

They will elect Muslims to all positions of local influence, who will create and enforce policy according to the Quran. Once they have control over a town, they will begin to establish informal sharia, and there’s nothing the government can (or will want to) do about it.

Sharia is the brutal means by which Islam controls its populations by force, intimidation, and punishments for offenses to Allah. Already, in many European countries, national governments have, out of fear, given Islamic fascists the right to establish their own shadow governments within the borders of countries like Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, and England, where they can control their own populations without accountability. Proposals for sharia are being taken seriously by Canada.

This is an admission that Islam is not just a religion. It is a cult. It seeks total control over a person’s mind and body. As such, our Constitution is totally incompatible with it. Muslims will push politicians for local control and self-determination of their own laws. In this way, America will become two nations: a weakened traditional one and a growing, menacing Islamized one.

Islamists Ally with Leftists

At the same time, Muslims will ally with leftist politicians, who will gladly cede some of their power to this group of enforcers, so conservative politicians and Christians who advocate self-defense and sane social policies are kept out of office. Money that was once used to build mosques will now be used to buy politicians. On university campuses, Islam will be portrayed as righteous and peaceful, while Christianity will be associated with evil Western and American values. Rebellious American youths (BLM, OWS, antifa, etc.) will eat it up.

There will be increasing local and regional incidents of crimes and threats against Christians, Jews, and anybody who speaks out against the religion of hate. Terrorism is a completely legitimate tool of Islam and was widely practiced and advocated by Muhammad. Remember: all words in the Quran are perfect, immutable laws defining an eternal ethic:

Against them (the unbelievers) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. (Quran 8.06)

The FBI conducted a raid in Dearborn, Michigan, last Thursday night, taking one person into custody in connection with a national security investigation. Federal investigators reportedly blocked off the street and spent several hours at the home gathering evidence. They also told the local media that there was no immediate threat to public safety in metro Detroit.

Neighbors told Fox 2 that a Lebanese family consisting of a husband, wife, two kids, and an elderly woman moved into the house only about a month ago.

The multi-jurisdictional investigation started in New York, and according to sources, involved a target who might have been giving support to a terrorist organization.

Via Click on Detroit:

Residents watched and wondered what the FBI SWAT team was doing at the home on Jonathan Street. Several neighbors said dozens of law enforcement officials from multiple agencies blocked the street and searched the home.

Nobody answered the door, but Ken Donaldson, who cuts most of the lawns on Jonathan Street, said everyone on the street is nice. He said it shows that a national security operation can happen anywhere.

“Every time we catch one person, it’s a plus for the overall goal,” Donaldson said. “If they eliminate that kind of terrorism, every step is a plus.”

Former Detroit FBI boss Andy Arena said the fact that neighbors weren’t evacuated, and that there was no imminent threat, means there weren’t terrorist bombs or weapons in the home.

“If that was there, if there was a threat, the FBI would have gotten the neighbors, the people in the neighborhood, out of there,” Arena said.

Sources said the raid was a joint terrorism task force case of “providing money and/or material support to a terrorist organization.” The target lived in New York, but recently moved to Dearborn.

According to Arab America News, a local outlet in Dearborn, the man taken into custody is Samer ElDebek, who works as a truck driver.

Dennis Michael Lynch reported:

He was returned to New York “on federal charges of providing material support or resources to foreign terrorist organizations, and receiving military-type training from them,” the AAnews stated.

ElDebek reportedly had lived in New York, then went to Lebanon eight years ago. AAnews said he returned to New York last year, then moved to Dearborn about 10 months ago.

A warrant issued a day before the raid stated that the FBI believed ElDebek had explosive materials, and/or a manual on how to make them. Included in the dozens of boxes the agents seized from the home were reportedly “over 90 sparkling birthday candles and several high-powered Shot Grizzly fireworks.” The family denied owning the fireworks, claiming they belonged to a neighbor who shared the same garage.

Contrary to some reports from alt-right outlets, the raid had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

In April, PJMedia warned of an imminent threat to the US from North Korea – an electromagnetic pulse – EMP – attack from an orbiting satellite. We reported that North Korea already has two satellites orbiting the US and that a nuclear weapon detonated over the US from one could devastate our country, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions from the loss of critical infrastructure.

Shortly after our warning, the respected North Korea analysis site 38North published an article titled “A North Korean Nuclear EMP Attack? … Unlikely”. The author, relying on an incomplete and dated report, thought that North Korea would need a hydrogen bomb (thermonuclear weapon) in order to be a threat.

Now, 38North has a new piece on the topic – “North Korea Nuclear EMP Attack: An Existential Threat.” The author is the former head of the Congressional EMP Commission and is a foremost expert on EMP. This article adds to the PJMedia report by confirming that the yield of nuclear weapons already tested by North Korea is sufficient to be devastating. It refutes the prior article:

‘Thus, even if North Korea only has primitive, low-yield nuclear weapons, and if other states or terrorists acquire one or a few such weapons as well as the capability to detonate them at an altitude of 30 kilometers or higher over the United States. … the EMP Commission warned over a decade ago in its 2004 Report, “the damage level could be sufficient to be catastrophic to the Nation, and our current vulnerability invites attack.”’

Nuclear EMP from a high altitude detonation – H-EMP E-1 pulse – is caused when a massive flux of gamma rays strikes the upper levels of the atmosphere. These strip off and accelerate electrons, creating a sudden powerful electromagnetic pulse, which travels to the surface and destroys electronics and can damage power transmission equipment. The result would be a months-long loss of the electrical grid, transportation, computers and communication systems, causing a rapid breakdown of our transportation, food, water and healthcare delivery systems.

CONTINUE AT SITE