Hump Day Report: Flying Under The Radar


ALOHA, ALL!!  This Obama Thugocracy never quits.  They stop at nothing to punish “enemies” (like the state of Arizona) and reward cronies (like George Soros) even if it puts American jobs and security at risk.  To wit:

With a bidding dispute for an Air Force contract – one that would arm our allies in Afghanistan – raging between Kansas-based Hawker Beechcraft and Brazil’s Embraer, the choice should be clear. Hawker Beechcraft would create American jobs, and it’s planes have been used by American forces – who would be tasked with training the Afghanis – before. This prior knowledge of the aircraft would expedite the process of equipping Afghanistan with a self-sufficient defense force. But, once again, the Obama Administration is playing politics as usual, putting American jobs and national security on the line.

Retired three-star USAF Gen. Jeff Remington outlines the issue in an op-ed for Fox News, which you can read in its entirety here:  Why Is Team Obama Playing Politics With Our National Security?

Outlined below are some of the salient points, along with additional background on the issue – including a George Soros connection that may explain just why a foreign company has been given precedence by the Obama administration.  #WECANTWAIT – OBAMA MUST GO!!!

A well-equipped air force is a vital component to ensuring Afghanistan’s independence and self-determined defense. “A crucial aspect of an Afghani self-determined defense strategy will be the control of its skies. The US Air Force is currently in the process of procuring aircraft to support the Afghan Air Force, which would add 20 state of the art aircraft to the Afghan military arsenal. [Jeff Remington, USAF (ret.), “Why is Team Obama playing politics with our national security?” Fox News, 06/26/2012. http://tinyurl.com/7s9j8l2]

However, the road to acquiring the aircraft to enhance the Afghan military arsenal, and expedite the process of Afghan-led security in the skies, has been wrought with confusion and a smoke and mirrors saga that has lasted for months. “Unfortunately, the road to this has been met with several significant bumps, as the Air Force last year awarded the contract to Brazilian company Embraer for its Super Tucano, as opposed to Kansas-based Hawker Beechcraft for its AT-6, which is manufactured in America. In a recent turn of events, however, the contract for the Brazilian-made aircraft was dismissed by the Secretary of the Air Force, and the contract is back on the table, setting off a new bidding process once again between a foreign company and one that is American-owned and operated.” [Jeff Remington, USAF (ret.), “Why is Team Obama playing politics with our national security?” Fox News, 06/26/2012. http://tinyurl.com/7s9j8l2]

It’s a simple equation. The AT-6 would create American jobs, and has actually been flown by American pilots before. “One has to ask then, why would we want to provide an aircraft that is not even made in this country or flown by our own Airmen, particularly after the U.S. has invested so much in Afghanistan over the past decade?” [Jeff Remington, USAF (ret.), “Why is Team Obama playing politics with our national security?” Fox News, 06/26/2012. http://tinyurl.com/7s9j8l2]

Furthermore, giving Embraer such a contract would still lead to stalled development, and drag out the process of equipping Afghanistan’s air force. “The clock is ticking to get Afghanistan the air support they so desperately need. Even if Embraer’s Super Tucano was awarded a contract tomorrow, it would take years to get the required certification for weapons employment. Meanwhile, the AT-6 has been certified for US and NATO weapons employment, and it is a familiar platform to US Airmen and air forces around the world through Hawker Beechcraft’s widely popular T-6 trainer aircraft.” [Jeff Remington, USAF (ret.), “Why is Team Obama playing politics with our national security?” Fox News, 06/26/2012. http://tinyurl.com/7s9j8l2]

Throughout the entire dispute, Brazil’s government has employed tactics that would seem as threats to the United States. “As Vinod Sreeharsha with McClatchy News reported, “Marco Aurelio Garcia, a foreign policy adviser to Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, said: ‘We have a very good relation with the U.S. and we want to continue to develop it. But a decision like this creates problems not only in military relations but in economic and commercial relations.’” [Jeff Remington, USAF (ret.), “Why is Team Obama playing politics with our national security?” Fox News, 06/26/2012.http://tinyurl.com/7s9j8l2]

Embraer itself has acknowledged that it has no vested interested in America’s national security, or in ensuring that Afghanistan’s forces are adequately equipped. “After all, Embraer itself has stated that the real value in the LAS contract is not the dollar figure associated with the 20 aircraft, but rather to add the US military to its resume, opening the door for business with other countries, nefarious or not.” [Jeff Remington, USAF (ret.), “Why is Team Obama playing politics with our national security?” Fox News, 06/26/2012. http://tinyurl.com/7s9j8l2]

But rather than stand up to attempts at intimidation, the Obama Administration seems content to play the politics of appeasement to a nation that has made veiled threats, and a company that is indifferent to America’s security. “Because of the pressure coming from Brazil over the contract, the Obama administration and State Department are, in somewhat unprecedented fashion, stepping into the fray. In April, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta visited the country as part of a highly-publicized campaign to promote an initiative known as the US – Brazil Defense Cooperation Dialogue, during which he alluded to Brazil as among “our closest partners.” [Jeff Remington, USAF (ret.), “Why is Team Obama playing politics with our national security?” Fox News, 06/26/2012. http://tinyurl.com/7s9j8l2]

Coincidence? Embraer recently merged with a Chinese aviation company called Hainan to create Harbin Embraer Aircraft Industry Company Ltd., an entity owned by billionaire Democratic donor George Soros.  “To clarify Soros is an owner of Hainan and Harbin Embraer Aircraft Industry Co., Ltd. Essentially he has interests in this project. Lets not forget after the Gulf Oil Spill Obama placed a moritorium on oil production in the U.S. Coincidentally he gave the oil rights to that region to  a company called Petrobas, another Brazilian company, that Soros is a share owner of. Coincidence that Soros funded Obama’s campaign?”  [Andrew Curtiss, “Soros is at it again,” Examiner.com, 1/7/2012. http://tinyurl.com/7kutztp]

Seeing to it that our allies are sufficiently armed to fight terror is a hallmark of American foreign policy, and the Obama Administration must stop playing these political games in the face of America’s national security. “In order to successfully and independently fight terror, countries like Afghanistan need a superior aircraft from a trustworthy and reliable source. Currently, the US Air Force has identified at least 27 countries, in addition to Afghanistan, which require an aircraft to fulfill Light Air Support (LAS) missions as defined by the United States Air Force. Building “partnership capacity,” by manufacturing and supplying aircraft to America’s allies, is a key role outlined in America’s national security strategy.” [Jeff Remington, USAF (ret.), “Why is Team Obama playing politics with our national security?” Fox News, 06/26/2012. http://tinyurl.com/7s9j8l2]

Not to mention the millions who remain unemployed at home. President Obama is conversely refusing to walk the walk when it comes to his rhetoric on getting Americans back to work.  Stop Shipping Jobs Overseas’ Says Obama As He Ships Defense Jobs Overseas

More hypocrisy from the Blamer-in-Chief

President Obama escalated his campaign’s latest line of attack on Mitt Romney’s business career on Tuesday, telling audiences at a series of fund-raising events that when it came to job creation, the former Massachusetts governor excelled more at creating them overseas than in America.” [Helene Cooper & Ashley Parker, “Obama Calls Romney Possible ‘Outsourcer in Chief’” New York Times, 6/26/12 http://nyti.ms/Opr5s9]

“But the fact is, the Obama administration stands as rank hypocrites when it comes to outsourcing. Through an Air Force contract, the Obama regime has been trying its best to outsource important national security jobs to a foreign entity in Brazil that has ties to the Iranian government.” [Bryan Preston, “Why is Obama Outsourcing National Security Jobs?” PJ Tatler, 6/27/12 http://bit.ly/LBBYFu]

Final Thought:  “It’s time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America.” Barack Obama, 2012 State of the Union Speech

GOD BLESS AMERICA – PASS THIS ON – REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!!

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

About giliar

An American patriot who has gone rogue - I will remember in November!

9 responses to “Hump Day Report: Flying Under The Radar”

  1. ctlo34 says :

    The Kennedy dissent, and it’s view of Obamacare as Unconstitutional, is as close to my thoughts as can be. And now that we know how disingenuous Obama and his cohorts were in foisting this major power grab, it is not surprising it will become a rally cry. 15,000 donors went to the Romney web site within an hour of the SCOTUS ruling. And that wasn’t a bridal registry. Count the empty suit as toast in November.

  2. neenergyobserver says :

    Tom:

    “First, there are no “battleships” left on active duty in any navy in the world. A militarily educated person knows that. Ironically, it is because people like you complained they cost too much and so foolishly allowed the decommissioning and retirement of these powerful weapon systems.”

    Good platforms, expensive to run and man, I wish we still had them, wasn’t my decision. I would have done a study first to see if it would have been possible to replace the boilers with a nuclear plant. I suppose it might have been more accurate to say capital ships, however.

    “Second, if you have money and I have guns (and the guns already exist–sorry), I can take your money and have both, and then enslave you. You will have nothing. That is a universal reality that applies on all levels of human existence, especially the international level.”

    So do mine, Tom. I may not have an infantry company handy but, I’d bet I could find a platoon with experience from Iwo Jima to AFPAK. And no, You can’t enslave me, kill me, maybe. Enslave me, not in this lifetime.

    “As for the specific deal in question, I offered no view on it. Unlike most readers here, I knew about the issue long ago. And from what I saw, there were arguments both ways as to which plane would be better for the mission. In any case, this does not matter to you. You put money before guns, and so really don’t care about which aircraft is better for the mission. And considering that the primary American Navy fighter today (“obscolesent” might be just a bit premature when looked at on the international scene) cost a [CENSORED] lot more than a little turboprop ground-attack plane, and thus will bring in a lot more money than any AT6 deal, your logic is inconsistent.”

    Why would you assume that I only care about money? My specialty is British and American military history. I care, and quite possibly know more about defense issues than you. Tom, I said obsolescent, not obsolete; the Plastic Bug is a great aircraft but compared to the new Joint Strike Fighter, or the Rapier, not so much. Military forces are expensive, well trained and equipped military force are very expensive, second rate military forces are simply unaffordable.

    “Also, since you are only interested in money, what complaint would you have about Brazil having “obscolesent” aircraft?”

    Frankly, you’re right. I don’t give a damn what Brazil buys.

    “You don’t care about our nation’s defense, so why would you care about Brazil’s? Or are you one of these Ron Paultard-types (as your last sentence suggests) who want America disarmed and every other country able to overpower us (because you believe we are ruled by ZOG)? Indeed, if we are able to bring in money selling such “obscolesent” craft, rather than our latest and greatest, what is that to you? You should be ecstatic we could put something like that over on them!”

    First, This is a contemtible attack on someone you know nothing about.

    Second, see above.

    Third, Nope, I don’t support Congressman Paul, because of his defense ideas.

    “Now, let’s get down to your own ugly. Your final two sentences contradict your point and expose you for what you are:

    “So, for the rest, we are supposed to help Boeing get a contract to sell an obscolesent A/C to Brazil by selling an uncertifed (for the mission) Brazilian A/C, instead of a certified American A/C, to the Afghans, who, in theory, anyway, will no longer have US airpower on call after the end of 2013. Did I get that right?
    “No wonder the Afghanis love us so much. Would those be blue on green civilian casualties?”

    “If the Afghans won’t be able to call on American support, what advantage is there to using American aircraft?”

    How about being already certified for delivery of weapons, the ability to draw on American/NATO ordnance stocks, greater ease of training, and not having to certify a new airframe for the mission. The Afghans can’t do that.

    “And since like a good Ron Paultard you want to destroy American power in the world (as indicated by your sneer at the end), you should welcome the use of non-American aircraft. Obviously you are simply aiming to deceive the gullible Teabrained readers here into yielding to their selfish mindset and allowing American power to decline.”

    Somehow, Tom, I get the impression you don’t much care for the TEA Party. Why would that be? In my experience, the TEA Party are some of the greatest supporters of our military. You a liberal or just a run of the mill E-3 fascist wannabe, and the Constitution gets in your way.

    “MY GUNS ALLOW YOU TO HAVE YOUR MONEY! REMEMBER THAT!”

    Sure you can, don’t forget your vest, and make sure it is certified for 7.62 NATO, as well as .50 BMG. Good luck, Warrior Boy!

    • Tom says :

      You just proved my point. You exposed your disingenuous arguments, and ultimately resorted not to money but to guns. Thank you for proving me absolutely right.

      So please cease with the Ron Paultard anti-Americanism and Teabrainer econo/liberty-centric ignorance in politics. Oh, and have a real nice day!

      • giliar says :

        NOTE: If NEO decides to response, his response will be posted due to the fact that you have continued to name-call (i.e. personally attack him.) After he responds (if he decides to do so) this discussion is ended.

  3. neenergyobserver says :

    Good find, good post.

  4. Tom says :

    From the main article: “As Brazil beefs up and modernizes its military, there are also defense contracts up for grabs by American companies. Some have speculated that the administration’s interest actually lies in securing US-based Boeing’s sale of 36 F-18 Super Hornet jet fighters in a contentious competition worth a reported $6 billion. The belief is that Brazil is using this much larger deal as collateral.”

    I’m all for the Military-Industrial Complex, and firmly believe it is what has kept America and the West free for so long. That said–whatever economic benefit of jobs the F16 deal might bring–as with the recent MagPul magazine issue,the “Military” concerns must always take precedence over the “Industrial” ones. (Sorry, Teabrainers, but some things are more important than your pocketbooks and portfolios. My guns beat your money.)

    Urban Teabrainer’s response: “Uh, who publishes ‘MagPul Magazine’?”

    Rural Teabrainer’s response: “Uh, does Brazil make PMAGs or something?”

    • Tom says :

      Oops! Typo. Make that, “F18 deal.”

      Sorry!

      (But at least I know there are fundamental differences between F16s, F18s, and AT6s.)

      • neenergyobserver says :

        Ok, Tom, let’s start with the ugly, shall we? Our money pays for your guns, got it: No Taxpayer, No Guns, planes or battlehips.

        “(Sorry, Teabrainers, but some things are more important than your pocketbooks and portfolios. My guns beat your money.)”

        I’d be real careful, my friend, in betting my life on that statement.

        So, for the rest, we are supposed to help Boeing get a contract to sell an obscolesent A/C to Brazil by selling an uncertifed (for the mission) Brazilian A/C, instead of a certified American A/C, to the Afghans, who, in theory, anyway, will no longer have US airpower on call after the end of 2013. Did I get that right?

        No wonder the Afghanis love us so much. Would those be blue on green civilian casualties?

      • Tom says :

        Since you responded as you did, and since “Gilia R” has approved it, I claim the prerogative of replying in kind:

        First, there are no “battleships” left on active duty in any navy in the world. A militarily educated person knows that. Ironically, it is because people like you complained they cost too much and so foolishly allowed the decommissioning and retirement of these powerful weapon systems.

        Second, if you have money and I have guns (and the guns already exist–sorry), I can take your money and have both, and then enslave you. You will have nothing. That is a universal reality that applies on all levels of human existence, especially the international level.

        Guns win everytime. EVERY-[CENSORED]-TIME!

        As for the specific deal in question, I offered no view on it. Unlike most readers here, I knew about the issue long ago. And from what I saw, there were arguments both ways as to which plane would be better for the mission. In any case, this does not matter to you. You put money before guns, and so really don’t care about which aircraft is better for the mission. And considering that the primary American Navy fighter today (“obscolesent” might be just a bit premature when looked at on the international scene) cost a [CENSORED] lot more than a little turboprop ground-attack plane, and thus will bring in a lot more money than any AT6 deal, your logic is inconsistent.

        Also, since you are only interested in money, what complaint would you have about Brazil having “obscolesent” aircraft? You don’t care about our nation’s defense, so why would you care about Brazil’s? Or are you one of these Ron Paultard-types (as your last sentence suggests) who want America disarmed and every other country able to overpower us (because you believe we are ruled by ZOG)? Indeed, if we are able to bring in money selling such “obscolesent” craft, rather than our latest and greatest, what is that to you? You should be ecstatic we could put something like that over on them!

        Now, let’s get down to your own ugly. Your final two sentences contradict your point and expose you for what you are:

        “So, for the rest, we are supposed to help Boeing get a contract to sell an obscolesent A/C to Brazil by selling an uncertifed (for the mission) Brazilian A/C, instead of a certified American A/C, to the Afghans, who, in theory, anyway, will no longer have US airpower on call after the end of 2013. Did I get that right?

        “No wonder the Afghanis love us so much. Would those be blue on green civilian casualties?”

        If the Afghans won’t be able to call on American support, what advantage is there to using American aircraft? And since like a good Ron Paultard you want to destroy American power in the world (as indicated by your sneer at the end), you should welcome the use of non-American aircraft. Obviously you are simply aiming to deceive the gullible Teabrained readers here into yielding to their selfish mindset and allowing American power to decline.

        MY GUNS ALLOW YOU TO HAVE YOUR MONEY! REMEMBER THAT!

%d bloggers like this: