Potty-mouth protesters have no points to make so they scream vulgarity at Pete Hegseth

Another day, another high-strung meltdown in the nation's capital.

A brave new world of elite defense strategy met the fragile world of professional outrage on Wednesday as a handful of self-appointed hall monitors tried to shut down War Secretary Pete Hegseth at the Association of the United States Army’s annual conference in Washington. 

Senior military leaders had gathered to discuss the Pentagon’s plans for autonomous warfare, but the proceedings were repeatedly interrupted by foul-mouthed performance artists posing as protesters.

At least five times in the first half hour of a panel, potty-mouthed anti-war agitators hollered at Hegseth, treating a defense trade show like an open-mic night for emotional catharsis. They hurled sophisticated policy critiques such as calling him a "f---ing Nazi," a "war criminal," and a "coward." It is believed that their collective IQs add up to 14.

Hegseth responded with chuckles and sarcastic comments, at first, maintaining the composure of a man who has heard better insults from third-graders. But his reactions became increasingly short and irritated as he slammed the semi-coordinated ambush as one-by-one malcontents popped up around the room like caffeinated prairie dogs in Washington, D.C.

"You’re not a warrior you’re a coward!" one demonstrator shouted at Hegseth. "Children in Gaza are starving! He is a war criminal!"

"She thinks highly of me," the Pentagon chief quipped after one outburst, which led to brief applause from a crowd that actually knows what a defense conference is for.

The disrupters were scattered strategically throughout the room, carefully pausing for dramatic effect between tantrums to maximize their screen time. As Hegseth spotted the pattern behind the chaos, he noted: "Appears we have a bit of a tactic."

"The protesters are spouting off slogans, Iran really will never have a nuclear weapon," he later added. [He might have also pointed out that Iran is supporting the Democratic Party.]

Event security eventually escorted the theatrical geniuses out, with at least one dedicated activist needing to be carried bodily out of the venue while keeping up a valiant, high-decibel rodent sounding squeal for the cameras.

"The First Amendment right to protest is fundamental. However, everyone who registers to attend the Annual Meeting and enters the convention center does so after agreeing to abide by a code of conduct, so the protestors’ outbursts were certainly not appropriate during today’s forum," the Association of the U.S. Army said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

"The acting Army Secretary organized, and we were honored to host, a historic forum to discuss a critical issue that directly affects national security. We’re grateful for the swift action of security and the Metropolitan Police Department to ensure this important discussion could continue."

"Mommeee"

The panel alongside Hegseth featured acting Army Secretary Adam Telle, acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, and Assistant Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict Derrick Evans.

Hey patriots! Please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

As the background noise dragged on, the speakers simply decided that America’s national defense is slightly more important than catering to adult temper tantrums, stopping their pauses and talking straight through the noise. It remains a profound mystery how individuals with such utter disdain for military readiness managed to secure credentials for an event explicitly designed for Army brass and defense contractors.

The panel focused on Project Agincourt, the Pentagon’s high-tech initiative to accelerate the development and deployment of autonomous weapons systems. Hegseth joined senior leadership to discuss how America plans to integrate drones, robotics, and advanced autonomous technologies to keep the nation safe, secure, and light-years ahead of any adversaries who prefer actual fighting over indoor screaming.

Tweet

Declassified 9/11 Docs Reveal Government Had Apparently Heard About Hijacking Thing

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Trump administration has released a batch of previously classified documents showing that the Clinton and Bush administrations had been warned for years that Al Qaeda was interested in attacking the United States, including the apparently revolutionary concept of hijacking an airplane.

The documents, declassified on the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, reportedly contain more than 100 pages of intelligence briefings seen by Presidents Clinton and Bush between February 1998 and September 2001.

Among the revelations is the stunning discovery that American intelligence agencies had actually received information suggesting that terrorists might use passenger aircraft as weapons.

In other words, the government apparently had some idea that something bad could happen involving airplanes, terrorists, and America.

Unfortunately, the information seems to have remained safely inside the federal government, where intelligence warnings are traditionally placed in a secure location where nobody has to do anything about them.

One 1998 intelligence report warned:

"Reporting suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh 'Umar' Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama'at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that as of late October, the IG has completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking."

Apparently, "perhaps including an aircraft hijacking" was intelligence-speak for "there is a possibility that terrorists could hijack an airplane," a concept that would become considerably less hypothetical three years later.

The documents also reportedly stated that:

"IG leader Islambouli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the 'next couple of weeks' to free 'Abd al-Rahman and the other prisoners,"

The same source reportedly warned that:

"Bid Ladin might implement plans to hijack a US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport."

That last detail seems particularly encouraging, since it suggests terrorists were not merely discussing hijacking airplanes over coffee. They were apparently conducting practice runs at American airports.

The documents further warned that members of Bin Ladin's "network" had "received hijack training."

They also said Bin Ladin and his allies "are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do not know whether they are related to attacks on aircraft."

At some point, one imagines, the government had accumulated enough warning signs to fill an entire filing cabinet.

And yet here we are.

On September 11, 2001, 19 Al Qaeda terrorists ultimately hijacked four passenger planes. Two were flown into the World Trade Center in New York City, another struck the Pentagon, and passengers aboard the fourth plane fought back against the hijackers before it crashed in Pennsylvania.

More than 3,000 people were killed.

Among the dead were hundreds of firefighters, police officers, emergency workers, and other first responders who ran toward the danger while everyone else was desperately trying to get away from it.

Twenty-five years later, the release of these documents provides yet another painful reminder that the warning signs were there.

For decades, Americans have debated whether the government knew something was coming, whether intelligence agencies adequately connected the dots, and whether more could have been done to prevent the attacks.

The newly released documents are unlikely to settle every question.

They do, however, provide another remarkable glimpse into the world of pre-9/11 federal intelligence, where warnings about terrorists planning to hijack American aircraft could apparently make it all the way into the President's Daily Brief without making it quite as far as the people who needed to do something about them.

Because apparently the one thing nobody in Washington had thought to classify was the possibility that terrorists might actually mean what they were saying.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Islamic charity does verbal calisthenics to find a way to blame the Jews for 911

WASHINGTON, D.C. , In what education experts are calling a bold new approach to history, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has reportedly released a school resource guide suggesting that the September 11 terrorist attacks were less about Islamic terrorism and more about America's unfortunate habit of supporting Israel, you know, the Jooooooze!

The guide, released as part of CAIR's “Back to school resource guide,” was apparently designed to help teachers explain the 2001 attacks to a new generation of students who might otherwise make the historically outrageous mistake of believing that terrorists were responsible for the terrorism. 

How Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of them, eh.

Thankfully, the guide appears to have been removed shortly after its publication, presumably after someone remembered that telling American children that their country basically had it coming for supporting Israel might not be considered traditional civics education. But I bet it wasn't Randi Weingarten who had the guides removed.

Among the guide's more creative historical formulations was the claim that the attacks were carried out not by Islamic terrorists, but by a “group self-identifying as Al Qaeda hailing from the mountains of Afghanistan.” In fact, some of them may have even looked Jewish.

This distinction is important. After all, if a group calling itself Al Qaeda hijacks four airplanes, murders nearly 3,000 people and attacks the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the least we can do is carefully avoid jumping to conclusions about whether it might have had anything to do with Islamic terrorism.

The guide also cited American support for Israel and the U.S. military's involvement in the Gulf War as grievances that supposedly helped justify attacks against the United States. In other words, we had it coming. 

Apparently, the terrorists had grievances, America had foreign policy, Israel existed, and therefore everyone can go home with a B-plus in History.

The guide's explanation of the aftermath of 9/11 was even more remarkable. According to the materials, the Global War on Terror helped create an “Islamophobic” culture in which the words “terrorism” and “terrorist” were supposedly applied primarily to Muslims.

“While Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism existed long before the 9/11 attacks, this time period marked a stark shift in US policy and state sponsored Islamophobia in the U.S. and abroad. There was immediate backlash against anyone perceived to be Muslim,” the propaganda read.

Of course, there was also an immediate backlash against people who flew airplanes into buildings, murdered civilians and attacked the Pentagon. But apparently that distinction was considered too nuanced for the back-to-school crowd.

The guide also included terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden's “Letter to America” as “resource material,” apparently because nothing says "educational enrichment" quite like assigning students the writings of the man responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans.

Among the gems included in bin Laden's letter was this passage:

“Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.”

Somewhere in Israel, a history teacher is presumably preparing a lesson explaining that this is definitely not antisemitic, but merely another example of America's complicated relationship with foreign policy.

Nicholas Haros Jr., whose mother Frances was killed on 9/11, wasn't buying it.

“The further we get from 9/11, this new generation of kids will learn to blame our country. These kids are going to be poisoned – and that’s the intent.”

Sen. Tom Cotton had already warned about CAIR's efforts to influence American schools nearly a year earlier.

“I write to alert you to the Council on American-Islamic Relations’s (CAIR) efforts to influence K-12 schools … It is well documented that CAIR has deep ties to pro-Hamas terrorist organizations and publicly supports Hamas’s terrorist activities,” Cotton wrote in part.

“Such an organization should never have access to our nation’s children,” he asserted, adding, “The organization offers ‘educational’ materials on its website that perpetuate pro-terrorist, anti-Israel rhetoric. CAIR Philadelphia recently issued guidance for educators titled ‘Remembering and Reflecting: Teaching September 11, 2001, in Diverse Classrooms.’ The guide directs teachers to avoid using ‘inaccurate and inflammatory terms such as ‘Islamic terrorists,’ ‘jihadists,’ or ‘radical Islamic terrorists,’’ when describing the September 11 terrorists.”

“The U.S. Department of Education must ensure that CAIR is not given an opportunity to push its radical, pro-terrorist, anti-Israel ideology on American schoolchildren,” he concluded.

The whole episode raises an important question for American parents: When their children come home from school saying that Israel somehow caused 9/11, should parents correct them, or simply congratulate them for successfully completing Advanced Blame-America Studies?

Fortunately, there remains one group that cannot be blamed for the attacks: Israel.

But give the education establishment another semester and somebody will probably assign that possibility as extra credit.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

CBC Orders Reporters to Stop Calling 9/11 Terrorism, Says “Some Very Unfortunate Aviation-Related Things Happened”

Canadian public broadcaster unveils new journalistic standard requiring typists to avoid words that might accidentally describe reality.

TORONTO, Canada — The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has issued a stern warning to its typists: under no circumstances should they refer to the September 11, 2001 attacks as “terrorist attacks,” because that would risk introducing dangerous quantities of meaning, politics, emotion and, worst of all, facts into the story.

Instead, CBC typists have been instructed to describe 9/11 as “a situation where some folks did stuff in America as a prescient sign that one day Donald Trump would be President.”

The memo, authored by CBC News senior director of journalistic standards and public trust Basem Boshra, was considerably less colorful but no less bewildering.

“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks,” the memo said.

The directive instead recommends describing the attacks as hijackings that led to passenger jets crashing in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan.

The World Trade Center was also destroyed, apparently by forces that CBC typists are not at liberty to characterize.

CBC officials defended the policy by explaining that the word “terrorist” is simply too emotionally loaded.

“It is the practice of the CBC to exercise extreme caution before using the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism,’” CBC Public Affairs Director Kerry Kelly said.

This is understandable.

After all, imagine the emotional trauma a CBC reporter might experience by typing the words “19 al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airplanes and deliberately murdered nearly 3,000 people.”

That is an awful lot of adjectives.

Much safer to write:

“Nineteen individuals participated in an aviation-related disagreement that unfortunately resulted in several buildings becoming unavailable for future occupancy.”

CBC editors reportedly rejected the phrase “mass murder” because it was considered “judgmental.”

“Death,” meanwhile, is apparently acceptable because it can happen naturally.

“Premeditated murder” remains under review.

“Islamist terrorism” has been referred to the CBC’s Department of Extremely Careful Feelings.
CBC: We Don’t Call Terrorists Terrorists Because That Would Be Taking Sides

CBC News general manager and editor-in-chief Brodie Fenlon previously explained that the organization prefers to “bear witness” rather than independently determine whether acts are terrorism.

“We bear witness. But CBC News does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism, regardless of the region or the events, because these words are so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism,” Fenlon said.

Which is an impressive position for a news organization.

It is roughly equivalent to a weather forecaster saying:

“We don't independently designate rain as wet because ‘wet’ is such a loaded term.”

Or a hockey announcer saying:

“We cannot characterize the puck as having entered the net because the phrase ‘goal’ carries political and emotional implications.”

Or a coroner saying:

“We can confirm that the individual is no longer participating in the ongoing experiment known as life.”

The CBC is simply committed to maintaining neutrality.

Even when neutrality requires pretending everyone else hasn't already figured out what happened.
New CBC Style Guide Released

Sources say CBC editors are now considering a comprehensive update to their style guide.

Under the proposed rules:

Terrorist attack: “An event involving unexpected violence.”

Suicide bomber: “A person experiencing a severe disagreement with mortality.”

Hostage-taking: “An involuntary relocation experience.”

Murder: “An unauthorized termination of another person's biological processes.”

Massacre: “A gathering that ended with an unusually high number of people no longer gathering.”

Hamas: “A group whose designation as a terrorist organization should be attributed to Canada, Israel, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and approximately half the planet.”

9/11: “The Sept. 11 attacks.”

Actual terrorism: “Please consult Legal.”

The CBC is particularly sensitive about the word “terrorist” because it might imply that someone who deliberately murders civilians for political purposes is, in fact, a terrorist. And once journalists start making those kinds of obvious connections, there is simply no telling where it could lead.

Soon they might start saying that criminals commit crimes.

Or that people who intentionally kill innocent civilians are responsible for killing innocent civilians.

Then civilization itself could collapse.

There is, admittedly, one small problem with the CBC's position. The FBI describes 9/11 as the most lethal terrorist attack in history.

Nineteen al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airplanes, killed nearly 3,000 people and triggered the largest investigation in FBI history.

Canada itself lists al Qaeda as a terrorist entity and states that the organization perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. But CBC journalists remain bravely unwilling to reach the same conclusion without first consulting someone who has already reached it.

This creates the fascinating possibility that a CBC reporter could stand outside the wreckage of a terrorist attack and say:

“According to witnesses, the FBI, the Canadian government, the American government, the Israeli government, the British government and virtually everyone who has ever looked at this event, this may have been terrorism.”

“But I wouldn't want to speculate.”

New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino condemned the guidance, accusing the broadcaster of disregarding the victims and deliberately undermining the historical record.

“The CBC guidance is frankly outrageous and insulting, but it stands as a stark warning for what happens when you allow institutions of public trust to be taken over by leftists and foreign interests,” Paladino said.

“This is not merely a callous disregard for the memory of those who perished on 9/11, it is a deliberate effort to undermine the fundamental truth of what happened that day in direct service to Islamism, as Europe, Canada, and the United States become increasingly overwhelmed by Islamist politics. We must not tolerate it any longer and dedicate ourselves to fighting this poison with every tool we have available before it’s too late,” she continued.

Conservative Canadian MP Rachael Thomas called the guidance “absolutely shameful.”

“The CBC is choosing to redefine terrorism in a way that downplays the atrocity of 9/11. Refusing to call it an act of terrorism dishonors the victims, their families, the survivors, and the first responders who witnessed the horrors of that day. 9/11 was an act of terrorism. Full stop,” Thomas said.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs likewise accused the CBC of “sanitizing” history and presiding over a “collapse of journalistic standards.”

CBC responded that it was merely following its longstanding policy.

Because apparently the collapse of a building is tragic, but the collapse of a journalistic standard is merely a longstanding practice.

The policy is not limited to 9/11. CBC faced similar criticism following Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, when journalists were instructed not to independently call militants or soldiers “terrorists” and instead treat the designation as an attributed opinion.

Which raises an obvious question:

If Hamas murders civilians, kidnaps children, takes hostages and deliberately attacks Israeli communities, when exactly does CBC believe the word “terrorist” becomes appropriate?

Apparently, after the reporter has obtained a notarized affidavit from someone willing to accept responsibility for the adjective.

Perhaps the CBC could establish a new editorial hotline.

CALL 1: “Was someone intentionally trying to terrorize civilians?”

CALL 2: “Did they kill people?”

CALL 3: “Does Canada officially designate the organization as terrorist?”

CALL 4: “Is the answer to all three yes?”

CALL 5: “Sorry, we can't make that determination. Please hold for 45 minutes while we locate a sufficiently neutral adjective.”
CBC's New Definition of Journalism

The CBC's position ultimately leaves Canadians with a remarkable picture of modern journalism.

The journalist sees the plane.

The journalist sees the building.

The journalist sees the fire.

The journalist sees the bodies.

The journalist sees the terrorist organization that planned the attack.

The journalist sees the government's official designation.

The journalist sees the FBI's determination.

And then the journalist looks directly into the camera and says:

“Some things happened.”

This is apparently what “bearing witness” means in Canada.

Not telling people what happened.

Not describing what happened.

Certainly not using words that might help people understand what happened.

Just standing there solemnly while history happens nearby.

And if anyone asks whether 9/11 was terrorism, the answer is simple:

According to the FBI, yes.

According to the Canadian government, yes.

According to the historical record, yes.

According to the victims, their families and the first responders, obviously yes.

According to the CBC?

“The Sept. 11 attacks.”

Because apparently after 25 years, nearly 3,000 deaths, four hijacked aircraft and the destruction of the World Trade Center, the most dangerous thing about 9/11 is still the possibility that a CBC reporter might accidentally call a terrorist a terrorist.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Brandon Newsom out of a job with Navy after bashing Trump

Brandon Newsom, the former head (or director) of business operations in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy at the Pentagon, is no longer employed by the Department of the Navy. He didn't so much as quit as he needed to leave under the circumstances, following the release of undercover hidden-camera footage in which he criticized President Donald Trump and discussed plans to reverse administration policies.

The footage was recorded by conservative activist James O’Keefe and published online on July 22, 2026. 

In the video, Newsom (who described overseeing corporate operations such as HR, IT, and security) referred to Trump as a “textbook narcissist.” He called the ongoing war with Iran “completely stupid” and “driven by one man’s ego,” as if his plan didn't involve his own high-level ego. 

He said he hoped to “stay and stick it out” at the Pentagon “so that way, when the time comes, I can undo whatever’s been done” by the Trump administration. Kind of egotistical if you ask me. 

Specific policies he mentioned included religious/prayer services at the Pentagon (objecting to “one specific” service) and changes to employee “schedule policy” that he said stripped protections.

Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao placed Newsom on administrative leave “effective immediately” after the video emerged, stating that the Department of the Navy “takes the conduct shown in this video extremely seriously” and that such statements and apparent intent to undermine policies set by elected leaders were “inappropriate and incompatible with the standards expected of Department personnel.” 

On or around July 26, 2026, Cao confirmed: “The individual is no longer employed by the Department of the Navy.” It is unclear from reports whether Newsom resigned or was terminated; the Pentagon referred questions to the Navy.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.  

News outlets have noted the context of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s efforts under the Trump administration to reverse what it describes as “woke” policies (including DEI programs) in the military, along with other personnel and cultural changes at the Pentagon. 

Some reports indicate O’Keefe presented the encounter as occurring during a “gay date,” with O’Keefe in disguise. Newsweek and other outlets have stated they have not independently verified the recording.

This is the dominant recent news involving the name Brandon Newsom as of late July 2026. (Note: A different individual, a former Holmes County, Florida, commissioner also named Brandon Newsom/Brandon Brown Newsom, faced felony charges related to bail bond activities in 2025, was suspended by Gov. Ron DeSantis, and has been linked to local political activity, but that is separate and older.)

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Rubio and Vance Offer Competing Visions While White House Insists Everyone Is Singing From the Same Hymnal

For an administration that likes to remind everyone it's playing four-dimensional chess on the world stage, the Trump White House has found itself looking like a family trying to assemble IKEA furniture after losing the instructions. Everyone insists they're building the same bookshelf, but one guy is holding a hammer while another is convinced the leftover screws are decorative.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has spent the past week doing something that used to be considered a basic qualification for running American foreign policy: acknowledging that the Iranian regime is exactly what decades of history say it is. Vice President JD Vance, on the other hand, has been floating a more optimistic theory that suggests the mullahs are just one reconstruction package and a few friendly conversations away from becoming respectable neighbors. What has he been smoking?

The White House would like everyone to stop noticing.

Rubio has consistently defended Israel's campaign against Hezbollah for what any honest observer can see it is: a response to years of rocket attacks, terrorism, and the bizarre international expectation that Israelis should quietly absorb missiles because it makes European diplomats feel more comfortable and besides, Jews need to be annihilated because, you know, the Qur'an and stuff.

While visiting the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain, Rubio worked to reassure nervous allies following the preliminary U.S.-Iran agreement signed on June 17. Critics have questioned whether the deal hands Tehran far too much for far too little. Rubio answered those concerns with a sentence so grounded in reality that it almost sounded old fashioned.

"While we want a deal, we don't want a deal at any price," Rubio said.

Imagine that. A Secretary of State who remembers that negotiations are supposed to benefit America instead of serving as therapy sessions for hostile dictators.

That practical approach stands in pretty stark contrast to the messaging coming from the vice president.

Vance, on the other hand, has defended the agreement against Israeli criticism while arguing that Israeli strikes on Hezbollah infrastructure in Beirut could complicate American diplomacy. That assumes Hezbollah is simply misunderstood and that their biggest obstacle to peace is poor calendar coordination with U.S. negotiators rather than an obsessive commitment to wiping Israel off the map.

Does he know nothing about Islamic anti-Semitism?

The vice president has also spoken favorably about Gulf nations helping finance Iran's reconstruction and has entertained the possibility of a more cooperative relationship with the Islamic Republic. Apparently decades of hostage taking, proxy wars, terrorism, and "Death to America" chants are now considered minor misunderstandings that can be smoothed over with enough infrastructure spending. He needs to forget about running for POTUS in '28.

Then came Thursday's interview.

Vance revealed that Washington had invited an Iranian intelligence official to serve as a deconfliction liaison with the Pentagon in Qatar. That's one of those ideas that sounds like it came out of a brainstorming session where someone asked, "What's the foreign policy equivalent of letting the bank robber install the security cameras?"

Naturally, everyone in the administration insists there isn't even the slightest disagreement.

"There is one camp, President Trump's camp, and the entire administration is fully behind the president's efforts to ensure Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon," spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott dismissed reports of friction as a "tired and fake" narrative before adding, "The entire administration is 100% in lockstep behind President Trump."

Rubio offered the same assurance Thursday.

"Everyone here is aligned behind the president."

Maybe they are.

But from where everyone else is sitting, this doesn't look like perfect harmony. It looks like one side is reading Ronald Reagan while the other is speed-running Barack Obama's Middle East playbook. Both keep insisting they're singing the same song, but one sounds like "God Bless America" while the other is humming "Kumbaya" with the ayatollah.

If this really is one unified strategy, somebody might want to hand out the same script before the next press conference.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Search for missing pilot of downed F-15E jet now in second day

The ejector seat

The desperate search for the missing American pilot of an F-15E that was shot down over Iran stretched into the second day after his co-pilot was rescued in a daring search and rescue mission that saw other US aircraft targeted.

Crews were racing against time to find the second pilot of the Strike Eagle, which is believed to have gone down Friday in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province in the southwestern part of the country near Iraq, The New York Times reported. Iranian officials quickly placed a bounty on the pilot’s head, calling on civilians to help capture him or her.

Retired Marine combat pilot Capt. Ron Alvarado told The Post the timing of the attack may bode in the US’s favor in terms of finding the pilot because of better night vision and infrared communication technology than Iranian combatants.

“We own the night,” Alvarado said. “Hopefully, he or she will be rescued by morning.”

By early Saturday local time there were no updates on the status of the missing pilot.

Both pilots reportedly ejected from the plane, with one located and rescued by US forces hours later. That pilot was being medically treated.

The Strike Eagle has an emergency locator beacon as part of a survival kit that can be activated automatically or manually, Alan Diehl, a former investigator for the Air Force Safety Center, said.Other US aircraft were caught in the crosshairs as crew members rushed into action after the first plane plunged to the ground.

Another US aircraft was also targeted after the initial attack that took down an A-10 Thunderbolt [aka Warthog]. 

The Warthog crashed in the Persian Gulf area after it was struck by Iranian forces, but the lone pilot was safely rescued, according to US officials.

The A-10 Warthog was able to reach Kuwaiti airspace, where the pilot ejected and the plane crashed, an official told liberal network NBC News.

Iran terrorists using rifles also struck a pair of US military helicopters involved in the F-15E rescue, but all crew members are safe, a US official told NBC News.

Some of the crew were injured, but the choppers safely returned to their base, the Washington Post reported.

The F-15E is the first US aircraft to be shot down in Iran during Operation Epic Fury, in which the US and Israel have launched 20,000 strikes on the evil regime as the war stretched into its sixth week.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed its “newly developed and advanced air defenses” had downed the jet, which was “completely destroyed and crashed,” Tehran’s Press TV reported. 

A photo circulating online appeared to show one of the ejected seats seen at the top of the post.

The anchor of a local affiliate of the state TV broadcaster earlier urged Iranians to hunt down the downed “enemy” pilots and the regime is offering a reward for his capture.

“If you capture the enemy pilot or pilots alive and hand them over to the police, you will receive a precious prize,” the anchor said, according to the Associated Press.  Sources at Brain Flushings believes the reward to be 72 virgin goats.

President Trump, in a brief NBC News interview Friday afternoon, declined to discuss the specifics of the ongoing search for the outstanding pilot but insisted the series of strikes against US jets and choppers won’t sidetrack negotiations.

“No, not at all. No, it’s war,” he said. “We’re in war.”

The good news is that the pilot has not been captured and is likely using tactics to avoid detection, giving him a good chance of escape and return to friendly forces.

Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth have boasted about how the operation against Tehran has knocked out much of Iran’s capabilities.

Hegseth said in early March near the start of the war that the US was “establishing total dominance over the skies we fly over and seas we fly over.”

Meanwhile, President Trump, in a primetime address to the nation Wednesday, said thanks to progress made during the war, his administration was “on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly.”

More than 90% of Tehran’s missile and drone capacities have been eliminated in the month-long war, US officials have said. Still, Trump has refused to rule out putting American boots on the ground during the conflict.

On Friday, Iran used the successful attacks to taunt the US, reminiscent of Monty Python's "Black Knight."

Iran’s parliamentary speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf criticized the US in an X post Friday that its “no-strategy war … has now been downgraded from ‘regime change’ to ‘Hey! Can anyone find our pilots? Please?’”

A US F-35A was also damaged over Iran on March 19 during a combatmission, and 16 MQ-9 drones have been shot down. Three American F-15 fighter jets were also shot down over Kuwait in a friendly fire incident.

Hegseth revealed in a Pentagon news conference that the six downed crew members in those jets had “never left the theater” and returned to drop bombs on Tehran Tuesday.

Since the start of the war, 365 US service members have been wounded in action while the death toll is at 13, according to the Pentagon data available online.

It’s unclear if Friday’s incidents have been included in those figures.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. You can support my work by checking out the sponsors on this page. It really helps. You can even click on Buy Me A Coffee in the sidebar if you want to show your appreciation. It helps to keep me going, but really, there's  no pressure.

Tweet

World's biggest aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford arrives in the Middle East

The world's largest aircraft carrier, the U.S. Navy nuclear-powered Ford-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) (photo credit: Seaman Abigail Reyes/U.S. Navy)

The US military is gearing up for what could be weeks-long operations against Iran if President Trump gives the green light. Two US officials told Reuters this could turn into a far more serious conflict than anything we've seen before between the two countries.

"Sometimes you have to have fear. That's the only thing that really will get the situation taken care of," Trump said.

These officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive planning involved. It definitely ramps up the pressure on the ongoing diplomacy with Iran.

US and Iranian diplomats met in Oman last week to try reviving talks on Tehran's nuclear program, after Trump built up forces in the region and sparked fears of fresh military action. On the military side, US officials announced Friday that the Pentagon is deploying another aircraft carrier to the Middle East, along with thousands more troops, fighter jets, guided-missile destroyers, and other assets for both offense and defense. Carriers typically house over 5,000 personnel, and the USS Gerald R. Ford is bigger than them all.

Trump spoke to troops at a North Carolina base Friday and said it's "been difficult to make a deal" with Iran.

"Sometimes you have to have fear. That's the only thing that really will get the situation taken care of," Trump said.

When asked about preparations for potentially prolonged operations, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: "President Trump has all options on the table with regard to Iran. He listens to a variety of perspectives on any given issue, but makes the final decision based on what is best for our country and national security." 

The Pentagon had no comment.

Last year, the US sent two carriers to the region for strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. But June's "Midnight Hammer" was basically a single strike: stealth bombers flew from the US to hit nuclear facilities, and Iran responded with a very limited attack on a US base in Qatar. This time, however, the planning is more involved, officials said.

In a sustained campaign, the US could target Iranian state and security facilities, not just nuclear ones, one official noted, without giving specifics. You can bet the Ayatollah isn't diddy-bopping above terra firma at the moment.

Experts warn the risks to US forces would be much higher against Iran, given its strong missile arsenal. Iranian retaliation could easily spark a wider regional war.

The same official said the US expects Iran to hit back, leading to ongoing strikes and counter-strikes over time. Iran is also preparing [allegedly] to strike Tel Aviv in the near future, and you can bet the IDF isn't playing with their dreidels and are instead preparing to retaliate.

The White House and Pentagon didn't answer questions on retaliation risks or regional escalation.

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, or even check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free. So is checking out the advertisers on the blog.

Trump has repeatedly warned he'd bomb Iran over its nuclear and missile programs, plus its crackdown on internal dissent. On Thursday, he said the alternative to diplomacy would "be very traumatic, very traumatic." [Two 'very traumatics' is very, very serious.]

Iran's Revolutionary Guards have threatened to strike any US base if Iran is hit. The US has bases across the Middle East: Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Turkey.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met President Trump in Washington on Wednesday and said any deal with Iran "must include the elements that are vital to Israel." 

Iran says it's open to discussing nuclear curbs for sanctions relief, but won't tie it to missiles because they obviously plan to go nuclear or already have done so.

So, with the IRGC killing Iranian citizens and both Israel and the US ready to launch an attack if necessary, it looks like history is soon to be made in the Middle East.

Am America/Israel Chai.

Tweet

The Pentagon press for the Fort Hood shooter's execution

Let us confront the grim reality of Nidal Hasan, a name that ought to evoke not just revulsion but a piercing clarity about the consequences of ideological blindness. The Pentagon, we are told, is poised to seek President Donald Trump’s approval to execute this former jihadi Army major, convicted of the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, a slaughter that left 13 dead and 32 wounded. If granted, this would mark the first U.S. military execution in over six decades, a milestone that forces us to grapple with the weight of justice and the cowardice of obfuscation.

The facts are stark. On November 5, 2009, Hasan, then an Army psychiatrist, strode into Fort Hood's Soldier Readiness Center, armed with a semi-automatic pistol, and unleashed carnage on his fellow service members: men and women preparing to deploy in defense of their nation. 

At his trial, he offered no pretense of remorse, declaring the act necessary to shield an imagined "Islamic Empire" from American forces. Such is the mind of a man who, born in Virginia to Palestinian parents, served nearly two decades in the U.S. Army only to betray it, seduced by the siren call of radical Islam.

For years, Hasan has languished on death row at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, his appeals snaking through the courts like a slow poison. In April 2025, his final legal gambit was rejected, clearing the path for the Pentagon to act. 

The Department of War, under Secretary Pete Hegseth, is unambiguous: "I am 100% committed to ensuring the death penalty is carried out for Nidal Hasan," Hegseth told Fox News Digital. This savage terrorist deserves the harshest lawful punishment for his 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood. The victims and survivors deserve justice without delays." 

One can almost hear the exasperation in his voice, a righteous demand for closure after years of bureaucratic nose picking.

And yet, the story is not merely one of a traitor's overdue reckoning. It is a searing indictment of institutional denial. The Pentagon, in a decision that defies reason, initially labeled this massacre "workplace violence." Workplace violence! That's like calling the Charlie Hebdo massacre 'a workplace misunderstanding.' It's as if Hasan's rampage, fueled by his outspoken defense of suicide bombings and hatred of U.S. campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, were akin to a disgruntled employee's outburst over a parking dispute. Lawmakers, victims' families, and national security experts rightly excoriated this absurdity, pointing to the ideological and terrorist roots of the attack. To call it anything less is to dishonor the dead and to embolden those who would emulate Hasan's treachery.

Now, with the Army secretary's recommendation in hand, the Department of War presses forward, seeking Trump's authorization to end Hasan's stay on earth and send him to meet his goats. He remains one of only four prisoners under military jurisdiction facing the death penalty—a small, grim fraternity. The question is not whether justice demands his execution; it does. The question is whether we, as a society, have the moral courage to see it through, or whether we will once again retreat into euphemism and delay, leaving the wounds of Fort Hood to fester.

This is not merely about one man's fate. It is about whether we can still name evil, confront it, and destroy it, or whether we will continue to avert our gaze, pretending that the ideologies that animate such atrocities are mere workplace grievances. The victims of Fort Hood, and the nation they served, deserve better.

If you like my blog and want to Buy Me A Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure.

Tweet

U.S. Troops Smoke Senior ISIS Bigwig in Syria Raid

ATMEH, Syria — Before the sun even thought about rising Wednesday, U.S. forces swooped into northwestern Syria and sent a top-tier Islamic State honcho to meet his maker, a U.S. official spilled to Reuters.

This marks the second time since Bashar al-Assad got the boot in December that U.S. troops have stormed northern Syria. The new Islamist-led crew running the show has sworn to keep ISIS from clawing back, and they're cozy with the U.S.-led coalition still pounding the terror group.

The official, keeping it low-key and anonymous, said the raid took out a heavy-hitting ISIS member who was in the running to be the group's top dog in Syria.

"No U.S. troops were killed or injured in the raid," the official added, cool as you like. A Syrian security source and Syria's state-run Al-Ikhbariya said the target bit the dust while trying to make a break for it.

Another Syrian source dropped that the guy was Iraqi, hitched to a French woman. No word yet on what happened to her.

The Pentagon's lips were sealed, no comment for now. The op kicked off around 2 a.m. (1100 GMT), according to Syrian security folks and locals in Atmeh, Idlib province. Helicopters and drones buzzed overhead, providing cover, while local Syrian forces locked down the neighborhood. U.S. troops, though, handled the dirty work, a second security source confirmed.

Abdelqader al-Sheikh, a local who was up late with his kid, heard some racket in the yard next door. "I called out, 'Who are you?' and they started speaking to me in English, telling me to put my hands up," Sheikh told Reuters.

He said the armed crew posted up on nearby rooftops for two hours, and he caught someone close by barking Arabic with an Iraqi accent.

Back in July, the Pentagon bragged about a raid in Aleppo province that dusted a senior ISIS leader and his two grown sons, both tied to the group.

Idlib's been a rat's nest for ISIS big shots for years. U.S. forces took out ISIS head honcho Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Barisha, Idlib, back in 2019, and his successor, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashemi al-Quraishi, got the same treatment in Atmeh in 2022.

And if you want to Buy Me A Coffee, I wouldn't stop you--it supports my work and I really appreciate it. But no pressure.

Tweet

Appeals court unappealing to 9/11 mastermind KSM's plea deal

On Friday, a panel of federal appeals court judges, in a 2-1 gut-punch ruling, obliterated a plea deal that would’ve let 9/11 mastermind and scumcrumpet Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators dodge the death penalty for guilty pleas. The agreement, hammered out over two grueling years, promised Mohammed and his crew life without parole, a cushy escape from the needle of eternity.

The military prosecution of Mohammed and his fellow plotters has been dragging on for over two decades, mired in endless preliminary hearings and defense lawyers screaming about evidence tainted by torture.

Back in July, the Biden administration’s Defense Department announced pretrial agreements with Mohammed and three other 9/11 orchestrators. But then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in a power move, spiked the deal just two days later, declaring himself the sole gatekeeper of such agreements. 

A military appeals court in December slapped back at Austin’s play, reinstating the plea deal to sidestep execution. But on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit said, “Not so fast,” torching the agreement and backing Austin’s authority to kill it.

Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao didn’t mince words: “In light of the clear and indisputable errors committed by the military judge, which implicate issues of immense national importance, we conclude that issuance of the writs is appropriate under these circumstances.” Boom. Done.But Judge Robert Wilkins wasn’t having it. He came out swinging in his dissent, calling the majority’s move to overturn a military judge “stunning.” His words cut deep: “Our deference should be at its zenith when military courts follow persuasive military precedent in the construction of military rules. I am befuddled.” Ouch.

Mohammed, the alleged brain behind the deadliest attack on American soil, when hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, still sits at the center of this legal storm. And it’s far from over.

Hey amazing readers! If you enjoy my content, please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 

Tweet

200 Marines deploy to support ICE in Florida

Two hundred Marines from North Carolina’s Marine Support Squadron 272 are headed to Florida to back ICE, U.S. Northern Command says. They’re part of 700 troops, active duty, Guard, Reserves, tapped by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after DHS begged for help May 9.

Florida’s first up, with Texas and Louisiana next. The Marines will handle “critical administrative and logistical capabilities at locations as directed by ICE,” per Thursday’s release. Think paperwork and transport, not handcuffs. 

“Their roles will focus on administrative and logistical tasks, and they are specifically prohibited from direct contact with individuals in ICE custody or involvement in any aspect of the custody chain,” the news release hammers home.

This isn’t new. The military’s been law enforcement’s wingman for ages. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin in ’91 said it best: “Contrary to what many police officers believe, the Posse Comitatus Act permits civilian law enforcement agencies to seek military assistance under some specific circumstances.” 

Guard units, for example, regularly sling “training, technical support, services, intelligence analysis, surveillance, communications towers, vehicle barriers, and pedestrian fences,” per a 2010 report.

The Pentagon’s doubling down on border security, with four new military zones in Texas and Arizona to curb illegal migration and drugs. Pentagon flack Sean Parnell says 8,500 Joint Task Force Southern Border troops have run 3,500 patrols, some with Mexican forces, and Marines have backed 170+ missions across 130 spots for nine agencies, including DHS and DEA.

Where in Florida? NORTHCOM’s lips are sealed. Rumors point to Alligator Alcatraz, ICE’s new Everglades lockup, but they ain’t confirming. Details? Forget it—NORTHCOM’s clamming up. Marines are coming to stack boxes, not to kick butt and take names.

Hey amazing readers! If you love the content you find here please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 

Tweet

SecDef Hegseth demands stricter orders on credentials to "protect national security"

Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, has issued orders Friday for journalists with access to the Pentagon, as the Trump administration is trying to plug the holes where sensitive information had been leaking like a used three-day-old baby diaper.

According to the new rules, credentialed reporters from most DoD headquarters in Arlington, VA, will not have access without official approval and escort, Hegseth's memorandum states.

The SecDef describes this move to protect classified national intelligence information and even sensitive unclassified information regarding operational security as "an unwavering imperative for the Department."

"While the Department remains committed to transparency, the Department is equally obligated to protect [Classified National Security Information] and sensitive information - the unauthorized disclosure of which could put the lives of U.S. Service members in danger," the secretary, a former US Army Major, said.

The new order will soon have members of the Pentagon press corps sing a form acknowledging their responsibility to protect national intelligence and sensitive information. [It's amazing this hasn't been standard operating procedure prior to Hegseth's appointment.] Journalists will also be issued new shiny badges that clearly identify them as members of the Pentagon press corps.

"We also anticipate a forthcoming announcement of additional security measures and enhanced scrutiny on the issuance of [credentials]," the memo said. "Failure by any member of the resident or visiting press to comply with these control measures will result in further restrictions and possibly revocation of press credentials."

The Pentagon Press Association (PPA), a membership organization representing the press corps covering the U.S. military, whined that the new rules seem to demonstrate a "direct attack on the freedom of the press." [What, is the PPA funded by China?]

"The decision is purportedly based on concerns about operational security," the group said in a statement. "But the Pentagon Press Corps has had access to non-secured, unclassified spaces in the Pentagon for decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations, including in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, without any concern about OP-SEC from DoD leadership."

Yes, and thus the leaks, you dolts. Just last month, the Pentagon fired three officials after announcing a leak investigation in March at the Department of Defense, so Hegseth is getting out ahead of the curve.

The Pentagon has also required legacy news outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, NPR, CNN and NBC News, to vacate their office spaces in the building, and will have their offices fumigated from the stink. They plan to bring in more administration-friendly outlets like the New York Post, the Daily Caller, One America News Network, and Breitbart. 

The department said the rotation system aimed to allow other media outlets the opportunity to cover the Pentagon as resident members of the press corps.

Hopefully these outlets will report honestly and not simply be typists for the administration. Based on their track record, it's likely we will get a better, more honest perspective of government than we did in the past.

Finally, the administration has begun using lie detector tests to probe unauthorized leaks at federal agencies. Some Department of Homeland Security officials were told they could be fired for refusing polygraphs. It's like a cop asking you to take a breathalyzer test to see why you rear-ended a car parked in a driveway and you sound like Joe Biden when you speak but you refuse the test. You're going to jail and lose your driving privileges for a period of time.

The White House said President Trump will not tolerate leaks to the media and that federal employees who leak material should be held accountable.

Hegseth is ensuring it doesn't happen on his watch.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

Boeing contracted to produce NGAD fighter jet F-47

“To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” — George Washington

The Pentagon has given Boeing the contract to build the Air Force’s new fighter jet, labeled the Next Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD, President Donald Trump announced on Friday. This long-awaited deal means Boeing will create a super advanced sixth-generation plane to replace the older F-22 Raptor. Trump said it will be called the F-47.

This new jet will have “state-of-the-art stealth technologies [making it] virtually unseeable,” and it’ll fly with robot drones, called collaborative combat aircraft, as its wingmen. “It’s something the likes of which nobody has ever seen before,” Trump said during an announcement in the Oval Office with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin, and Lt. Gen. Dale White. 

“In terms of all the attributes of a fighter jet, there’s never been anything even close to it, from speed to maneuverability to what it can have [as] payload. And this has been in the works for a long period of time.”

“America’s enemies will never see it coming,” he added.

Gen. Allvin said the F-47 will be “the most advanced, lethal and adaptable fighter ever developed. We are not just building another fighter. We are shaping the future of warfare and putting our enemies on notice.”

Boeing beat out Lockheed Martin for the NGAD contract after Northrop Grumman said in 2023 it wouldn’t try to lead the project. “We recognize the importance of designing, building a sixth-generation fighter capability for the United States Air Force,” said Steve Parker, a top Boeing official. He added that Boeing made a huge investment to get ready for this job and will build the best NGAD plane possible.
Lockheed Martin was bummed about losing but said it gave a solid pitch. “We will await further discussions with the U.S. Air Force on any next steps,” the company said.

Fortunately, Boeing's F-47 will have a canopy and no doors that can fall off in flight.

The F-47 will be the main part of NGAD’s “family of systems,” which includes robot drones plus high-tech sensors, weapons, and gear to connect with satellites and other aircraft. The Air Force says NGAD is key to beating tough enemies like China.

Other companies, General Atomics and Anduril, are working on their own drone wingmen, called RFQ-42A and RFQ-44A, to fly with the F-35 or F-47. The Air Force wants these drones to be affordable, run by smart software, and able to do things like spy missions, attacks, or confuse the enemy. They’ll also have special engines that adjust for the best power and fuel use, made by either General Electric Aerospace or Pratt & Whitney.

Experts say Boeing winning this deal is good for America’s defense industry. It keeps all three big U.S. plane makers—Boeing, Lockheed (which makes the F-35), and Northrop (which builds the B-21 Raider)—busy with cutting-edge projects. “For the country, that’s a really important thing, to have that innovation, that competition and frankly, the volume production,” said Doug Birkey from the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

But Boeing’s had some tough years. 

Its 737 Max planes crashed, killing nearly 350 people, and last year it made a deal to avoid a big trial. Another 737 Max had a door blow out mid-flight in 2024, and workers went on strike over pay issues. Plus, some military projects like the T-7A trainer and KC-46 tanker have had delays and cost overruns. In 2024, Boeing fired its defense boss, Ted Colbert, after losing tons of money.

Birkey said this win is big for Boeing, but “It’s up to Boeing to make this opportunity a win. Only time will tell on that.”

The contract Boeing got on Friday pays them to build and test the F-47, with extra rewards if they do well. They’ll make a few test planes and could build more later if the Air Force likes the results. Gen. Allvin said test versions of NGAD have already flown hundreds of hours over the past five years, proving the tech works.

“The F-47 has unprecedented maturity,” Allvin said. “While the F-22 is currently the finest air superiority fighter in the world, and its modernization will make it even better, the F-47 is a generational leap forward.” He also said that it’s better than China’s supposed sixth-generation jet, the J-36, saying, “Despite what our adversaries claim, the F-47 is truly the world’s first crewed sixth-generation fighter.”

The F-47 will cost less than the F-22, which was $143 million a pop, and the Air Force plans to buy more of them. Trump wouldn’t say the exact price, but the Air Force expects to spend $20 billion on NGAD by 2029. 

Last year, the program nearly got canceled when costs soared too high, but after a review, they decided to keep it going.

Trump hinted that allies might get a simpler version of the F-47 someday, saying, “Because someday, maybe they’re not our allies, right?”

If you would like to support my work, you can Buy Me A Coffee or subscribe to Brain Flushings. Thank you.

Tweet

Biden's handler[s] releases 11 Yemeni terrorists with probable al Qaeda ties from Gitmo: 2 were bin Laden bodyguards

Everyone knows, whether they admit it or not, that Joe Biden is not and has not been running the White House for years. Some unelected leftist[s] is/are pulling the strings and Joe is too demented to fully appreciate what he's been signing. All the probably knows is that it's pissing off President-elect Trump and that's good enough for him.

On Monday, the Pentagon announced that it has set free 11 Yemeni prisoners with likely ties to al Qaeda from the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp in Cuba.

The detainees, who have not been charged with any crime, will be resettled in Oman as the Biden administration works to close down operations at Gitmo.

"Although different processes, each of the 10 Yemeni detainees underwent a thorough, interagency review by career professionals who unanimously determined all detainees as transfer eligible consistent with the national security interests of the United States," the Department of Defense claimed.

It's not clear if Biden handler[s] plans to move more detainees [aka likely terrorists] out of Guantanamo Bay before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, but if it hurts America, it's a good bet the person[s] behind the curtain will go ahead with the plan.

The Pentagon announced that D.E.I. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin informed Congress in 2023 of his intent to send the 11 Yemeni detainees back to Oman.

"The United States appreciates the willingness of the Government of Oman and other partners to support ongoing U.S. efforts focused on responsibly reducing the detainee population and ultimately closing the Guantanamo Bay facility," the DoD said.

Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi, thought to be an al Qaeda fighter and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, was among the 11 men released. He is known to not be a good guy.

An unclassified 2016 US intelligence file on al-Alwi warns that as a GITMO detainee he "has made several statements since early 2016 that suggest he maintains an extremist mindset." 

The file also notes that al-Alwi has committed several disciplinary infractions while in detention that were "pardoned" as part of an "incentive for detainees to improve their conduct."

Al-Alwi "has made several statements since early 2016 that suggest he maintains an extremist mindset," a 2016 intelligence file on the alleged terrorist reads. DOD

Suhayl Abdul Anam al Sharabi, another alleged bin Laden bodyguard, was also set free.

Al Sharabi's 2020 intelligence file notes that he "may have been associated with an aborted 9/11-style hijacking plot in Southwest Asia" as a member of al Qaeda. Al Sharabi was accused by the US government of being one of Osama Bin Laden's bodyguards in Afghanistan.

The nine others being released to Oman are: Uthman Abd al-Rahim Muhammad Uthman, Khalid Ahmed Qassim, Hani Saleh Rashid Abdullah, Tawfiq Nasir Awad Al-Bihani, Omar Mohammed Ali al-Rammah, Sanad Ali Yislam Al Kazimi, Hassan Muhammad Ali Bib Attash, Sharqawi Abdu Ali Al Hajj and Abd Al-Salam Al-Hilah.

The latest group of transfers comes after the Pentagon's December announcement that detainee Ridah Bin Saleh al-Yazidi had been resettled in Tunisia.

Fifteen detainees remain at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, of whom three are eligible for transfer and three are eligible to have their detention status reviewed, according to the Pentagon.

Another seven inmates are involved in the military commissions process, and two others have been convicted and sentenced by military commissions.

The Biden administration offered plea deals last year to alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and co-conspirators Walid Bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi. All three have been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2003.

The deals, criticized by 9/11 families, Republican lawmakers, and the defense secretary, will spare the alleged terrorists from the death penalty.

Tweet