NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- A major seven-year study published in a mainstream journal is challenging the secular notion that gays and lesbians cannot change their sexual orientation.
The longitudinal study followed 61 subjects for between six and seven years and found that 23 percent of them reported successful conversion to heterosexual orientation and function and another 30 percent reported stable behavioral chastity with a significant dis-identification with gay orientation. Twenty percent of the subjects had given up and embraced a gay identity.

It is believed to be the first study of its kind -- that is, one that followed people over a series of years and monitored success or failure. The study followed subjects who voluntarily were taking part in Christian ministries affiliated with Exodus International, the nation's largest ministry devoted exclusively to reaching out to homosexuals.

Partial results of the study were released in 2007 and 2009 but now are being published in a peer-reviewed journal, which its authors hope gives it more credibility to those who had criticized it. The study is published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Volume 37.

"The results that we report in our study suggest that change is definitely not impossible, and it's probably not uncommon, either," coauthor Stanton L. Jones, a psychologist at Wheaton College, told Baptist Press. "That doesn't mean that change is easy. We think that these results need to be taken into account as a way of respecting the religious freedom of individuals."

Baptist Press reported on the earlier findings in '07 and '09. Having the study published in a peer-reviewed journal, Jones said, is significant.

"It signifies that the methodology meets the basic requirements for being taken seriously as a piece of scientific literature," Jones said. "Critics still dismiss the study. They say, 'Well, it's only one study,' or they say it's not a large enough sample. But I think the study stands as a significant challenge to the reigning views on this matter, especially given that the major mental health organizations say in alternate voices that change of sexual orientation is impossible or that change in sexual orientation is highly unlikely."

A statement on the American Psychological Association's website says that promotion of change therapy "contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons."

"All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation," the APA statement says. "To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation ... is safe or effective."

Changing attitudes on the subject isn't easy, Jones said. Stories about gay people who tried but didn't change tend to get more media attention, he said. Also, he noted, the issue has become political. When Attorney General Eric Holder announced in February that the Justice Department would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, part of Holder's reasoning was that there's "a growing scientific consensus ... that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable." The study by Jones and coauthor Mark A. Yarhouse of Regent University directly challenges that argument.

"To admit that the study has any validity is to draw into question ... the change in policies," Jones said.

The study does not examine why some people are more successful in changing their orientation than others.

"We can't answer that," Jones said.

Some critics say the study was deficient because it did not record the physical responses of subjects to sexual stimulus. In some mainstream circles, that is done by placing pornography in front of the subjects and either monitoring the physical response or monitoring the brain for a response. But such a test, Jones said, would have gone against what Exodus strives to obtain -- sexual purity in both thought and practice.

"Christians and others who are pursuing a moral framework for change don't look at that as a benign interaction," Jones said. " ... People who are undergoing change don't want to submit themselves to exposure to gay porn as a measurement method as to whether they have changed."

Jones and Yarhouse caution against projecting success ratios based on their study. For instance, they say, it would be wrong to say that 23 percent of people can change their orientation, just because 23 percent of the people in their study did so. Nevertheless, they say, the study shows that change is possible.

"I know individuals who have been married for 20 and 30 years after coming out of the gay community," Jones said. "The claim that nobody has ever changed is not substantiated either by our study or by any number of powerful anecdotes that are out there."

Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. Learn more about the study at ExGayStudy.org. Read the entire study (for a fee) at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/usmtauth.as.

Copyright (c) 2011 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press www.BPNews.net

The Liberal Mind

• 
• John C. Goodman
  

 
Have you ever noticed that people on the left hold the public sector and the private sector to a different set of standards? If a public official and a private citizen commit the exact same wrongful act, the private citizen will be judged much more harshly.

Consider this revelation in the news the other day:

· Arizona…plans to limit adult Medicaid recipients to 25 days of hospital coverage a year, starting as soon as the end of October.

· Hawaii plans to cut Medicaid coverage to 10 days a year in April.

· Other states have already limited hospital stays under Medicaid: the limit is 45 days in Florida, 30 in Mississippi, 24 in Arkansas and 16 in Alabama.

What if you are in Hawaii and you need 15 days of hospital care instead of 10? Apparently you must pay out of your own pocket or forgo needed care.

What was the reaction to this news in the left wing press? Virtual silence. It was ignored by the editorial page of The New York Times, which ordinarily has an opinion on almost everything. Ditto for The Washington Post and The New Republic. Can you imagine the outrage that would have ensued if BlueCross had done the same thing?

Two provisions in the health reform act (ObamaCare) make this apparent double standard even more surprising. First, private insurers will not be allowed to have any annual or lifetime caps whatsoever on the amount they will spend on an enrollee under the new law. At the same time, half of the newly insured under the act will be enrolled in Medicaid — where the limits will apparently border on the unconscionable!

The inability to judge private and public programs by the same set of ethical norms has long affected left-of-center thinking.

If a private insurance company denies a breast cancer patient a bone marrow transplant, that's considered a moral outrage — even if the procedure is experimental and is later shown not to work anyway. If the Arizona Medicaid program denies people organ transplants that do work and save lives, that is considered an unfortunate budget issue.

If 25,000 British cancer patients die every year because the National Health Service won't buy the drugs that would have prolonged their lives and they cannot afford to pay for those drugs out of their own pockets, that is considered, again, an unfortunate budget problem. But if even one uninsured American dies prematurely because he or she cannot afford those very same drugs, that is ethically unacceptable.

Many people in health policy viscerally dislike the idea of private Medicare Advantage plans. They instead would like to see everyone in conventional Medicare — a public plan. You would be amazed at how many otherwise knowledgeable people are completely unaware of the fact that Medicare is not actually run by the federal government. It's run by private contractors, including such private insurers as Cigna and BlueCross.

The view that public Medicare is good and private Medicare is bad really amounts to saying that when BlueCross is called "Medicare" it is good and altruistic, but when the same company is called "private insurer" it is bad and selfish. It makes no sense, but there are a lot of people on the left who think exactly that way.

If I can indulge in a bit of psychoanalysis, I believe most people on the left care much more about process than they care about results.

Take the Canadian health care system. I've engaged in many, many debates through the years over whether it's better than our own. On such occasions I point out that (a) the U.S. system is more egalitarian than the Canadian system (and more egalitarian than the health systems of most other developed countries as well!), (b) uninsured Americans get as much or more preventive care than insured Canadians (as many or more mammograms, PSA tests, colonoscopies, etc.), (c) low-income whites in the United States are in better health than low-income whites in Canada, (d) although minorities do less well in both countries, we treat our minority populations better than the Canadians do, and (d) even though thousands of people in both countries go to hospital emergency rooms for care they can't get anywhere else, people in our emergency rooms get treated quicker and better than they do in Canadian emergency rooms. [Interested readers can find all of this and more at my blog.]

Now I know what you are wondering. Have I ever convinced anyone to change his mind with such arguments? Not on your life. Not when the opponent was a real, true blue collectivist. What I discovered after many frustrating conversations with people who seemed perfectly rational throughout was that those who like the way health care is organized in Canada do not like it because of any particular result it achieves. They like it because they like the process.

In Canada, what care you receive, where you receive it and how you receive it is not determined by individual choice and the marketplace. It is determined collectively. For collectivists, that's an end in itself.

Why they are unhappy!

Whoever thought this out is nothing less than a genius.  THE MUSLIM'S ARE NOT HAPPY ! They're not happy in Gaza. They're not happy in Egypt. They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran. They're not happy in Iraq. They're not happy in Yemen. They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria. They're not happy in Lebanon. So, where are they happy? They're happy in Australia. They're happy in England. They're happy in France. They're happy in Italy. They're happy in Germany. They're happy in Sweden. They're happy in the USA. They're happy in Norway. They're happy in every country that is not Muslim. And who do they blame? Not Islam. Not their leadership. Not themselves. THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN ! AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY. Excuse me, but how dumb can you get?

 

Emailing: Finally unearthed The stunning, toxic origins of Obamacare#ixzz1b.htm

 

A Free Press For A Free People Since 1997
FREE News Alerts WND Directory   WND Superstore Page 1 News Page 2 News WND Local News Commentary WND Money Diversions Daily Blessing WND TV/Radio Whistleblower WorldNetWeekly G2 Bulletin Red Alert WND Poll WND Forums Petitions Letters to the Editor Joke of the Day WND.Comics Crossword SportsNetDaily TV Guide Movieguide Weather WND Resources   About WND WND Scoops WND History Who Reads Us WND Books Advertise with WND WND RSS feeds MOBILE.WND News Alerts Sign Up Donate to WND US Newspapers Foreign Newspapers Major News Wires Other News Services Other Sites Writers Archives Government Officials Search Engines Media Entertainment Job Bank WND People   Contact WND Who's Who at WND Customer Service Speakers and Talk Show Guests Commentators		Finally unearthed: The stunning, toxic origins of Obamacare Legislation traced to Soros group, marketed by radicals Posted: October 26, 2011 9:26 pm Eastern © 2011 WND President Obama NEW YORK – A book released this week documents for the first time the radical origins of President Obama's health-care law, revealing the principal author of the foundation for the legislation while tracing the law itself to a group funded by George Soros. "Red Army: The Radical Network that must be defeated to save America" also finds the founders of the controversial Apollo Alliance, run by a slew of radicals, helped craft the marketing campaign behind the health-care initiative. The new book, by authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, exposes what is characterized as "the radical socialist network that seized political power in Washington over decades, shaped Obama's presidential agenda and threatens the very future of the U.S." On Obamacare, "Red Army" documents how the legislation, deliberately masked by moderate, populist rhetoric, was carefully crafted and perfected over the course of decades and is a direct product of laborious work by a coalition of radical groups and activists, many with socialist designs. Get your personally autographed copy of "Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated to Save America" from WND's Superstore Those activists seek to "reform" the U.S. health-care industry, which accounts for a significant portion of the U.S. capitalist enterprise. "Red Army" reveals the principal author of the foundation for Obamacare is third generation progressive academic Jacob S. Hacker, a Yale professor who is an expert on the politics of U.S. health and social policy. (Story continues below) Hacker is author of Health Care for America, the centerpiece of the George Soros–funded Economic Policy Institute's Agenda for Shared Prosperity. "Red Army" finds Hacker's proposal for so-called guaranteed, affordable health care for all Americans is the foundation for Obama's healthcare plan. Hacker's plan had its origins in the professor's multiple other major policy papers on health care, including a 2001 plan for the Covering America project. In 2003, Hacker first devised a public health insurance program called "Medicare Plus," which would offer coverage to all legal residents not otherwise covered by Medicare or employer-sponsored insurance. Employers would be required to either provide a minimum level of coverage to their workers or pay a payroll tax. That plan was the basis for the U.S. National Healthcare Insurance Act, which was first introduced Feb. 2, 2005, in the House by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. The act was sponsored by several other congressmen, all members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Red Army" documents how the Progressive Caucus was founded by the Democrat Socialists of America. The book charges the caucus works as a Marxist-socialist bloc in Congress to introduce progressive legislation with socialist intent. Chavez imaging guru, extremists "Red Army" documents how a little-known marketing outfit called the Herndon Alliance helped to market Obamacare, even providing suggestions on which words supporters should use the promote the bill. Acceptable phrases include "quality affordable health care"; "American solutions"; "giving security and peace of mind"; "fair rules"; "government as watchdog"; "smart investments, investing in the future"; and "affordable health plans." Unacceptable words include "universal health care"; "Canadian-style health care"; "Medicare for All"; "regulations"; "free"; "government or public health care"; and "wellness." "Red Army" found the research component of the Herndon Alliance was provided by Celinda Lake, who teamed up with a marketing research firm, American Environics. AE uses social-values surveys to gauge public opinion. Lake, herself, worked for a number of leftist institutions and unions, including the AFL-CIO and the SEIU. She also serves on the board of directors of the Progressive Congress Action Fund alongside Robert Borosage, whose Healthcare for America Now anticipated spending $42 million in its final push for passage of Obamacare. AE was founded in 2004 by a team of American strategists and Canadian researchers. In April 2005, current AE managing partners Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger started AE's American branch. One year before, Shellenberger did imaging for Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Nordhaus and Shellenberger co-founded the Apollo Alliance sometime around 2002 and were two of its original national board members. "Red Army" exposes how Apollo helped draft not only the president's green jobs programs, but also the $787 billion economic stimulus bill and other proposed new energy legislation. Apollo is led by a slew of radicals, including Van Jones, Jeff Jones, who heads Apollo's New York branch and is a former top leader of the Weatherman terrorist organization, and Joel Rogers, a founder of the socialist New Party. Obama's controversial former "green" jobs czar, Van Jones, sits on Apollo's board. Radicals lobbying Meanwhile, several major groups were founded to lobby for the legislation that became Obama's healthcare law. Healthcare-NOW, not to be confused with the organization Health Care for America Now, was established in 2004 for one purpose – to lobby on behalf of single-payer healthcare. Healthcare-NOW's broad base includes socialist, labor, church and community organizations and, most notably, Physicians for a National Health Program. Healthcare-NOW co-chairmen include Dr. Quentin D. Young, who is considered father of the single-payer movement. Young advised Obama during his days as a senator. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the radical Code Pink anti-war group, is a member of Healthcare-NOW's board of directors. Another major group leading the charge to transform health care has been Campaign for America's Future. CAF was founded in 1990 by Robert L. Borosage. Roger Hickey, co-founder of the Soros-funded Economic Policy Institute which "Red Army" ties to the health-care bill, is credited as being a CAF co-founder as well. CAF unveiled the lobby, Health Care for America Now, or HCAN, which "Red Army" documents deceptively maintains that it is a "national grassroots campaign." HCAN's lead member organizations include ACORN; MoveOrg; AFSCME; Americans United for Change, Planned Parenthood Federation of America; SEIU; United Food and Commercial Workers; and the Soros-funded Center for American Progress Action Fund, which is highly influential in advising the White House. Overloading U.S. economy "Red Army" documents how Obama and progressive Democrats are deliberately overloading the U.S. financial system, using socialist designs to remake the economy. The book, with nearly 1,500 endnotes, documents how these radicals aim to remake the American financial system with massive government control. "Red Army" contains a number of other major scoops while exposing the radical socialist network that seized political power in Washington over decades, shaped Obama's presidential agenda and threatens the future of the U.S. Some other highlights from "Red Army": The existence of a powerful "Marxist-socialist" bloc in Congress (explicitly formed as an arm of the Democratic Socialists of America) and how it is behind legislation in areas that affect all Americans, including the complete socialization of health care and comprehensive immigration reform, which, the book exposes, seeks to change the very nature of the American electorate In two chapters that every American must read, entirely new information is laid bare on the left's unprecedented assault on America's already over-liberalized education system. The multipronged policy offensive aimed at disarming America by emboldening its enemies within and without, spurning traditional allies, subjecting the nation to the authority of foreign tribunals and systematically dismantling the U.S. military. How elements of the news media not only collude with these radical groups but are in some cases members of the very extremist organizations they ought to be investigating. "Red Army" is published by Broadside Books, an imprint of Harper Collins. Klein is a WND senior reporter and WND's Jerusalem bureau chief. He hosts Aaron Klein Investigative Radio on New York's WABC Radio. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network. Elliott is a New York Times best-selling author, researcher and historian. Related Offer: "Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated to Save America." Previous stories: Obama now accused of destroying U.S. economy ... on purpose! This army about to confront Occupy Wall Street New York Review of Books urges: 'Don't buy this one' ...      E-mail to a Friend       Printer-friendly version   |  Page 1   |  Page 2   |  Commentary   |  WND Money   |  WND TV/Radio   |  Diversions   |  G2 Bulletin   |  About Us   |  Terms of Use   |  Privacy   |  Contact Us   |  Copyright 1997-2011 All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

Incredible 1948 Cartoon/check where they found it - try showing THIS to your kids and students. Truth can be ocscured but not destroyed.

Subject: Incredible 1948 Cartoon/check where they found it
To:

What can a cartoon produced in 1948, teach us today, that's of any value? You'd be very surprised! Pay close attention! Keep in mind this was done in '1948'. Keep telling yourself that as you view it.

This is one of the best I have ever seen. This should be viewed by every AMERICAN.

Click on 1948 Cartoon below -

1948 Cartoon

Kerby's Point of View - The Battle

Kerby's Point of View - The Battle

October 27, 2011 The Battle by Kerby Anderson   America is in the midst of an ideological battle over the future of the free enterprise system. So it is not surprising that Arthur Brooks (President of the American Enterprise Institute) titled his book, The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America's Future. On my radio program, he discussed the many statistics from various polling organizations to make his point.   What does he mean by the free enterprise system? He said it is "the system of values and laws that respects private property, encourages industry, celebrates liberty, limits government, and creates individual opportunity." While most Americans (about 70 percent) support these ideals, a significant minority (the other 30 percent) rejects these ideas.   The 70 percent coalition opposes big government and supports free enterprise. And you would expect that their views would be dominant. But they are not. It is the 30 percent coalition that dominates, at least right now. They are in positions of political power and intellectual influence. They control the White House, the Congress, the media, and academia. Or to quote Arthur Brookes: "These are many of the people who make opinions, entertain us, inform us, and teach our kids in college."   This book by Arthur Brooks is unlike so many other books about capitalism or conservatism because it is filled with empirical data. He not only sets forth important principles, but he backs them up with polling data and social science research.   "Entrepreneurship is so central to American culture that some have even suggested that Americans are genetically predisposed to it," writes Brooks. "Immigrants tend to be entrepreneurial, willing to give up security and familiarity for the possibility of prosperity and success."   Perhaps the biggest endorsement for the book so far came from World magazine that selected it as their book of the year. In previous years, the magazine has selected books like The Reason for God and The ESV Study Bible. Editor Marvin Olasky understands how significant this book is. I would agree. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.. Point of View | P.O. Box 30 | Dallas, TX 75221 Click here to view this message as HTML in your browser. Click here to forward this message. Click here to change your email preferences. Click here to Unsubscribe from e-mail.

nonprofit software

New discussion on 100 Million Patriots Standing

>
> pl,
>
> Kenneth Compton has started a new discussion on your group: 100 Million
> Patriots Standing
>
> Subject: Liberty Legal Foundation Takes new path on Obama's Natural Born
> issue ...
> ------
> Names Democratic Party as a defendant in Fed and St courts. This is an
> itneresting twist, putting the onus on the party. Parties are not government,
> and are open to suits for negligence etc. Article is on WND and there is a
> companion piece regarding Sheriff Joe in AZ.
>
> http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=360813 [1]
>
>
> [1] http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=360813
>
> ------

If I were a Liberal, by Ann Coulter

If I Were a Liberal

• 
• Ann Coulter
  

 
If I were a liberal, I would have spent the last week in shock that a Democratic audience in Flint, Mich., cheered Vice President Joe Biden's description of a policeman being killed. (And if I were a liberal desperately striving to keep my job on MSNBC, I'd say the Democrats looked "hot and horny" for dead cops -- as Chris Matthews said of a Republican audience that cheered for the death penalty.)
Biden's audience whooped and applauded last week in Flint when he said that without Obama's jobs bill, police will be "outgunned and outmanned." (Wild applause!)
I suppose liberals would claim they were applauding because they believe Obama's jobs bill will prevent these murders. Which reminds me: Republicans believe the death penalty prevents murders!
Which belief bears more relationship to reality?
In a case I have previously mentioned, Kenneth McDuff was released from death row soon after the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in 1972 and went on to murder more than a dozen people.
William Jordan and Anthony Prevatte were sentenced to death in 1974 for abducting a teacher, murdering him and stealing his car. They came under suspicion when they were caught throwing the murder weapon from the stolen vehicle in a high-speed car chase with the cops and because they were in possession of the dead man's wallet, briefcase and watch.
The Georgia Supreme Court overturned their capital sentences in an opinion by Robert H. Hall, who was appointed by Gov. Jimmy Carter.
Hall said that the death sentences had to be set aside on the idiotic grounds that the jurors had overheard the prosecutor say that the judge and state supreme court would have the opportunity to review a death sentence, which might have caused them to take their sentencing role less seriously.
(If the facts had been the reverse, the court would have overturned the death sentences on the grounds that the jurors did not take their sentencing decision seriously, under the misapprehension that no judge or court would second-guess them.)
Prevatte was later released from "life in prison" and proceeded to murder his girlfriend. Jordan escaped and has never been found.
As president, Carter appointed Hall to a federal district court.
Darryl Kemp was sentenced to death in California in 1960 for the rape and murder of Marjorie Hipperson and also convicted for raping two other women. But he sat on death row long enough -- 12 years -- for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional. He was paroled five years later and, within four months, had raped and murdered Armida Wiltsey, a 40-year-old wife and mother.
Kemp wasn't caught at the time, so he spent the next quarter-century raping (and probably murdering) a string of women. In 2002, his DNA was matched to blood found on the fingernails of Wiltsey's dead body. Although Kemp was serving a "life sentence" for rape in a Texas prison, he was months away from being paroled when he was brought back to California for the murder of Wiltsey.
His attorney argued that he was too old for the death penalty. He lost that argument, and in 2009, Kemp was again given a capital sentence. He now sits on death row, perhaps long enough for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional again, so he can be released to commit more rapes and murders.
Dozens and dozens of prisoners released from death row have gone on to murder again. No one knows exactly how many, but it's a lot more than the number of innocent men who have been executed in America, which, at least since 1950, is zero.
What is liberals' evidence that there will be more rapes and murders if Obama's jobs bill doesn't pass? Biden claims that, without it, there won't be enough cops to interrupt a woman being raped in her own home -- which would be an amazing bit of police work/psychic talent, if it had ever happened. (That's why Americans like guns, liberals.)
Obama's jobs bill tackles the problem of rape and murder by giving the states $30 billion ... for public school teachers.
Only $5 billion is even allotted to the police, but all we keep hearing about are the rapes and murders that Democrats are suddenly against (as long as being "against" rape and murder means funding public school teachers and not imprisoning or executing rapists and murderers).
Finally, did Flint use any money from Obama's last trillion-dollar stimulus bill to hire more police in order to prevent rape and murder? No, Flint spent its $2.2 million from the first stimulus bill on buying two electric buses.
Even if what Flint really needed was buses and not cops, for $2.2 million, the city could have bought seven brand-new diesel buses and had $100,000 left over for streetlights.
Rather than reducing the rate of rape and murder, blowing money on "green" buses is likely to increase crime, since people will be forced to spend a lot more time waiting at bus stops for those two buses.
It's going to be a long wait: The "green" buses were never delivered because the company went out of business -- despite a $1.6 million loan from the American taxpayer.
But if I were a liberal, I wouldn't acknowledge these facts, or any facts. I would close my eyes, cover my ears, demand that MSNBC fire Pat Buchanan and the FCC pull the plug on Fox, and pretend to believe that taxpayer-funded "green" projects and an ever-increasing supply of public school teachers were the only things that separated us from Armageddon.

wow!

 Quite simply, I am still in awe of this tremendous achievement. The SR71 is still the worlds fastest manned aircraft so far as we know and
the technology that made her possible is still leading edge. In every way it is a beautiful work of art, technologically, machanically, visually.
Tho now dated, this is a great story and fun to read again.

 

What a great honor it is to have lived to see this accomplishment.  It will never happen again.  Look at this and remember!!!

 

Subject: wow!

Long but worth a look..   

:

 

 AN SR-71 PILOT is quoted - it's in the Smithsonian now

 

 

  

 

FROM AN SR-71 PILOT... Very interesting read...

The SR-71 Blackbird

 

In April 1986, following an attack on American soldiers in a Berlin disco,
President Reagan ordered the bombing of Muammar Qaddafi's terrorist camps in  Libya ..

My duty was to fly over Libya , 
And take photographs recording the damage our F-111s had inflicted. 

Qaddafi had established a 'line of death,' 
A territorial marking across the  Gulf of Sidra ,
Swearing to shoot down any intruder, that crossed the boundary.

On the morning of April 15, I rocketed past the line at 2,125 mph.

I was piloting the SR-71 spy plane, the world's fastest jet, 
Accompanied by a Marine Major (Walt), the aircraft's reconnaissance systems officer (RSO).

We had crossed into Libya , and were approaching our final turn
Over the bleak desert landscape, when Walt informed me
That he was receiving missile launch signals.

I quickly increased our speed, calculating the time it would take for the weapons,
Most likely SA-2 and SA-4 surface-to-air missiles, capable of Mach 5 -
To reach our altitude.

I estimated that we could beat the rocket-powered missiles to the turn, 
And stayed our course, betting our lives on the plane's performance.

After several agonizingly long seconds, we made the turn 
And blasted toward the Mediterranean .
'You might want to pull it back,' Walt suggested. 
It was then that I noticed I still had the throttles full forward.

The plane was flying a mile every 1.6 seconds, well above our Mach 3.2 limit. 
It was the fastest we would ever fly. 
I pulled the throttles to idle, just south of  Sicily ,
But we still overran the refueling tanker, awaiting us over Gibraltar ..

  

Scores of significant aircraft have been produced, 
In the 100 years of flight, following the achievements of the Wright brothers, 
Which we celebrate in December. 

Aircraft such as the Boeing 707, the F-86 Sabre Jet, and the P-51 Mustang, 
Are among the important machines that have flown our skies. 

But the SR-71, also known as the Blackbird, stands alone
As a significant contributor to Cold War victory, 
And as the fastest plane ever, and 
Only 93 Air Force pilots ever steered the 'sled,' as we called our aircraft.

 

The SR-71 was the brainchild of Kelly Johnson,
The famed Lockheed designer who created the P-38, the F-104 Starfighter, and the U-2. 
  
After the Soviets shot down Gary Powers U-2 in 1960, 
Johnson began to develop an aircraft
That would fly three miles higher, and five times faster, 
Than the spy plane, and still be capable of photographing your license plate.

However, flying at 2,000 mph would create intense heat on the aircraft's skin. 
Lockheed engineers used a titanium alloy
To construct more than 90 percent of the SR-71, 
Creating special tools and manufacturing procedures
To hand-build each of the 40 planes.

Special heat-resistant fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluids, 
That would function at 85,000 feet and higher, also had to be developed.

In 1962, the first Blackbird successfully flew, and 
In 1966, the same year I graduated from high school, 
The Air Force began flying operational SR-71 missions.

I came to the program in 1983, with a sterling record 
And a recommendation from my commander, 
Completing the weeklong interview, and 
Meeting Walt -- my partner for the next four years. 
 

He would ride four feet behind me, 
Working all the cameras, radios, and electronic jamming equipment.
I joked that if we were ever captured, he was the spy, 
And I was just the driver. 

He told me to keep the pointy end forward. 

We trained for a year, flying out of Beale AFB in California,
Kadena Airbase in Okinawa, and RAF Mildenhall in England ..

On a typical training mission, we would take off near Sacramento, 
Refuel over Nevada, accelerate into Montana, 
Obtain a high Mach speed over Colorado, 
Turn right over New Mexico, speed across the Los Angeles Basin, 
Run up the West Coast, turn right at Seattle, and then return to Beale.

Total flight time:  Two Hours and Forty Minutes. 

One day, high above Arizona , we were monitoring the radio traffic
Of all the mortal airplanes below us.
First, a Cessna pilot asked the air traffic controllers to check his ground speed. 
'Ninety knots,' ATC replied. 
A Bonanza soon made the same request. 
'One-twenty on the ground,' was the reply.
To our surprise, a Navy F-18 came over the radio with a request for a ground speed check.
I knew exactly what he was doing. 
Of course, he had a ground speed indicator in his cockpit,
but he wanted to let all the bug-smashers in the valley
know what real speed was.
'Dusty 52, we show you at 620 on the ground,' ATC responded. 

The situation was too ripe. 
I heard the click of Walt's mike button in the rear seat. 
In his most innocent voice, Walt startled the controller 
by asking for a ground speed check from 81,000 feet, 
clearly above controlled airspace.

In a cool, professional voice, the controller replied, 
' Aspen 20, I show you at 1,982 knots on the ground.'

We did not hear another transmission on that 
frequency, all the way to the coast.
 

 

The Blackbird always showed us something new,
each aircraft possessing its own unique personality.

In time, we realized we were flying a national treasure. 

When we taxied out of our revetments for take-off, people took notice. 

Traffic congregated near the airfield fences, 
because everyone wanted to see, and hear the mighty SR-71. 

You could not be a part of this program, and not come to love the airplane.
Slowly, she revealed her secrets to us, as we earned her trust. 

One moonless night, while flying a routine training mission over the Pacific, 
I wondered what the sky would look like from 84,000 feet, 
if the cockpit lighting were dark.
While heading home on a straight course, I slowly turned down 
all of the lighting, reducing the glare and revealing the night sky.
Within seconds, I turned the lights back up, 
fearful that the jet would know, and somehow punish me.
But my desire to see the sky, overruled my caution,
I dimmed the lighting again. 

To my amazement, I saw a bright light outside my window.
As my eyes adjusted to the view, I realized that the brilliance 
was the broad expanse of the Milky Way, 
now a gleaming stripe across the sky.
Where dark spaces in the sky, had usually existed,
there were now dense clusters, of sparkling stars.
Shooting Stars, flashed across the canvas every few seconds.
It was like a fireworks display with no sound.

I knew I had to get my eyes back on the instruments, 
and reluctantly, I brought my attention back inside.
To my surprise, with the cockpit lighting still off,
I could see every gauge, lit by starlight.
In the plane's mirrors, I could see the eerie shine of
my gold spacesuit, incandescently illuminated, 
in a celestial glow.
I stole one last glance out the window. 
Despite our speed, we seemed still before the
heavens, humbled in the radiance of a much greater power. 

For those few moments, I felt a part of something far more significant
than anything we were doing in the plane. 

The sharp sound of Walt's voice on the radio
brought me back to the tasks at hand, as I prepared for our descent.

 

San Diego Aerospace Museum

The SR-71 was an expensive aircraft to operate.

The most significant cost was tanker support, and 
in 1990, confronted with budget cutbacks, the Air Force retired the SR-71.

The SR-71 served six presidents, protecting America for a quarter of a century. 

Un-be-known to most of the country, the plane flew over 
North Vietnam, Red China , North Korea , the Middle East ,
South Africa, Cuba , Nicaragua , Iran , Libya , and the Falkland Islands .. 

On a weekly basis, the SR-71, kept watch over every
Soviet Nuclear Submarine and Mobile Missile Site, 
and all of their troop movements. 

It was a key factor in winning the Cold War. 

I am proud to say, I flew about 500 hours in this aircraft. 
I knew her well.  
She gave way to no plane, proudly dragging her Sonic Boom 
through enemy backyards with great impunity.
She defeated every missile, outran every MiG, and always brought us home. 

In the first 100 years of manned flight, no aircraft was more remarkable.

The Blackbird had outrun nearly 4,000 missiles, 
not once taking a scratch from enemy fire.

On her final flight, the Blackbird, 
destined for the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum , 
sped from Los Angeles to Washington in 64 Minutes,
averaging 2,145 mph, 
and setting four speed records.