Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Here is an article I agree with from the New York Post. The author is Michael Goodwin. (it wouldn't let me copy the title)
His point about the US having blinders on is right on point. We go to far to be politically correct which in the case of Boston put it's citizens at risk.

The author goes on to say "Not all Muslims are terrorists but in recent times almost all terrorists are Muslims.

I think we need to focus on those preaching radical Islam to protect us.



According to a relative of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Chechen immigrant believed there is “oppression of the Muslim population around the world.” The relative described Tsarnaev to The New York Times this way: “He was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.”
Bombing the Boston Marathon was the Tsarnaev brothers’ way of defending Islam. To say their argument boomeranged, however, isn’t fully true. Not as long as the Obama administration puts religious blinders on the defenders of our homeland.
At its core, the Boston case reveals two fundamental truths. One, not all Muslims are terrorists. Two, in recent times, almost all terrorists are Muslims.
Willie Sutton robbed banks because that’s where the money is. Police didn’t catch him by staking out lemonade stands.
By the same logic, preventing terrorism requires close scrutiny of Muslim men leaning toward violent jihad. Had they followed that logic, the FBI could have prevented the bombing.
But with each passing day, it becomes maddeningly clear that political correctness was complicit in the failure. President Obama’s stubborn refusal to connect the dots to Islam isn’t just a personal tic. It reflects the policy he has spread throughout the bureaucracy, including law enforcement and the military.
At the least, orders to “see no Islam evil” created extra hurdles for those trying to keep America safe. At the worst, they opened the door to the bombers.
The moral of the story is that political correctness kills.
We already knew that from the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, where 13 service members allegedly were murdered by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Witnesses say he shouted, “God is great,” in Arabic as he started a massacre that also left 30 other people injured.
Although Army brass and anti-terror officials knew Hasan, a psychiatrist, was a radicalized Islamist, they took no action for fear of violating his rights. His colleagues called him belligerent, paranoid and schizoid, but he was promoted. When Hasan communicated about suicide bombings with Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born terror leader living in Yemen, his superiors remained silent.
All this happened when George W. Bush was in the White House.
After Hasan allegedly turned Fort Hood into a bloodbath in November 2009, the Obama administration termed the shooting “workplace violence” instead of a terrorism, an outrageous designation that remains in place. In a remark that still takes the breath away, the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey Jr., declared that, “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
The US later droned Awlaki, making for a curious double standard. If he was worthy of death, wasn’t Hasan at least worthy of scrutiny?
Which brings us back to Boston. In March 2011, Russian officials warned the FBI that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was “a follower of radical Islam” who had “changed drastically since 2010.” They also knew he was planning a trip to a hotbed of terror in Russia.
That’s an incredible amount of detail. The FBI has said many things in its defense, some conflicting, but closed the case because agents found no evidence of terrorism or a crime.
That’s a non sequitur. The Russians didn’t accuse Tsarnaev of committing a crime; they said he was a radical Islamist. Why did the FBI limit its concern to actual crimes?
The emerging reason is that bureau guidelines eliminate Islam and other religions as a red flag. In this case, making an actual crime the threshold meant Tsarnaev’s links to radical Islam were ignored or downplayed.
Blinders in place, the screw-up continued. The frustrated Russians gave the same warning to the CIA six months later and added Tsarnaev’s mother was also a threat. Again nothing was done, except both were put on a list with 700,000 other people. He went to Russia in 2012 and stayed for six months.
If the Russians were so clueless, how did they know his travel plans a year in advance? And The Washington Post reports that a source warned the Joint Terrorism Task Force that, after Tsarnaev returned to the United States, he had become radicalized — but still nothing happened.
After all that, the FBI continues to defend its conduct, with an official telling The Washington Post that “since there was no derogatory information, there was no reason to suggest that additional action was warranted.”
This is worse than scary — it is nuts. By definition, the information about Tsarnaev was “derogatory.” It was also true.
The Russians knew he was dangerous two years ago. The FBI figured it out only after the bombs went off.



This is an article about the New York Jets cutting Tim Tebow. Talk about a guy who just doesn't have a fit in the NFL. He reminds me of the ex Michigan quarterback Denard Robinson. Same fate as Tebow's, not a natural fit in the pros. Added with Tebow is his openly christian faith. He has caught a lot of flak over that. Who doesn't remember Tebow kneeling down to give thanks. Hopefully, for him he'll land on his feet.



Tebow Time is up.
The Jets released popular backup quarterback Tim Tebow on Monday morning, The Post has learned. The move comes three days after they drafted Geno Smith in the second round to compete with Mark Sanchez, David Garrard and Greg McElroy for the starting quarterback spot.
It ends Tebow’s 13 months with the Jets that were more memorable for all of the headlines than anything that actually happened on the field. The Jets acquired him from the Broncos in March 2012 for a fourth-round draft pick (the two teams also swapped later draft picks).
AP
Tim Tebow arrives on the first day of off-season workouts at the Jets practice facility on April 15.
The Jets confirmed the news with a press release that included a quote from coach Rex Ryan.
“We have a great deal of respect for Tim Tebow,” Ryan said in the statement. “Unfortunately, things did not work out the way we all had hoped. Tim is an extremely hard worker, evident by the shape he came back in this offseason. We wish him the best moving forward.”
Tebow reported to the Jets training center in Florham Park to work out this morning, according to a source. Before he made it to the weight room, he was summoned to general manager John Idzik’s office where he was informed of his release by Idzik and Ryan.
Tebow posted on Twitter hours after the news broke.
The arrival of Tebow last year was marked by a splashy news conference that irritated some who believed the Jets were making too big a deal of a backup quarterback. The Jets sold the move by saying they would use Tebow in a variety of roles, including running the wildcat formation, but it never worked.
Tebow played just over 70 snaps on offense. He also served as the personal protector on the punt team until injuring his ribs in November. He completed 6-of-8 passes for 39 yards and ran the ball 32 times for 102 yards. He did not score a touchdown.
The Tebow acquisition had far-reaching consequences. Former offensive coordinator Tony Sparano never figured out how to use Tebow, and it cost him his job. Former general manager Mike Tannenbaum lost his job after the season in part because of the Tebow trade. Starting quarterback Mark Sanchez also regressed greatly in 2012, and many believe Tebow’s presence contributed to that.
It was a comedown for the Heisman Trophy winner from 2011 when he led the Broncos to a division title. But after the team picked up Peyton Manning, Tebow hit the trading block and the Jets grabbed him.
Tebow’s time in New York will be remembered for the massive coverage it drew during training camp, including a memorable shirtless run through the rain, rather than football.
The whole experiment really failed in December when Ryan decided to make a change at quarterback, but passed over Tebow for McElroy. Tebow told Ryan he did not want to run the gimmicky offenses anymore and just wanted to play traditional quarterback.
By the time the season was over, everyone, including Tebow, seemed miserable that he ended up a Jet. Now, Tebow is now a free agent. It will be fascinating to see if he gets picked up.
It caps a remarkable eight days for Idzik, who traded start cornerback Darrelle Revis to the Buccaneers on April 21, drafted Smith in the second round of the Draft and now jettisoned Tebow.
Okay, everyone's rushing to the aide of the Boston bomber, self proclaimed by the way. But, what about the victims  Who will represent them. This attorney claims her clients are all human after you get to know them. Will who will get to know the little boy whose life he so effortlessly took? What about the two women victims whose life's he took. I don't like this part of our legal system. How about you?



Boston suspect's defense team gets major boost with lawyer who defended Unabomber, Loughner

  • BostonBomberLawyer.JPG
    April 26, 2013: Judy Clarke, a defense lawyer whose high-profile clients include "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph, and Tucson shooter Jared Lee Loughner, speaks at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. (AP)
One lawyer won acquittal for a Saudi man charged with carrying three firecracker-like devices on a plane, arguing he was a victim of hysteria over airport security after the Sept. 11 attacks. Another has managed to avert death sentences for some of the highest-profile criminals of our time, including the Unabomber and the gunman whose rampage injured former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
Together, they are staring down what may become their biggest challenge so far: how to defend the man authorities say helped plan and carry out the Boston Marathon bombings, an attack that killed three people, injured more than 260 and virtually shut down the city during an intense manhunt.
The team that will be led by Miriam Conrad, the chief federal public defender for Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, got a major boost Monday with the addition of prominent San Diego lawyer and death penalty opponent Judy Clarke. Not that Conrad is considered any slouch.
"She is as tenacious as they come," said Joshua Levy, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Boston who has gone up against Conrad in federal court. "I always found her to be very smart and focused on whatever she perceived as chinks in the armor in the government's case. She would zone in on that."
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, is charged with using a weapon of mass destruction to kill, a crime that carries a potential death sentence. He lies in a prison hospital after being wounded in a shootout with police as he and his brother made a getaway attempt. Tamerlan Tsarneav, 26, was killed.
Conrad is preparing for what's expected to be a long and complicated legal process. Although federal law entitles to at least one lawyer with experience in death penalty cases, Conrad asked for two.
She got Clarke but was denied a second — David Bruck, a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law. He has directed the school's death penalty defense clinic since 2004.
The suspect's lawyers could renew their motion to appoint another death penalty expert if he is indicted, the judge said. That's when prosecutors could add new charges. Prosecutors have 30 days to indict him.
Northampton, Mass., lawyer David Hoose described Clarke as "simply the best."
"She has an ability to relate to people who are charged with these horrific, horrific crimes and to humanize them, to portray them as human beings to the government and to a jury," said Hoose, who has represented several people accused of capital crimes, including Kristen Gilbert, a former veterans hospital nurse who killed four patients by overdosing them with medicine. Gilbert was spared the death penalty.
Conrad, 56, is among three federal defenders in her office who will represent Tsarnaev and would not talk about how she will defend him. Lawyers who have handled capital cases say the team's first priority will likely be to persuade prosecutors to take the death penalty off the table.
Tamar Birckhead, a former federal public defender who represented shoe bomber Richard Reid, said the public safety exception cited by authorities allows investigators to question a suspect on a focused and limited basis when police or the public may be in immediate danger.
"It seems inevitable if the case is going to be litigated and not resolved in a negotiated plea, then (Conrad) will bring a motion to suppress and try to argue that the government went beyond the public safety exception or didn't craft questions that were limited enough to fit within that exception," said Birckhead, now an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law.
"Then they'll see what a judge decides," she said.
Experts say Conrad is also almost certain to try to suppress statements Tsarnaev allegedly made to investigators before he was advised of his constitutional right to remain silent and seek a lawyer.
Tsarnaev admitted his role in the bombings, saying that he and his brother were angry about the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the killing of Muslims there, officials said.
Conrad has spent her entire legal career as a public defender, first for the state, and for the past 21 years as a federal defender. Before going to Harvard Law School, she worked for the Kansas City Times and as a crime reporter for The Miami Herald.
In court, Conrad is aggressive and feisty without being histrionic. Prosecutors who have gone up against her say she is a fierce advocate who takes advantage of any missteps by her opponents. Judges also respect her.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Smith recalled attending a seminar several years ago when a panel of judges was asked by a lawyer how he should handle himself in federal court.
"One of the judges said, 'Do what Miriam does. Watch Miriam; do what she does,'" Smith said.
She won an acquittal in 2004 for a Saudi biomedical engineer who was charged after three sparklers were found in his luggage at Boston's Logan Airport. She argued he didn't realize the sparklers were in his luggage. After he was acquitted, Conrad questioned why the case wasn't resolved by Customs agents.
"Knowing how credible he is, I wonder why it didn't stop there," she said. "This guy is no more a terrorist than Pope John Paul."
In the case of Rezwan Ferdaus, a Massachusetts man accused of plotting to attack the U.S. Capitol and Pentagon with remote-controlled model planes, Conrad suggested his plot was just a fantasy fueled by mental health problems. Ferdaus received a 17-year sentence after pleading guilty to attempting to provide material support to terrorists and other charges.
In a 2006 interview with Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Conrad said she does not see her clients in one-dimensional terms.
"From a personal standpoint, I would say that there are very few clients I have had who I didn't like," she said.
"If you scratch the surface, many have had difficult lives, and, as their lawyer, I sort of see them whole — not just as a person charged with a crime," she said. "No one has ever stood up for them, and that is a very powerful, emotional thing," she said.
Clarke's clients have included the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski; Susan Smith, who drowned her two children; Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph; and most recently Tucson, Ariz., shooter Jared Loughner. All received life sentences instead of the death penalty.
Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said Clarke understands the divide among Americans over the death penalty, with some opposed to it, others generally supportive of it, and still others who want to see it reserved for only the worst cases.
"She knows how to use those attitudinal differences in the interests of her clients," he said.
Clarke has rarely spoken publicly about her work and did not return a call seeking comment Monday. However, at a speech Friday at a legal conference in Los Angeles, she talked about how she had been "sucked into the black hole, the vortex" of death penalty cases 18 years ago when she represented Smith.
"I got a dose of understanding human behavior, and I learned what the death penalty does to us," she said. "I don't think it's a secret that I oppose the death penalty."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/30/boston-suspect-defense-team-gets-major-boost-with-lawyer-who-defended-unabomber/#ixzz2RwMQFA40

Monday, April 29, 2013

One of my favorite rock bands. I grew up listening to their music. Great to see they are still going strong after all these years. They do look a little worse for wear.



Rolling Stones invade Echo Park, perform an hour of classics

  • Email
    Share
    959
During 50 years of performing, the Rolling Stones have done some peach gigs: They’ve stood before Hells Angels at Altamont, sold out Wembley Stadium and Madison Square Garden, gigged the Palladium in Hollywood, at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium for "The T.A.M.I. Show" and countless rounds at the Forum. Until Saturday night, though, the band had never played Echo Park.  
In a surprise gig described early in the set by Stones singer/dancer/showman Mick Jagger as “the first show of our North American tour,” the band played the Echoplex, a basement club with a capacity of 650. In the crowd were friends, family and a few hundred lucky, patient fans who’d won a ticket lottery earlier in the day. 
I am a very fortunate Rolling Stones fan, and watched from a peach spot just in front of the sound board as the London band, currently celebrating 50 years as a unit, performed 60 minutes' worth of classic material that focused on their work from the late 1960s through the early ‘80s, including “Love in Vain,” “Street Fighting Man,” “Respectable” and “Miss You.”  

Ditto Ron Wood, whose physique is as lithe and lean as his guitar lines; during “Street Fighting Man,” he worked with as much inspired physicality as in his days with the Faces. 
The band’s been oiling the machine at a rehearsal space in the Valley, and the set had the feel of a final dress rehearsal for its upcoming tour, which starts Friday at Staples Center — capacity 19,000.
In the same way it’s unfair to critique the soft opening of a restaurant, this Stones gig at the Echoplex isn’t the one to review — that’ll come on Friday — but it is one that needs to be documented. After all, how many more times will the band be playing such a small space?
The set’s highlights were when the band stretched its material, and on three occasions these expansions thrilled the Echoplex. To see the Stones perform their classic dance-floor stomper “Miss You” on a Saturday night in a tight, sweaty space was as thrilling as you’d imagine. Bassist Darryl Jones pushed the rhythm, and his smooth solo was funkier than Bill Wyman’s original. Jagger pushed the crowd to sing along to his "oooh"-filled chorus, and the room did so willingly.
The Stones’ former guitarist Mick Taylor has been doing gigs with the band of late, and on Saturday he arrived for two of the evening’s most bluesy numbers: “Love in Vain,” the Robert Johnson-penned song that the Stones (with Taylor) covered on “Let It Bleed.” To watch Wood, Richards and Taylor work the blues was to witness three great guitarists tap into the depths.
As they’ve done for years, the Stones brought backing vocalists Bernard Fowler and Lisa Fischer to harmonize with Jagger, and keyboardist Chuck Leavell resurrected the late Ian Stewart’s piano runs like a mystic.
Equally deep was “Midnight Rambler,” which Jagger presented with as much menacing energy as ever. Again, with the three guitarists working a chunky blues progression, the band delivered both big volume and energy; these didn’t seem like 70-odd-year-old men but vessels for a music that is as timeless in 2013 as when the Stones were starting out.
And any mention of time must acknowledge the metronomic Charlie Watts, a man whose jazz-inspired drumming offered typical consistency. Equally adept at the disco rhythms of “Miss You” and “She’s So Cold” and the rock of “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” and “Brown Sugar” — both of which the band performed in its encore — Watts continued his uninterrupted reign as rock’s most measured drummer. 
How was the gig? How the hell do you think it was? It was the Stones in a little club, and for most in attendance, a dream come true.
That's how it was.
Set list for the Echoplex show, April 27, 2013
— "You Got Me Rocking"
— "Respectable"
This could be good news.  Maybe, just maybe the earth has climate cycles that man cannot alter? I would consider this good news. When I was young the potential threat was population explosion. You don't hear about that anymore. At least not in the US.







RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS: ‘WE COULD FACE COOLING PERIOD FOR 200-250 YEARS’

  • Date: 28/04/13
  • The Voice of Russia
‘We could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040.’
Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless. Some experts warn that a change in the climate may affect the ambitious projects for the exploration of the Arctic that have been launched by many countries.
Just recently, experts said that the Arctic ice cover was becoming thinner while journalists warned that the oncoming global warming would make it possible to grow oranges in the north of Siberia. Now, they say a cold spell will set in. Apparently, this will not occur overnight, Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory, says.
“Journalists say the entire process is very simple: once solar activity declines, the temperature drops. But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth”.
Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.
“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century”.
Even though pessimists say global cooling will hamper exploration of the Arctic, experts say it won’t. Climate change and the resulting increase in the thickness of the Arctic ice cover pose no obstacles to the extraction of oil and gas on the Arctic shelf. As oil and gas reserves of the Arctic sea shelf are estimated to be billions of tons, countries are demonstrating more interest in the development of the Arctic. Climate change will also have no impact on the Northern Sea Route, which makes it possible to cut trade routes between Europe, Asia and America. Professor Igor Davidenko comments.
“The Northern Sea Route has never opened so early or closed so late over the past 30 years. Last year saw a cargo transit record – more than five million tons. The first Chinese icebreaker sailed along the Northern Sea Route in 2012. China plans it to handle up to 15% of its exports”.
As Russia steps up efforts to upgrade its icebreaker fleet, new-generation icebreakers are set to arrive in the years to come. No climate changes will thus be able to impede an increase in shipping traffic via the Northern Sea Route.
Here's something different from the sequester. Where longer lines at the airports are causing delays, tank builders are still getting paid despite the Army's insistence that they don't need any more of these monsters right now. Couldn't we use the money elsewhere for now?






Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists

  • Abrams_tank.jpg
    FILE: April 23, 2012: An Abrams battle tank during a tour of the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, Lima Army Tank Plant, in Lima, Ohio. (REUTERS)
Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.
Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams
But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."
It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt.
Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.
"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.
Why are the tank dollars still flowing? Politics.
Keeping the Abrams production line rolling protects businesses and good paying jobs in congressional districts where the tank's many suppliers are located.
If there's a home of the Abrams, it's politically important Ohio. The nation's only tank plant is in Lima. So it's no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol's Hill most prominent deficit hawks, as well as Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. They said their support is rooted in protecting national security, not in pork-barrel politics.
"The one area where we are supposed to spend taxpayer money is in defense of the country," said Jordan, whose district in the northwest part of the state includes the tank plant.
The Abrams dilemma underscores the challenge that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel faces as he seeks to purge programs that the military considers unnecessary or too expensive in order to ensure there's enough money for essential operations, training and equipment.
Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, faces a daunting task in persuading members of Congress to eliminate or scale back projects favored by constituents.
Federal budgets are always peppered with money for pet projects. What sets the Abrams example apart is the certainty of the Army's position.
Sean Kennedy, director of research for the nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste, said Congress should listen when one of the military services says no to more equipment.
"When an institution as risk averse as the Defense Department says they have enough tanks, we can probably believe them," Kennedy said.
Congressional backers of the Abrams upgrades view the vast network of companies, many of them small businesses, that manufacture the tanks' materials and parts as a critical asset that has to be preserved. The money, they say, is a modest investment that will keep important tooling and manufacturing skills from being lost if the Abrams line were to be shut down.
The Lima plant is a study in how federal dollars affect local communities, which in turn hold tight to the federal dollars. The facility is owned by the federal government but operated by the land systems division of General Dynamics, a major defense contractor that spent close to $11 million last year on lobbying, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
The plant is Lima's fifth-largest employer with close to 700 employees, down from about 1,100 just a few years ago, according to Mayor David Berger. But the facility is still crucial to the local economy. "All of those jobs and their spending activity in the community and the company's spending probably have about a $100 million impact annually," Berger said.
Jordan, a House conservative leader who has pushed for deep reductions in federal spending, supported the automatic cuts known as the sequester that require $42 billion to be shaved from the Pentagon's budget by the end of September. The military also has to absorb a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years, as required by the Budget Control Act passed in 2011.
Still, said Jordan, it would be a big mistake to stop producing tanks.
"Look, (the plant) is in the 4th Congressional District and my job is to represent the 4th Congressional District, so I understand that," he said. "But the fact remains, if it was not in the best interests of the national defense for the United States of America, then you would not see me supporting it like we do."
The tanks that Congress is requiring the Army to buy aren't brand new. Earlier models are being outfitted with a sophisticated suite of electronics that gives the vehicles better microprocessors, color flat panel displays, a more capable communications system, and other improvements. The upgraded tanks cost about $7.5 million each, according to the Army.
Out of a fleet of nearly 2,400 tanks, roughly two-thirds are the improved versions, which the Army refers to with a moniker that befits their heft: the M1A2SEPv2, and service officials said they have plenty of them. "The Army is on record saying we do not require any additional M1A2s," Davis Welch, deputy director of the Army budget office, said this month.
The tank fleet, on average, is less than 3 years old. The Abrams is named after Gen. Creighton Abrams, one of the top tank commanders during World War II and a former Army chief of staff.
The Army's plan was to stop buying tanks until 2017, when production of a newly designed Abrams would begin. Orders for Abrams tanks from U.S. allies help fill the gap created by the loss of tanks for the Army, according to service officials, but congressional proponents of the program feared there would not be enough international business to keep the Abrams line going.
This pause in tank production for the U.S. would allow the Army to spend its money on research and development work for the new and improved model, said Ashley Givens, a spokeswoman for the Army's Ground Combat Systems office.
The first editions of the Abrams tank were fielded in the early 1980s. Over the decades, the Abrams supply chain has become embedded in communities across the country.
General Dynamics estimated in 2011 that there were more than 560 subcontractors throughout the country involved in the Abrams program and that they employed as many as 18,000 people. More than 40 of the companies are in Pennsylvania, according to Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., also a staunch backer of continued tank production.
A letter signed by 173 Democratic and Republican members of the House last year and sent to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demonstrated the depth of bipartisan support for the Abrams program on Capitol Hill. They chided the Obama administration for neglecting the industrial base and proposing to terminate tank production in the United States for the first time since World War II.
Portman, who served as President George W. Bush's budget director before being elected to the Senate, said allowing the line to wither and close would create a financial mess.
"People can't sit around for three years on unemployment insurance and wait for the government to come back," Portman said. "That supply chain is going to be much more costly and much more inefficient to create if you mothball the plant."
Pete Keating, a General Dynamics spokesman, said the money from Congress is allowing for a stable base of production for the Army, which receives about four tanks a month. With the line open, Lima also can fill international orders, bringing more work to Lima and preserving American jobs, he said.
Current foreign customers are Saudi Arabia, which is getting about five tanks a month, and Egypt, which is getting four. Each country pays all of their own costs. That's a "success story during a period of economic pain," Keating said.
Still, far fewer tanks are coming out of the Lima plant than in years past. The drop-off has affected companies such as Verhoff Machine and Welding in Continental, Ohio, which makes seats and other parts for the Abrams. Ed Verhoff, the company's president, said his sales have dropped from $20 million to $7 million over the past two years. He's also had to lay off about 25 skilled employees and he expects to be issuing more pink slips in the future.
"When we start to lose this base of people, what are we going to do? Buy our tanks from China?" Verhoff said.
Steven Grundman, a defense expert at the Atlantic Council in Washington, said the difficulty of reviving defense industrial capabilities tends to be overstated.
"From the fairly insular world in which the defense industry operates, these capabilities seem to be unique and in many cases extraordinarily high art," said Grundman, a former deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial affairs and installations during the Clinton administration. "But in the greater scope of the economy, they tend not to be."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/#ixzz2RqcbFoEx