More What? Oh, Yeah… More WINNING ! – Lockheed Martin CEO Pledges To “Aggressively” Save Taxpayer Money…

Media and the professional left have been jaw-agape, pearl-clutching amid their discussion of the appropriateness for Donald Trump to directly confront corporate CEO’s about their business models.

Initially their angst was simply because Donald Trump had the audacity to begin staking a pro-worker, “America First” jobs position with Carrier Inc.  The workers won.

President Trump then shifted slightly and spoke toward government contractors such as Boeing (Air Force One Contract) and Lockheed Martin… challenging their costs:

trump-tweet-lockheed-martin

President-elect Trump took stewardship to an entire new level when tasking two competitors, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, for comparative bids and lower costs.  The approach is brilliant.

According to their own report, the F-35 program is Lockheed Martin’s largest program, generating 59% of Aeronautics’ net sales in 2015. (link) Lockheed receives 78% of their $46.1 billion in net sales from the U.S. Government.

[58% from the Department of Defense {DoD}, 21% from international customers (foreign military sales {FMS} contracted through the U.S. Government)]. (link)

marillyn-hewson-mar-a-lago-1

There are TENS OF BILLIONS at stake; and remember, it would be a violation of business and contract law for Boeing and Lockheed to discuss the cost issue jointly.

So when your biggest customer asks you, publicly, in front of those who ultimately pay the cost, to please cut your costs – and simultaneously asks your chief rival for a comparative bid on an alternate option, well, as a CEO, what do you do?

You make a “personal commitment” to America’s First deal maker, that’s what:

(Reuters) – Lockheed Martin Corp said its Chief Executive Marillyn Hewson gave U.S. President-elect Donald Trump a personal commitment to bring down the price of its F-35 fighter jet, after he heaped pressure on the aerospace company over the cost.

Lockheed’s shares fell on Friday after Trump’s message on Twitter, and after he earlier tweeted that he had asked rival Boeing Co to “price-out” an older aircraft as an alternative.

Hewson said in a statement tweeted by Lockheed that the company would “aggressively” drive down the cost of the F-35, which brought in about 20 percent of Lockheed’s sales last year.  (more)

lockheed-ceo-2(link)

trump convention 2

…“and we will win, and you will win, and we will keep on winning; and eventually you will say “Mr. Trump, we can’t take all of this winning”, …please Mr. Trump …and I will say, NO, we will win, and we will keep on winning”.

~ Donald Trump

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Donald Trump, Economy, Election 2016, Legislation, media bias, Military, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

311 Responses to More What? Oh, Yeah… More WINNING ! – Lockheed Martin CEO Pledges To “Aggressively” Save Taxpayer Money…

  1. The Recent Republican says:

    Should’ve stuck with F-22 Raptors. Our Congress is completely useless.

    Liked by 15 people

    • chojun says:

      F-22 is a magnificent platform, 2nd to none. Pilots that I’ve spoken with loved it. They are pretty unhappy with the F-35. The 35 won’t last long, in my prediction.

      Liked by 8 people

      • dachuckster says:

        The F-35 program reminds me of the F-4 Phantom II program under Kennedy and his Sec of Defense Bob McNamara, Another universal fighter that would be adopted by all branches of the military. And its initial deployment in combat was a near disaster for our armed forces. And it was late and way over budget as well.

        The design compromises required for this multi role, multi service application meant that the aircraft as deployed in Vietnam was extremely ill-suited for air to air dog-fighting. The F-4 at the beginning of the war had no automatic cannons and was totally reliant on its AIM-4, AIM-7 and AIM-9 air to air missiles. These missiles had a terrible performance record (less than a 15% hit rate) and the aircraft could only carry a limited number so our pilots were often in combat against the MIG-17 and have to shoot all their missiles and then run for cover. Our performance ratio of enemy aircraft shot down to our losses dropped from nearly 10 to 1 in Korea to under 2 to 1 in Vietnam.

        The F-4 was highly modified at the end of the Vietnam war and by the early 70s was a world class fighter. But I always wonder what would have happened in the Vietnam air war if the various branches of the services were allowed to get the aircraft they needed for specific combat roles.

        Sorry about the long post but when I see this kind of one size fits all procurement, I get scared, really scared for your men and women in the armed services.

        Liked by 3 people

        • rmnewt says:

          Right on, fortunately for some of us the reaction to the F-4 was the F-16, F-15, F-18, A-10 and the other dominant systems that gave us the edge since Vietnam.

          Like

          • dachuckster says:

            And all it took was a short return to clueless administrations to attempt to kill off our military dominance. And I include the administration of George W, Bush in the clueless category.

            Just look at the history of the A-10. A perfect close air support (CAS) platform. The Air Force never wanted it and has tried to kill it time after time. After all it is not superfast high flying and sexy. But ask the opinions of the heroes who fly it and those if the troops it supports. It is the best CAS aircraft flying.

            Liked by 4 people

            • Kekela Ward says:

              Congress should change the law and let the Army fly fixed wing aircraft, then give the A-10s to the Army for CAS. Model it on how the USMC uses air assets to assist ground forces.
              If Congress shows signs of doing that, the Air Force will shape up on the CAS front as their priority is to keep the fixed wing missions and platforms for themselves.

              Liked by 2 people

            • solomonpal says:

              Let the AFNG keep it. It will be there when the army needs it and the pilots will have a plane to stay sharp and enjoy.

              Like

            • chojun says:

              Yup, the A-10 is legendary in any Marine or Army veteran household.

              And I’m certain terrorists have PTSD-inducing memories of the bzzzzt of the cannon.

              Like

        • skeptiktank says:

          Just a note about the F-4 not having built-in cannons. By the time it was designed we had the entire Air Force 100 series, plus a slew of navy jets to draw experience from. It was pretty much common wisdom by then that putting cannons on supersonic fighter jets would be more of a detriment than a benefit. Because the shells from cannons were not self-propelled, they slowed at a rate that made them dangerous to the craft that fired them which is still doing a very high speed. In other words, you could easily run into your own ammo and shoot yourself out of the sky. Furthermore, whatever you are dogfighting would be very fast as well, so getting close enough behind him to use the cannons would be unlikely, and very dangerous in itself. Suppose you gun a mig at 500 MPH, and it blows in front of you…how are you going to miss the debris at that speed? Not to mention what’s left of your own ammo that’s still out there. Things happen too fast at those speeds to be playing with guns. Air to air missiles were much more practical, though you did have use them wisely or you would run out of them.

          Like

          • dachuckster says:

            Why have all our air superiority fighters since the F-4 had the 20 mm Vulcan automatic cannon as a integral part of their designs (except the F-35 which has an improved 25 mm cannon)?

            In the F4 we had to retrofit the Vulcan 20 mm cannon on one of the external hard points under the wing. It wan’t until the F-4E in 1972 that the F-4 had a cannon integrated into the design.

            Like

    • Jedi9 says:

      Or go with the F-23 by Grumen, Lockheed’s competitor, which was a better plane IMO. The F-22 by most estimates is obsolete seeing that Obama and Clinton allowed our secrets to be stolen by the Chinese. Now we need to redesign a far Superior plane to counter that. Ar least that is my hope. Not sure about the F-18 super hornet and it’s future viability.

      Liked by 1 person

    • chiavarm says:

      Cannot export the F-22, that is the WHOLE reason for the F-35.

      Like

      • squid2112 says:

        Who cares about export? … If Boeing or Lockheed, or whoever, wants to sell them elsewhere, let them do that on their own. It is not the job of our government to export military equipment, it is only their job to “authorize” such exports. For our own military hardware, there should be no “export” consideration.

        The F-22 Raptor was a good aircraft for sure. If I were making the decisions, I would completely scrap the F-35 and do the whole shooting match all over again from scratch. I will gather all of the best manufacturers and have them present designs and cost estimates for aircraft fitting each role needed. Take the best one, considering price and delivery, and start anew.

        The F-35 is simply a piece of flying garbage. Not only is it extremely expensive, it is a poor performing aircraft and extremely expensive to maintain. It is fraught with complex problems. The dang thing is just too complicated with far too many moving parts. Expensive moving parts.

        It’s time for something new. It’s time for something that works. And in the meantime, perhaps it would even be prudent to go ahead and order up about 200 F-22 raptors for quick delivery to help fill some voids that presently exist within our forces.

        Liked by 6 people

        • Keln says:

          The concept behind exporting specific military equipment is actually smart. When our allies have the same equipment we do, you can have a single supply stream that applies to everyone on our side. A French or Polish airfield can then support a US or UK flight wing, because it has the same replacement parts and tooling that we would require for our aircraft. That is the whole point of exporting military hardware. It simplifies a military supply and support system.

          It was a large part of why we won WWII. Russians were using our tanks and our aircraft along with theirs. While their armor was superior to the Sherman tank, the Shermans were easily repaired with replacement parts, while the T series tanks were not. Our industry was able to mass produce replacement parts for the Sherman, which kept Russian armored units in the war while also maintaining our own forces.

          I agree with the criticism of the F-35 specifically though. It’s a lousy platform riddled with problems. But I do not agree with the idea that we should end standardization of military hardware among our allies. Supply and support is critical in war, and this just makes it easier and more efficient.

          Liked by 4 people

          • SteveInCO says:

            Absolutely critical.

            We have wonderful hardware/materiel, and wonderful troops/sailors/airmen. But although those are required to make us the power that we are, they aren’t enough; what finally does it (when added to those other factors I just mentioned) is the fact that we can put anything anywhere on the surface of the Earth. Even if not instantly, we can do it.

            Liked by 1 person

        • rmnewt says:

          Export is another dimension that can not only be lucrative, it can drive competition and excellence. As pointed out already it is definitely good for coalition warfare and military relationships.

          Like

        • Kekela Ward says:

          I’d put more money and research into the black drone fighter programs. There is something to be said for aircraft that aren’t limited by the human being’s tolerances while in flight. Square turns, immediate stops then just as immediate high acceleration in a completely different direction.

          Like

        • Sam J. says:

          “…The F-35 is simply a piece of flying garbage…”

          This is complete nonsense. The sensors systems, radar and communications on this plane are the most outstanding on the planet. The mistake was to follow the path of the F-111 and make it vertical take off and landing together with being a fighter. It does cost too much. I’m betting asking one plane to do too much is a part of that. I don’t work for or have anything to do with the plane.

          I’ll bet if we issued 4 or 5, 2 billion dollar development contracts to the different plane manufacturers and told them they have two years to give us the best plane they could for say 60 million a copy we could have the sensors and hot planes. I also wonder why the VTOL section couldn’t be bolted on like conformal fuel tanks on the F-15.

          I would ditch the visible cockpit an use cameras outside the plane with screens inside for the pilots.

          Liked by 1 person

        • chiavarm says:

          Defense Contractor NEED permission to sell products outside the US>

          Like

      • shallbe4 says:

        This makes me so angry because Obama has gladly overpaid for everything. I guess he feels that Americans don’t deserve a bargain. Obama could have but never picked up the phone to speak to Lockheed and Boeing. Trump speaks to these companies and they listen. Donald J. Trump will be a terrific people’s President.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Keln says:

          In Obama’s defense, he didn’t know any better. Previous presidents did the same, regardless of party or political ideology. Washington has never had someone like Trump who understands the concept of cutting costs.

          We are in for a fundamentally different administration. It is exciting to behold.

          Liked by 6 people

          • SteveInCO says:

            Cut that out and frame it, Obama (if you are reading this), someone at CTH defended you.

            Furthermore, he was right to do so. So cut that out and frame it, we finally found something worth defending about Obama. (Even if it’s only by comparison to other past politicians.)

            Liked by 1 person

        • Don’t just blame Obama. Congress, many Presidents, many governmental agencies did nothing. It is wonderful being in charge of spending billions of taxpayer money. Everyone wants to meet with you, buy you gifts, take you on flights on corporate jets, send you on fact-finding trips to the best vacation destinations, and pay for your kids’ college tuition. There has never been any incentive for anyone in government to worry about a budget. Trump is not from government and is a blessing from God for working Americans.

          Liked by 4 people

        • rmnewt says:

          Not Obama, the F-35 program strategy is a product of decades of evolution into defense corporatism. In just about every sector we have mega programs for the mega contractors who have essentially become monopoly providers. Not good for the war fighters or the tax payers.

          F-35 came from the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) Program and the JAST/CALF technology projects to be the one size fits all fighter that McNamara couldn’t make with the TFX (later called the F-111). Formally a Clinton admin program, but not on his radar/agenda. Great in PowerPoint, great for the eventual monopoly provider, sub-optimum design in reality, bad for the war fighter and innovation.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Peg_C the Deplorable says:

          Even I (no aerospace expert even in my dreams) know he could never speak intelligently on this. Or on much of anything but inflaming groups.

          Like

    • I am reminded of a famous Teddy Roosevelt quote: “If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”

      Liked by 6 people

      • Keln says:

        He never said that though. His actual comment was: “To put into words what is in their hearts and minds but not their mouths”.

        The phrase you used comes from a plaque that Chuck Colson had on his wall during the Nixon administration. It was created by a member of the Army special Forces.

        It was also used in Full Metal Jacket by the character Joker.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Kekela Ward says:

          Poor guy carried that machete thru the entire movie, only to have the scene that he finally used it in cut by Kubrick during the final editing.

          Like

    • Did you check the cost per flight hour? This F 22 too expensive to build and too expensive to fly.

      Like

    • barton2016 says:

      Yes but they can’t export the F22 so that’s a huge negative on the balance sheet

      Liked by 1 person

    • Kekela Ward says:

      It was that jerk off Enemy of the State, zero, who stopped production

      Like

    • faridrushdi says:

      The F-22 was meant to be the best we had, though acknowledged to be very expensive. The F-35 was to have multiple variants, be easy to repair in the field and be almost as stealthy as the F-22 while being much cheaper to produce. It was the F-35 that we would sell to our allies. But think about this: It’s first concepts were completed in 1992, so the platform is not some new, just-off-the-assemble-line product. It’s 25 years old.

      I saw CNN going crazy the other day because Trump seemed to be comparing the FA-18 Hornet to the F-35. sniff The Hornet IS NOT a stealth aircraft sniff they said. True, but it’s common knowledge that these planes are stealthy against the new, modern frequencies that radar uses today. Fire up the WWII beasts, though, and they can be seen and tracked. Perhaps stealth is less important these days than it once was.

      All that said, the future will probably be small, unmanned planes and drones.

      Like

      • Susan Albert says:

        Stealth is extremely important, just because on paper you can detect a stealthy plane doesn’t mean that you can actually shoot it down or intercept it in time. Also non stealthy planes would be even more vulnerable to these radars. I hope Trump realizes this, picking the f18 over price alone would make our military weaker.

        Like

  2. muffyroberts says:

    JayZ who? I think Trump should hit up Jay Sean to perform

    Let’s bring it back. Do you remember?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Somebody says:

    Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for modernizing the FAA system too. Their contract is so over priced LM subcontracts most of the work out to a myriad of other beltway bandits. Those subcontract companies are raking in millions and millions, but LM skims millions off the top.

    My personal favorite part of modernization is one agency (FAA) paying a contractor for a program another agency developed (NASA). That really gets my goat. There is a lot more to it, the whole project is rife with waste. The modernization is desperately needed, but it doesn’t need to cost this much.

    Beltway bandits are swamp creatures
    #draintheswamp

    Liked by 12 people

  4. Risin'Tide says:

    And they guarantee solid testing with any fixes coming out of their dime!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. After 8 years, where are we going to ever find one like him, to take his place ???
    I ain’t never seen nuthin’ like this before in my life !!!

    Liked by 12 people

    • Davey says:

      Ivanka for first Madam President.

      Liked by 1 person

      • liberty2828 says:

        Not natural born citizen. High standard we need to keep.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Sa_Bi says:

          ???

          “Ivanka Marie Trump was born in Manhattan, New York City, to Czech-American model Ivana Marie (née Zelníčková) and American business magnate Donald John Trump.”
          (Wikipedia.)

          Like

          • kroesus says:

            simply research Ivana’s naturalization date and you will EASILY see she was NOT a US citizen when DJT’s oldest three were born….simple answer they are NOT NBC and therefore NOT eligible for POTUS….same with Barron since Melania naturalized after his birth….Tiffany is the only DJT progeny eligible

            Liked by 2 people

            • Bob says:

              Apparently makes no difference. Obama’s father wasn’t a US citizen ever. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

              Like

              • kroesus says:

                are you AKA Rip Van Winkle?……..Obama has had an eligibility cloud since before he was elected in 2008 and it has never lifted….THAT is why his place of birth is immaterial as it requires US citizen parentS and birth on the soil to be a natural born citizen according to the FFs

                Liked by 2 people

                • dilonsfo says:

                  He may have had a cloud all this time but he was still titled “President” and no one did a thing about it. I personally felt and still feel that he should not have been eligible however, the courts felt differently. He damned near ruined this country but he is going to leave office with the title “former president” with all the trappings that go along with it. So, nothing is going to change that. I personally don’t feel that Ivanka is qualified to be President because she is too kind hearted. Now, Don, Jr….that would be a different story all together if he continues to pay attention and learn over the next 8 years. But then, that is just me.

                  Like

            • cozette says:

              Natural born in the Constitution meant at the time born on American soil with an American citizen father. It now seems to be understood that the father OR mother must be a citizen at birth so Ivannka is eligible to be POTUS. Clearly Cruz is ineligible as is Rubik and Jindal.

              Like

              • SteveInCO says:

                We’ve had other presidents (Chester A. Arthur) in the past with one American citizen parent, born on US soil. (His eligibility was challenged because some thought he was born in Canada, but not because his father was an Irishman at the time of his birth, a fact agreed on by everyone even at the time.)

                That’s the legal precedent.

                Thus, that’s all Obama had to claim to be considered qualified, that he had one citizen parent (which no one seems to dispute) and was born on US soil (which many, especially here at CTH, dispute).

                Requiring both parents to be American citizens at the time of birth would be new and, IMHO, absurd.

                As a plea to anyone reading this: Don’t let your entirely justified hatred of Obama make you advocate a restriction which would work against many, many entirely pro-American people. Remember the purpose of the clause in the first place: To ensure that a President is not unduly under the sway of a foreign power. It’s an imperfect tool for the job (Many immigrants are far more pro-American than many native born, even of two US parents; I’d rather Melania be president than Moochele or Hitlary, yet Melania is clearly not qualified under the clause) but it’s the only one we’ve got. It won’t be made better by making it more strict than it already is; you’ll end up weeding out people who are not pro-American, but millions of pro-American people as well.

                To be perfectly honest, I tend to think it ought to be read as being a US Citizen at the time of birth, i.e., not needing to be naturalized. I’d require explicitly renouncing/repudiating any “dual citizenship” (which oftentimes you have hung on you through no action or desire of your own–some foreign government simply claims you whether you want them to or not). If you don’t allow this, than any foreign government could disqualify a candidate they really don’t like by loudly announcing they’ve granted Job Lowe citizenship. Congratulations, Job, you now have dual citizenship and aren’t allowed to be POTUS.

                But I acknowledge that’s a minority position, particularly here, and doesn’t seem to be the one US courts would go with (though it depends on the court).

                Like

                • 7delta says:

                  Arthur changed his and his father’s birth dates by 2 years. Until a researcher, within the last 5-8 years, found Arthur’s father’s original naturalization documents in the Federal Archives, no one knew his father hadn’t become a citizen before Chester was born. Chester sure didn’t tell anybody. Dad didn’t naturalize until Arthur was around the age of 10…maybe 12. Don’t remember his exact age, off the top of my head. Chester’s biographer and other biographical records state that just prior to his death, Chester had a servant burn all the personal records in his possession.

                  A reporter with the Brooklyn Star newspaper made the allegations about Chester being born in Canada. Arthur’s older sister was born in Dunham, Canada. Chester was born in Vermont after the family moved from Canada to the U.S.

                  I don’t think that just because Chester got away with it after Garfield was assassinated…he didn’t run for a term of his own after that…makes his ascension to the presidency a precedent. It just makes old Chester dishonest, but smart enough to not try it again.

                  Like

              • 7delta says:

                Sorry about the length. There’s a lot of history to explain for the concept and intent of natural born to make sense. I’m going to break it up into 3 parts.

                As a wandering old document reader, I’ve done lots of research on this topic, which started with researching the anchor baby farce. I’ve traveled the twists and turns of citizenship concepts through English history (including additional influences) to the colonies to Independence and thereafter. When context is applied, the concept of natural born makes sense. It’s logical.

                Both parents have citizenship/subject status somewhere, with come with the natural obligations of loyalty to their political communities, regardless of historical era or duality of citizenship. At the time of the Constitution, traditionally women took their husband’s citizenship at the time of marriage, without any further act required on her part to naturalize. That reflected Natural law concepts of men as household head, protector and provider, women as the heart of the family–raising/teaching children, the unity of the couple as “one”, and it eliminated divided foreign allegiances/conflicts within families, as offspring arrived. “A man shall leave his mother and father…” Every married couple is a family unit unto themselves.

                The laws that naturalized women upon marriage were changed in the early 20th Century progressive era. She, like everyone else, is now required to go through the naturalization process. Nothing else about the concept has changed. The Constitution hasn’t been amended.

                Mere birth on the soil, regardless of parent citizenship, did NOT create a citizen in this country until the 1980’s when some bright judge decided to interpret the 14th Amend that way. Prior to that, there were academic legal opinions that mulled over the jus soli concept being enough, as well as courts that contradicted each other over who was or wasn’t a citizen. Adding to that, in the early years, there were some specific exceptions, but the rule of the law was that children, regardless of place of birth, remained covered by their father’s citizenship until they were of age, or by their mother’s, if no father was present. The mother’s citizenship mattered. Both parents matter.

                Like

                • 7delta says:

                  Pt. 2
                  Madison said the two most common ways to acquire citizenship were through birth to citizen parents and birth on the soil, but of the two, place of birth was most important. He was referring to jurisdiction. Jurisdiction fixes the applicable law under which the child was born. He was not eliminating the necessity of citizen parents. Citizens have children abroad too, but in deciding the citizenship of the child, jurisdiction is the primary consideration for how citizenship is acquired.

                  Anyone residing/visiting/born abroad is subject to that country’s laws while on its soil. Since a child born abroad to U.S. citizens does not fall within the U.S.’s natural jurisdiction, they are born alien to the Constitution (U.S. law and jurisdiction). To include the child in the parents’ political community, a legal construct is required to bring the child under U.S. jurisdiction…that’s naturalization.

                  The Constitution gives Congress the authority to create the rules of naturalization. Birth abroad to citizen parent(s) does not automatically grant U.S. citizenship. Certain qualifications must be met. When met, citizenship is granted retroactive to the day of birth. The child is not literally born a citizen and isn’t one until the application is approved by the U.S. It’s a special pathway for the child of U.S. citizens, but it’s naturalization (metaphorically at birth), just the same.

                  Madison also said a man cannot be loyal to two countries at the same time. He wasn’t the lone ranger in this belief. U.S. official policy has always been to discourage dual citizenship…until we got all progressive and global, then it became fashionable and enlightened to be a world citizen without borders and everybody who’s ever passed through the U.S., or thought about it, is natural born.

                  Now, apply these same concepts to a child born here of a parent(s) with foreign citizenships/loyalty. A child born on U.S. soil, with one citizen parent, may be a U.S. citizen too, but he/she is made so by legal construct, since conflicts in “sameness” cannot exist in nature, as is explained by the concept of the wife’s naturalization upon marriage. The conflict in the offspring’s citizenship had to be remedied legally, since the child was not naturally solely a citizen of the U.S.. Remember, the home country of the alien parent has the authority to make that child a citizen of that country too.

                  Like

                  • 7delta says:

                    Pt. 3
                    Then ask yourself, since the purpose of the NBC clause was, and is, the best practice to eliminate foreign influence and to keep a foreign entity from installing one of its own into the presidency, how can a person born with conflicting allegiances or born outside the U.S.’s natural jurisdiction, by its very own origins in nature, be free and clear of foreign influences or obligations? Whether a country adheres to a jus soli birth citizenship statute or not is irrelevant. We can’t control the laws of foreign countries. It’s not U.S. jurisdiction. We can only control our own.

                    For example, if Erdogan had an American citizen wife that gave birth over there, then obtained the child’s U.S. citizenship, or she came here and gave birth, then returned to Turkey to raise the child…or not…does that child meet the natural born requirement and adhere to the spirit of the law to be eligible for the presidency?

                    For a person’s nature and circumstances of birth to be free of foreign ties and obligations since birth (natural born), from the U.S.’s perspective of its sovereign natural rights, the child’s birth must have occurred within the U.S.’s jurisdiction to two U.S. citizen parents. It’s the only circumstance that exist in nature that meets the criteria of natural born to eliminate foreign conflict. Even then, free will creates traitors, but it’s still the best practice to secure the loyalty of the executive and Commander in Chief of the military.

                    Like

      • squid2112 says:

        I was thinking more along the lines of Donald Jr., or even Eric … I don’t care about “madam” .. I care what is best for our country. If the happens to someday be “madam”, then so be it. If not, so be that too.

        Liked by 2 people

        • SteveInCO says:

          We’ll have one someday, assuming we don’t collapse fairly soon (a prospect which was quite realistic on 7 November of this year). With any decent luck it will be someone far better than the last proffered female candidate. But yes, it shouldn’t matter in the slightest; lots of things shouldn’t but are blown up into mountains by a certain movement that cares more about the color of the skin and other physical factors, rather than the content of the character.

          Like

    • WSB says:

      Training! There are many who have the same philosophy…they just need a leader to start the conversation. One of us will emerge.

      Right now, let’s just pray to keep keep Donald Trump and his army safe, so we can work to mend this country of ours!

      Merry Christmas everyone!

      Liked by 9 people

      • supertalk says:

        Obama is peeing his mom jeans right about now. I’m pretty sure he’s pissed at a lot of advisers for not coming up with the idea to pit one contractor vs another… at least once, in 8 years.
        COMPETITION, HOW COME HE’S NEVER heard of such a thing?

        Someone’s getting fired tonight.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Sandra says:

          He must have never done any real work in his entire life. And I mean that seriously.

          Liked by 3 people

        • I’m betting that Obama’s apoplectic that Trump DID reintroduce competition.

          No more gravy train pay-to-play kickbacks that an Obama Foundation might have charged and gotten Clinton to suppor.

          No more extortion using their past cave-ins to Obama.

          Liked by 4 people

        • WSB says:

          Unfortunately, this was never in Obama’s brain. Never.

          Liked by 1 person

          • dilonsfo says:

            I agree…any one who had a different opinion than his own…he removed from their position. Obama is the type of person who believes (actually believes) he is the smartest person who has ever walked the earth. His arrogance has endangered everyone in this country and every country is the world. That single trait is why he will quickly be forgotten once he leaves office by everyone except the hard core democrats in this country who share his ignorance.

            Liked by 3 people

        • Karen w says:

          How come he has never heard of such a thing…because he was a master shakedown artist. The more we, the tax payers payed, the more he got back for himself.

          Liked by 2 people

        • You’re assuming Obama cares about such things. Or that he understands it. Marxists abhor competition. It is vulgar to them. They just want to climb the top of bureaucracy and hold on.

          I would guess that the primary emotions Obama is feeling right now are hate and fear. Trump is an existential threat. To all Marxists. Trump shatters their paradigm, their very concept of what it means to be virtuous. This is the hardest 180º turn our country has ever done, at least in my lifetime. Even more than Carter-Reagan. The G forces from the abrupt change in direction will slam many against a wall. Indeed it already is happening.

          Liked by 3 people

      • Peg_C the Deplorable says:

        We pray every night, and Trump, Pence and their families are always! in our prayers.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Stringy theory says:

      Michael, you and me both.

      Like

    • Sandra says:

      Pence. He and Trump can flip positions in 2024. 🙂 And then we’ll have the great team for another 8 years.

      Like

      • kroesus says:

        why do constitutional illiterates make comments about parts of the US Constitution?……..after 1 1/2+ terms as POTUS any individual is INELIGIBLE for POTUS or VPOTUS for eternity….to be VP you have to be constitutionally eligible to assume POTUS duties

        Like

        • SteveInCO says:

          Indeed.

          They seem to have us confused with Russia, where Putin was term limited, served a stint as PM behind a figurehead, then ran for President again. Legal there, utterly illegal here (even after substituting VP for PM).

          Like

    • Peg_C the Deplorable says:

      I know! He’s not even in yet and he’s resetting so many tables who on earth can continue this??? This paradigm has to shift so far and so permanently that can-do people will fill in all the vacancies left by the can’t-do for generations.

      Like

    • mopar2016 says:

      I think that Don Jr. is being groomed as we speak.

      Like

  6. WSB says:

    One, where were the original three bidders for any aircraft being considered for fabrication; two, who signed off on the use, appropriateness, design and specs for the F-35; and three, where is the Congressional Oversight Committee curbing all of this mess?

    Liked by 4 people

  7. Dennis Leonard says:

    So where did you dig up this relic of news from ABC.You know of course they stay away from why you can not buy American,other than the fact,Mr Muir says it is all these loop holes,we will have to look into this.

    Like

  8. eric says:

    Praise The LORD For President Trump…We Are Blessed.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. DebbieUK says:

    So happy to read all of these articles about winning. Cutting through the red tape strangling every thing is music to my ears .
    Socialists and leftists love red tape and regulations. Gives them a felling they are doing something when in fact they are bereft of any ideas .They only have their ideology.The EU regulations are strangling economies all over Europe.
    I find myself laughing every day at something Mr Trump says or does.He is so refreshing . Govermant contracts have become a license to waste tax payers money. Nobody cared until Trump.

    Liked by 7 people

    • shallbe4 says:

      Trump said in answer to Putin who wants to build up his Nuclear weapons that we should step our Nuclear Weapons in a race with Russia. After Trump uttered those words Putin retracted his idea. Our media was apoplectic.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. wodiej says:

    Love……it……

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Stringy theory says:

    Check out the 2009 Levin-McCain, as in John, acquisition reform legislation tha was going to fix all of the cost overruns, schedule slips, and such to save taxpayers billions. Yea, sure.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Keln says:

    Seriously, I can’t take this much winning. It’s too much. I can’t handle this.

    Trump needs tol back off a bit, maybe lose a few times. Too much winning!

    Said nobody ever

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sandra says:

      Every day I’m laughing because this is just too wonderful. We all knew Trump would be great and I’m just so proud of him and of all of us for getting him elected. And now we get to enjoy having a real leader in charge … even before he’s officially started the job. Haha!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sandra says:

        I want to add that daily I imagine that Trump is looking at what a mess the government is in and it’s probably driving him crazy that anyone allowed it to get in this state! Be he knows why, and we do too: self-serving donor-controlled career politicians whose top priorities are themselves and their puppetmasters.

        Like

      • shallbe4 says:

        Trump’s son Eric was forced to stop working with children dying of cancer. He raised 15 Million for St. Judes Hospital but the Media and the Dems are now equating his generosity with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s foundation. Trump said this was a miserable thing to do.

        Liked by 1 person

        • JoAnn Leichliter says:

          But we all know that they LOVE THE CHILDREN, right? Anything the government does “for the children” by taking your money at gunpoint, siphoning off 2/3 for overhead, then doling it out to their favorite activists: good. Anything you do voluntarily for a private charity that actually has a track record of accomplishing things: bad (especially if religion has anything to do with it).

          Liked by 1 person

  13. jdvalk says:

    Capitalism practiced in the milit industrial complex, what a concept.

    Like

  14. fedback says:

    So this is what it looks like when donors and special interests are not interfering.
    I like what I see

    Liked by 2 people

    • Katherine McCoun says:

      Exactly. Shoe in the other other foot with PE Trump owing none of these guys. He doesnt work for them…they work for US and he is the point person, leader and spokesman. So much common sense now being used!

      Liked by 1 person

  15. R-C says:

    So, I want to know where all this ‘aggressive’ savings of taxpayer money was, all this time.

    I want to know why this CEO expects me to applaud this brand-new ‘corporate conscience’ bit, since it’s based completely upon the fact that we finally have a president who is going to hold their feet to the fire at long last, and nail them if they don’t bring costs down.

    Should they not have been ‘aggressively saving taxpayer money’ all along? (YES, they should have.)

    I’m overjoyed that this president is going to bring them all to heel. I’m not impressed with the CEOs who didn’t do that on their own, without Trump breathing down their necks.

    Liked by 4 people

  16. ZZZ says:

    Three beautiful words; JOBS, JOBS, JOBS

    Buy from both companies and keep the HEALTHY COMPETITION alive…

    It’s a beautiful thing.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. jeans2nd says:

    Re: The F35 – Multiple sources say Bob ‘B1’ Dornan is turning backflips.

    ‘B1’ Bob Dornan strafes Newthttp://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/b1-bob-dornan-strafes-newt-110802

    B-1 Bob’ Dornan Is on the Attack Againhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces98/stories/dornan051698.htm

    Merry Christmas America.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. sDee says:

    “President-elect Trump took stewardship to an entire new level when tasking two competitors, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, for comparative bids and lower costs.”

    In the days before America’s Neo-Fascist era, it was called competitive bidding.

    Decades of corporate-regulatory collusion has brought us to the brink of fascist central control. . A complicit Bush/Clinton Uniparty administration would have ushered us into fascism’s inevitable collapse.

    Let’s hope we still have our centuries-strong foundation of engineering, intellectual property, manufacturing and industrial expertise which decades of Quisling Presidencies have given away.

    Trump can bring us back. Let China stew in the globalist mess they call “State Capitalism”

    Liked by 1 person

    • georgiafl says:

      This is one form of ‘Draining the Swamp’ – Trump is getting the bribes/donations to legislators out of the way or out in the open, if they push him.

      Liked by 1 person

      • georgiafl says:

        This is Trump’s ethical way to go around Congress and deal directly with the aircraft builders.

        Cutting out the ‘Middle Man’ – the crooks in DC.

        Heheheheheheheheheheheheheh!!!!!

        Liked by 1 person

  19. India Maria says:

    In reading the very intelligent commenting here at CTH, one cannot be left with that “cold anger” that so many of our key aerospace technology of the “national security” variety, has been passed on the China, and who knows how many other enemies. Not too long ago, China launched a fighter that appears IDENTICAL to our F-22 Raptor.

    Just a few decades ago, Ethel an Julius Rosenberg were EXECUTED for passing on some rocket component specs to the Soviets. Now we have politicians, PRESIDENTS, and companies delivering our secrets EN MASSE. Not only are they NOT punished, but they benefit with lucrative financial payoffs…..How times have changed…..

    Liked by 3 people

    • TheFightingMan says:

      Not just the corrupt politicians and CEOs….these companies hire a sickening amount of Chinese PhDs to work on the development.

      The West invented air travel/warfare, but our own PhDs are too stupid to develop aircraft. Right. Yeah, no. Chinese ‘scientific professionals’ as I understand it, are required to send secrets ‘home’ to Commieland in order for Commieland to let the wretches stay in the West. Send the ChiCommies packing. Let them conduct industrial espionage on the water buffalo plowing the fields in the Commielad outback.

      Like

  20. Katie says:

    The local NBC affiliate in Denver did a lead in to this story.

    “With one tweet, President-Elect Trump just cost one defense contractor a billion dollars”.

    Like it’s a bad thing? They’re so stupid they don’t realize it’s TAXPAYER’S money! SMH!

    Liked by 2 people

  21. toriangirl says:

    Beautiful example of creating leverage for negotiations. Brilliant! Trump just showed everyone how it is done.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. John Doe says:

    Check the states that have Lockheed Martin plants and then follow the money to that state’s elected officials. Bribery and corruption runs strong in our hallowed Congress. http://www.lockheedmartinjobs.com/locations.aspx

    Liked by 1 person

  23. rmnewt says:

    Trump will be a shock to the corporatism in the Dod. An interesting note is that the name of the company represents the founders: Loughead brothers and Glen Martin. All were hands-on aviation pioneers that are now represented by an MBA CEO and a mega institution that is a far cry from a focused, efficient, innovative aircraft developer and builder.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. MIKE says:

    It seems to me that our new hotelier in chief is giving American manufacturers a much needed and long overdue wake up call.
    Thank you, PE Trump, for not wasting any time as we the people have been suffering for over a decade with ineptitude and cronyism making it hard to put supper on the table and save for emergencies and retirement.
    God bless him and keep him safe.

    Like

  25. bkrg2 says:

    I got “schooled” once again by Sundance!
    I have to admit, when I first saw the Lockhead – Boeing tweet from Trump, I was taken back. A little concerned that the President was inserting himself into the business world.
    Then SD writes the brilliant post to teach us all that Lockhead is really just an extension of Government (79% of their business) and US CITIZENS ARE THE CUSTOMER.
    Trump just saved all the taxpayers millions or billions of dollars.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s