Nomination of Charlie Crist for the C4G’s Comrade of the Month Award

I hereby nominate Comrade Charlie Crist (who is competing against anti-Communist Marco Rubio for the GOP’s Senatorial nomination for Florida) for the Club For Growth’s Comrade of the Month Award.

Charlie Crist has reinstated the spending reductions that the Floridian legislature (whose lower house is led by Rubio) enacted, and instituted the largest Floridian state tax hike since the 1980s. He also campaigned together with America’s socialist president, Comrade Barack Barackovich Obama, for the porkulus (officially called the ARRA), which several state governors, including Mark Sanford and Bobby Jindal, rejected. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Comrade Charlie Crist endorsed Comrade John McCain for the Presidency because he agrees with McCain’s high-tax, high-domestic-spending policies. Comrade Charlie Crist is a true socialist, a true Marxist, a true liberal.

The Club For Growth should award, on the next occassion, the Comrade of the Month Award to Comrade Charlie Crist.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please rise for the national anthem.

The Soviet national anthem, that is.

My 40th article

Today, my 40th article was published at TheRealityCheck.org. It’s about the flawed defense policy of SECDEF Gates. This is a hyperlink to that article.

Joe the Plumber endorses the Fair Tax

On April 7th, 2009, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as “Joe the Plumber”, has endorsed the Fair Tax – a flat sales tax that is supposed to replace all current federal taxes – and has begun his own crusade against the IRS. [1] [2] [3]

Joe wants to have his own business, but if he registers it as a firm, that firm will have to pay a 35% CIT. If he will register it under his own name, and pay taxes from his own personal income, he will pay a 35% PIT. Then there would be payroll taxes. He would also have to read the 66,000-page Internal Revenue Code. Such a tax burden chokes enterprises and disincentivizes profit-makers. It seriously harms the US economy. If Joe needs help with filing his tax return, he must hire a tax consultant. But few tax law experts can actually do that job for him – even the Secretary of the Treasury cannot complete a federal tax return. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byu8CSCCuv4&feature=player_embedded)

The Fair Tax is an absolutely necessary instrument of enabling Joe’s business to prosper permanently. He would also be freed from the duty of filing tax returns at all, and from the intrusive IRS, which has more prerogatives than the CIA and the FBI. Former presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo support it – as do the two Georgian Senators, two other Senators and 52 Representatives, including John Linder, the sponsor of the Fair Tax Act, myself, and the CWA Director, Michael Illions. CWA is the most popular, most frequently read, political blog in New Jersey.

Thank you, Joe, for your endorsement of the Fair Tax.

[1] http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94198

[2] http://irsvote.com/index.html

[3] http://irsvote.com/vote.html

How can the GOP win federal elections?

Contrary to the false claims of liberal Republicans (e.g. David Frum and Michael Steele), the Republican party should not adopt a liberal policy nor should it nominate liberal candidates. What it must do in order to win is 1) re-committing itself to conservative principles 2) nominating staunch conservatives.

1) Conservative principles

The only way to re-commit the party to conservative principles is to adopt staunchly conservative platforms (just like the political program of Duncan Hunter) and to enact them if the GOP ever retakes the WH and the Congress. The following is an example of such a platform:

HEALTHCARE

1) No socialised medicine, no programs administered by the Feds.

2) Healthcare would be best managed by the people, by cities, and by states. This issue should be left to them.

3) The budget of the DHHS should be returned to the states of the Union.

EDUCATION

1) Like healthcare, this issue should be managed by the people, by cities, and by states.

2) The Department of Education should be closed, its building sold, and its budget returned to the states of the Union.

3) There are 2 exceptions to proposal #1: the Federal Government should adopt a law allowing willing students to pray at public schools, and for Religious Education to be voluntarily taught at schools; besides, American schools must teach unconditional love for America.

IMMIGRATION

1) As a general rule, legal immigration should be expanded, not limited. Otherwise, illegal immigration will grow. America is a country people are trying to get into, not get out of. There is nothing wrong with legal immigration, because it is managed by the authorities, unlike its illegal counterpart.

2) The entire border fence should be built (all 854 miles).

3) The USCG should stop intercepting Cuban refugees fleeing the Cuban police state.

4) To combat gangs, the US military should deploy armed units to the southern border.

5) Waiting periods for visas should be reduced, otherwise, immigrants and tourists will enter America illegally. (Who wants to wait 11 years for a visa?)

6) The 20 million illegal immigrants who live in America should be deported. If they want to reenter the country, they should apply for immigrant visas (after a 3-year-ban).

7) The GOP should oppose amnesty.

Sanctuary cities should be punished.

9) English should be adopted as the sole official language of America. The government may not create documents, mottos, emblems nor other official instruments in languages other than English.

TAXES

1) All income taxes (incl. the PIT, the CIT, the AMT, the dividends tax and the CGT) should be replaced by one tax – the FairTax. It should be levied at a 23% rate. As a result, the 66,000-page IRC would be abolished, as would be the IRS, which costs taxpayers $11 bn per year. Americans would be taxed on the basis of what they spend, not what they earn. This would be an incentive to work.

THE ECONOMY

1) The number of pages on the Federal Register should be reduced tenfold.

2) No to protectionist measures. The FTAs signed with Panama, SK and Colombia should be ratified. New FTAs should be negotiated with other countries. Eventually, the entire world should become a free trade zone.

3) Affirmative action policies should be abolished.

4) Subsidies should be abolished.

5) Federal-owned corporations such as Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG should be privatised.

6) No bailouts.

7) The Federal Government should enact lawsuit reform to allow oil corporations to exploit the oil reserves they already own. It should also permit drilling in the ANWR, the OCS and the Rocky Mountains (and anywhere else on American territory), and permit oil corporations to build new refineries.

Zbigniew Mazurak’s Philadelphian Project should be implemented.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

1) The role of the federal government should be only to handle issues that state, county and local authorities cannot manage: defence, foreign affairs, interstate transport, foreign trade, homeland security and federal justice.

2) The number of departments should be reduced to 8. They would be: the DOD, the DOS, the DHS, the DOJ, the DVA, the Dept. of Economic Affairs, the Dept. of Natural Resources, the Dept. of Transportation. There should be, besides them, one cabinet agency: the FEMA.

3) Many agencies (e.g. the OSHA, the SBA, USAID, the AmeriCorps and the Senior Corps) should be abolished; spending on many others should be reduced.

4) Only 50% of retiring civilian workers of the FG should be replaced.

5) The staff at the OSD should be reduced by half, the Secret Service’s budget should be reduced by $21 mn. Generally, federal spending should be reduced to no more than 20% of GDP.

6) No Republican member of Congress may request earmarks.

7) The President should have the right to the line-item veto.

The FG should pay its debt. All $10 trillion.

9) American seniors should not be forced to retire at a designated age. They should be allowed to work as long as they want to.

SOCIAL ISSUES

1) Amendments to the Constitution (and statutes) that would ban same-sex marriage, abortion (in all circumstances), cloning and euthanasia should be issued.

2) Abortion providers should be denied federal funding.

3) No gun control. The government should not violate Americans’ right to possess and carry weapons.

JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

1) The only judges that should be appointed to the courts should be staunch conservatives who want to enforce American laws rather than legislate from the bench.

FOREIGN POLICY VS EUROPE

1) The Federal Government must recognise that Europe is not a monolithic continent. Some European countries, like Britain, Holland, Poland and the Czech Republic, are allies of America’s. Others, such as Zapatero’s Spain, are hostile. Some European countries are neutral. It should also recognise that the EU is an anti-American megastate that was founded for the purpose of countering America.

2) America should support calls for referendums on the Lisbon Treaty in European countries, and confront European politicians about the anti-American policies and the undemocratic working manner of the EU.

3) America should strengthen its alliances with the pro-American European countries, including Britain, America’s best friend. This includes, but is not limited to, increased exports of weapons, joint naval fleets, and building more consulates. (In Poland, for example, there is only one American consulate: the Consulate General in Krakow.)

4) As for America’s enemies on the European continent, they should be ignored and isolated by America.

5) American politicians and diplomats should not support European integration.

6) In the case of Russia, it should be treated as an enemy, though a war with Russia is out of question due to Russia’s giant nuclear arsenal (18,000 nuclear warheads). No summits, no meetings, no aid to Russia. The Russian Federation should also be subjected to several sanctions, such as a ban on all Russian airlines operating between Russia and the US, and a travel ban on Russian officials.

7) The FG must recognise that Russia is not a valuable partner, but rather, the world’s worst troublemaker. One cannot solve crises like the Korean and Iranian nuclear controversies, because they have been CREATED by Russia.

America should oppose the ESDP, the CFSP and European integration in general.

9) Georgia and Ukraine should be admitted to NATO and should receive whatever weapons they need to defend themselves.

10) NATO members should not be allowed to impose caveats on their contingents performing NATO missions.

11) Those NATO members who do not abolish caveats, or impose them in the first place, or do not send their troops at all, shall be severely punished by NATO with all possible measures, including the expulsion of such members from NATO.

FOREIGN POLICY VS THE ANGLOSPHERE AT LARGE

1) The Federal Government must recognise that the humanity’s hopes for peace, prosperity and security depend not on Russo-American nor Sino-American relations, but on bilateral relations between Anglospheric countries. It is the Anglosphere that guarantees peace, prosperity and security. Russia is undermining them.

2) America should never address bilateral issues with its Anglospheric partners in the framework of multilateral alliances or forums. For example, Anglo-American issues should be handled in a bilateral way, not in the US-EU forum nor in the framework of NATO.

3) America should make some gestures towards its Anglospheric allies to strengthen its alliances with them. For example, Australia should be allowed to buy F-22 jets, and the defence treaties signed with Australia and the UK should be ratified.

4) While good relations with Pakistan are necessary, so are friendly relations with India. Because these policies are currently incompatible, the USFG should mediate in the Pakistani-Indian dispute over Kashmir and make peace between these two Asian powers.

5) Relations with Anglospheric countries should always be of higher importance than relations with non-Anglo states.

6) Canada should be asked to cease trading with Cuba.

FOREIGN POLICY VS CHINA

1) The Taiwan Relations Act should remain on the books. America should continue to sell Taiwan whatever weapons it needs to defend itself. It should also defend Taiwan in the case of Chinese invasion.

2) However, this doesn’t imply that China should be treated as an enemy. Good relations with the PRC should be maintained as long as this is in the American national interest. China did not support Russia’s invasion of Georgia, showing that the Russo-Chinese bloc is not monolithic. Therefore, bilateral relations should be improved with visits and trade.

FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE WORLD IN GENERAL

1) America owes no apology to anyone.

2) America should reward its allies, punish its enemies, promote democracy and human rights, and oppose totalitarian states, whether they are superpowers or not.

3) No foreign aid except foreign military financing.

4) America should create an informal group of free-market states (incl. America, the UK, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden) whose leaders should meet from time to time to discuss free-market capitalism, the policies they implement in their countries, and the ways to eliminate obstacles to capitalism.

FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS SOUTH AMERICA

1) Diplomatic relations with Venezuela should be ended.

2) America should firmly oppose Russian intervention in the Western Hemisphere.

3) America should try to woo Hispanic countries in the Western Hemisphere (other than Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua) to prevent them from allying themselves with Venezuela.

4) America should strive to make the Western Hemisphere free from communists.

TOWARDS NORTH KOREA:

1) North Korea should return to the list of terrorist-sponsoring states.

2) The Six Party negotiations should be ended.

3) Negotiations and diplomatic relations can be ended, and the military option taken off the table, only if the following conditions are fulfilled: a) North Korea scraps all of its WMMs b) all North Korean political prisoners are released c) democratic elections are organised in NK d) North Korea democratises itself.

TOWARDS AFGHANISTAN:

1) More UCAVs should be bought and deployed to Afghanistan.

2) The size and equipment of the American contingent in Afghanistan should be changed in line with the needs of the military.

3) Although NATO is a military alliance, the role of NATO should be not just to secure the country, but also to make it prosper. All members of the alliance must commit themselves to both goals. The burden of this work should be shared equally – it is unacceptable for some members to do only civilian work.

2) Who should be the GOP’s presidential nominee in 2012?

DEFENCE

This is the most important electoral issue. Most people (incl. 99% of Democrats) don’t think so, but it is. Defending the country is not just the responsibility of all Americans, it’s the FOREMOST responsibility of all of them. It’s a sacred duty. Any government that fails to fulfill that duty is traiterous. It is therefore of utmost importance for Americans to elect a candidate willing to build up the military and to send it to a battlefield if necessary.

All three of the Republican candidates are pro-military and willing to buildup the military. There’s a difference between them, however. Huckabee has promised to raise military spending to 6% of GDP, deploy a missile shield in Europe, and to strengthen the USIC. Hunter has not given a specific number, but he has listed a number of military programs he would expand, and wants to deploy a missile shield in Europe. Romney has promised to raise military expenditures to a minimum of 4% of GDP (a paltry increase). All three candidates have promised to maintain America’s nuclear arsenal at its current size (over 10,000 nuclear warheads) and to expand the Army and the USMC.

FOREIGN POLICY

America’s foreign policy is about more than just the war against terrorists (which all three candidates intend to win using all the means that America has at her disposal, including the American military if need be).

Romney does not have credibility on this issue. His corporation, Bain Capital, collaborated with the Chinese weaponmaker Huawei, which supplies weapons to Iraqi insurgents. Moreover, he would keep America in the unreformable organisation known as the UN, and believes that he can reform the UN. In fact, his foreign policy, by his own admission, would be “to work through a reformed United Nations Organisation”.

Real conservatives believe that America’s sovereignty must never be surrendered and that America must withdraw from the UN.

Huckabee is better than Romney on this issue, however, he called the Bush Administration’s policy “arrogant and counterproductive”. He would also restore diplomatic relations with Iran (although not unconditionally – Iran would have to fulfill many pre-conditions first). This is a naïve proposal.

Duncan Hunter, on the other hand, believes that America can cooperate with Russia on missile defence (which Russia and China staunchly oppose). She cannot, but Hunter would nevertheless be the best maker of foreign policy of these 3 candidates.

THE ECONOMY

Despite the claims of the Dems and the media that the American economy is in recession and that Dubya’s economic policies have failed, the American economy is strong. It is the largest, but also the most diverse, in the world. America has a higher GDP per person than any other country in the world (except for a few oil monarchies and a few tax havens). The rates of unemployment and inflation are low. The rates of homeownership and car ownership are high (that’s rare in the world). Between October 2001 and January 2008, America’s GDP had grown by more than 20%. After-tax income had also grown in that time. The dollar is the world’s reserve currency. America also has the world’s most modern technology, and spends 2.5% of its GDP on R&D, more than most countries in the world. No nation is wealthier than the American people.

The keys to economic prosperity, contrary to the claims of European and American socialists, are: free trade, low taxation, minimum regulation, a limited government and other economic freedoms.[1][2] In one word, capitalism. What the Dems have proposed would result in Soviet-style poverty. The policy that America should adopt is as follows: lowering taxes, closing many governmental agencies, reforming entitlements, restraining federal spending not related to the military, ending pork spending, eliminating most regs and signing free trade agreements (ideally, the entire world would be a free trade area, though that would be extremely hard to achieve). Unfortunately, none of the Republicans described in this article is perfectly conservative (based on rhetoric and record).

Contrary to what Huckabee’s critics such as Mitt Romney, Rich Lowry, Kathryn Jean Lopez and Kyle-Anne Shiver said, Huckabee is not a socialist nor a liberal. His record does, however, have numerous flaws. He is alleged to have hiked many taxes and to have grown the size of the state government. Also, the CATO institute has alleged that:

“Huckabee has called for increased federal spending on a variety of programs from infrastructure to health care. He wants more energy subsidies, including, naturally, more subsidies for ethanol. In fact, he supports increased agricultural subsidies generally. He is the only Republican candidate who opposes President Bush’s veto of the Democrats’ proposed expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. (…)As governor, he raised the minimum wage and increased business regulation. He says it is “a biblical duty” to pass more regulation to fight global warming.”

Given that the federal government spends $2.9 trillion every year and that America’s total debt is $10 trillion, the FG cannot afford any spending hikes other than those accounting for inflation. On a positive note, Huckabee supports the FairTax, free trade agreements of all sorts, lawsuit reform and Social Security privatisation. He has also criticised the McCain-Feingold law and called for increased spending on science.

Romney, who has worked in the private sector for 25 years, saved a corporation and the 2002 Olympics, and has done business in 20 different countries around the world, was expected to propose better policies. However, the ex-governor of MA has an imperfect record. During his tenure, the economy of MA performed worse than that of most other American states, and he raised fees by $700 mn. He also supports market-distorting agricultural subsidies as a retaliation against European agricultural subsidies. He has done business with China’s Huawei corporation, which produces weapons for Iraqi insurgents and has, in the past, produced weapons to Saddam Hussein (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_bX2hkmE5zA&NR=1). Bain Capital is a security threat to America. Moreover, he opposes the FairTax and is (or was) opposed to the flat tax. America needs a single tax rate, not 6 different rates. If a flat tax was adopted, then an American’s tax return would be of the same size as a postcard. But if a Russian-style flat tax version was adopted, American taxpayers wouldn’t be forced to file tax returns at all. The Russians (who pay a flat tax) don’t need to fill out any tax returns unless they want to claim tax credits.

On a positive note, though, Romney has called for lower taxes, a smaller government, a restraint of the government’s spending, and for increased spending on science.

Regrettably, Hunter (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/10/duncan_hunters_voting_record.php) also has supported some liberal measures, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (introduced by a liberal Senator, Paul Sarbanes), the NCLB Act and the 2003 expansion of Medicare. He also opposed 19 anti-pork-spending measures. Last, but not least, he supports protectionist measures. Like Huckabee and Romney, he rightly believes that the global playing field is uneven, but like them, he has adopted the wrong policies to address that issue. He voted against NAFTA and CAFTA. The playing field is certainly not even, but rejecting free trade agreements that level that playing field is the wrong way to generate wealth.

Nevertheless, Hunter would be the best steward of the economy of these three candidates. He supports the FairTax, voted to reduce taxes more times than any other candidate of 2008, never voted for a tax increase, opposes agricultural subsidies (http://iowaindependent.com/729/on-the-spot-at-the-fair-duncan-hunter-unsure-why-he-voted-against-farm-bill), and promotes other conservative promises such as lawsuit reform, deregulation and a small government. Therefore, although Rep. Hunter has voted for several liberal measures in the past, he has proven his conservative credentials.

JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

After the president and the SECDEF, the nine most important Americans are the nine judges of the SCOTUS. They define Americans’ liberties and duties (i.e. those of American citizens as well as those of the local, county, state and federal government). They can declare laws unconstitutional. They are appointed for a lifetime, and can lose their seats on the bench only if they are impeached, die or retire. The decisions of the SCOTUS cannot be appealed, and can only be repealed if a) the SCOTUS itself changes its opinion or b) the federal Constitution is amended accordingly. I don’t need to convince anyone how important the SCOTUS is. What is at stake? Very much, including the answers to questions like:

Does the federal constitution guarantee a right to abortion (as the authors of the FOCA claimed)?

Does the 2^nd Amendment to the federal constitution give American citizens the right to possess and carry weapons?

Is affirmative action constitutional?

Is the death penalty constitutional?

If the DOMA is repealed, does the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution oblige all American states to legalise same-sex marriage?

During the 2008-2016 period, there might be as many as five appointments to the SCOTUS. As of 30/10/2008, the nine judges of the SCOTUS were: Stevens (b. 1920), Ginsburg (b. 1933), Scalia (b. 1936), Kennedy (b. 1936), Breyer (b. 1938), Souter (b. 1939), Thomas (b. 1948), Alito (b. 1950) and Roberts (b. 1955). The advantage that we conservatives have is that the 3 youngest are staunch conservatives and the 2 oldest are strident liberals. These two judges, Stevens and Ginsburg, may leave the bench during the 2008-2016 period, as may Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer. Replacing these judges with conservative jurists would give the GOP an 8:1 advantage in the SCOTUS. America needs judges who would apply laws, not make them. Judges who believe that there is no law supreme to American laws and that the Federal Constitution is not a living document. (There is no such thing, BTW.) Judges like John Roberts and Clarence Thomas.

Hunter and Huckabee would certainly appoint such judges, but Romney may not. Romney supported abortion and gun control until he started to run for the presidency, although he is opposed to SSM.

HEALTH CARE

Although Huckabee says that America is suffering a health crisis, not a healthcare crisis, and has called for healthier lifestyles (no alcohol, no cigs, etc.), which would greatly decrease the need for healthcare, he nevertheless has called for increased healthcare spending. The government can only worsen, not improve, healthcare.[3]

Hunter and Romney both believe that healthcare would be better left to the private sector.

THE CONCLUSION

My final scorecard for the three candidates is as follows:

On defence, Hunter and Huckabee are equally conservative; Romney is second.

On foreign affairs, Hunter is the most conservative; Huckabee is second; Romney is third.

On the economy, Hunter is first; Huckabee is second; Romney is third.

On judicial nominations, Hunter and Huckabee are equally conservative; Romney is second.

On healthcare, Hunter and Romney are equally conservative; Huckabee is second.

Hunter should be the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee.

[1]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/3259913/Browns-Keynesianism-is-bankrupt—and-will-bankrupt-us.html

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3266148/Gordon-Brown-vows-to-borrow-and-spend.html

[3]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/hillary_clinton_i_will_change.html

Why did the GOP lose?

On 4^th November 2008 libertarians, independent voters and conservatives, who are dissatisfied with the GOP’s liberal, socialist, multilateralist brand of conservatism (compassionate conservatism), voted for 3^rd party candidates or stayed home. This resulted in a historic landslide for the Dems, who won the WH, both Houses of Congress, and 2 previously Republican governorships.

Now that this election has been organised, the following question must be asked: Why?

And the answer to that question must be given. The answer is:

One of the reasons for why this happened is that the GOP nominated a leftist presidential candidate (John McCain) and a multitude of leftist Congressional candidates. The second reason is that the Bush Admin and the Republican-controlled Congresses of the 2000s conducted a liberal policy.[1] The adoption of socialist policies (like the expansion of entitlements and the appeasement of Russia) was a betrayal of conservatives and independent voters.

Now that the reasons for why the GOP lost have been found, Republicans deserve advice on what should the party do to win elections. And what they must do is 1) nominating truly conservative politicians 2) adopting staunchly conservative policies. The next post deals with these 2 actions.

[1] http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/how_i_learned_to_stop_worrying_1.html

Why the EU is not a hyperpower

The euro’s appreciation, the dollar’s depreciation, the EU’s overtaking of America by GDP PPP (due exclusively to inflation, which has caused the EU’s GDP to be worth more due to the higher worth of the euro in comparison to the dollar) and the Lisbon Treaty have prompted some people to claim that the EU is a superpower.[1][2]

However, these people are wrong and have merely indicated that they don’t appreciate how many attributes a country needs in order to become a superpower. The EU doesn’t have any attributes of a superpower, which are:

1) An economy as strong as the American one. The EU has a larger GDP than its American competitor; however, this is due to currency exchange rates. (The EU denominates its GDP in euros; to compare it to America’s, one must convert that GDP to dollars.) Moreover, the American GDP per capita is bigger than the EU’s ($46000 vs $32300). [2] And if the EU was an American state, it would be the 3^rd poorest.[4] DC and 48 American states (all states except WV and MS) have GDPs per capita above that of the EU’s.[4] West Virginia’s GDP per capita is $30,607.05; Mississippi’s GDP per capita is $28,937.93.[4]

The EU’s member states do not compare favourably to American states, either. The richest American state (Maryland) is wealthier than its richest European counterpart (Luxembourg, a tiny tax haven). Some people have claimed that this is only due to the accession of Eastern European countries in 2007. However, this is not true. By these measures, the EU was already weaker than her American competitor in 2003. That year, two Swedish economists had published a policy document that showed the same results (although the numbers were different back then) except that Delaware was the only American state unrivalled by Luxembourg. The second of the two differences is that back then, there were 4 US states poorer than the EU, but now only two of them are below that standard of wealth: West Virginia and Mississippi. [5]

In March 2005, the European Chamber of Commerce (ECC) reported that by all economic measures, the EU was behind the US and that the transatlantic gap had widened from 2000 to 2005. [6] In that year:

a) the EU’s employment rate was equal to that attained by the US in 1978;

b) the EU’s R&D rate was equal to that achieved by the US in 1979;

c) by GDP per capita, the EU was 18 years behind the US.

In March 2007, the ECC published another report, which indicated similar results. [7] These are European publications, therefore, they were not “rigged by America”.

The EU’s unemployment rate is 8.5%, as opposed to America’s rate of 6%.[9] The European employment rate is 66%; the American rate is 75%. [7]

And what about currencies? The dollar, despite its huge depreciation and the slight shrinkage of its share of the world’s foreign currency reserves, is still the world’s currency. It accounts for 63.9% of global reserves; the euro accounts for merely 26.5%. [8]

2) A common leader, currency, foreign policy and military. The EU is a confederation of 27 independent states, each of which has its own leader, foreign policy and military. 12 of them have their own currencies.

3) A military capable of waging wars in several foreign countries on other continents anywhere in the world. No European country has such a military. Genocides like those committed in Darfur, the Balkans and Tibet can be addressed only if America or Russia chooses to do so. There is no need to elaborate on this.

4) Its own corporate brands (in all sectors of the global economy) recognised as household names, such as Google, Microsoft and Nike. Europe has created only a few brands in a few sectors.

5) A large coffer of funding for R&D. The US has borne 32% of the global R&D expenditures in 2007 – more than the entire EU combined. [8] The EU’s federal budget for the year 2008 authorised only €6.1 bn ($8.54 bn; €1=$1.4 as of 2008) for research. Four agencies of the US federal government – the US Geological Survey, the DOA, the NSF and the DOE – were awarded an aggregate sum of $14.761 bn for research in FY2008.

6) A huge swath of immigrants. Americans have welcomed millions of immigrants into their country in the past 60 years. There were 150 mn people living in America in 1955 but 300 million in 2006. As of 2008, America has 303 million inhabitants. 50 million Americans are naturalised immigrants or their children. By contrast, most European countries (even the richest, like Germany) are ones that people are getting out of, not getting into. A few years ago, the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper published an article titled “The Germans are leaving Germany”. It described why the Germans are dumping their country, and their most popular destination was America.

7) The title of a cultural superpower. America’s cultural industry (the film, music, sculpting, architecture and computer sectors) are unrivalled by their European counterparts, despite Europe having produced some beautiful work in some of these sectors (music, architecture and sculpting).

A space agency on par with NASA. President John Kennedy started the Apollo Project in 1961, and as a result, 3 American astronauts landed on the Earth’s moon in 1969. No other country has ever sent any astronauts to the Earth’s moon. NASA has crewed spaceships (Space Shuttles) that can transport astronauts into the Space, but the EU doesn’t. NASA has a constellation of GPS satellites, but the ESA doesn’t. The EU has launched only one satellite – carried by a Russian rocket. The EU has recently bought 10 space rockets for its space programs because it cannot produce such rockets itself.

9) Foreign aid programs larger than American ones. On this issue, the governments of European countries combined have always outspent the FG of the US for decades. However, the US has always outspent Europe, because most American foreign aid (charitable) expenditures are borne by private charities. In Europe (except Poland), almost no one besides governments donates any charity. A check from a government bureaucrat cannot even be called “charity” nor “foreign aid”. It’s a sign of patronising, not mercy. Moreover, private citizens are better stewards of money than governments.

10) The burden of double standards. America is still being ridiculed for slavery (which Abraham Lincoln ended in 1863), even by countries that have not yet ended slavery themselves.

11) The role of saving the world from many dangers without getting thanks. This is a role that the EU doesn’t have, but America has. The US saved the world from Japan, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Soviet Union (among other totalitarian states). Its military is stationed around the world in countries like Germany, South Korea and Japan, to defend these countries against communist invaders (as has been the case for the last 59 years). Unless there are European brigades in Georgia, South Korea, Japan or Colombia, the EU is not in the same league as America.

[1] http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread96493/pg1

[2] http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread205593/pg1

[3] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

[4] http://www.fuckfrance.com/topic/3198091/1/Discussions/List-of-US-States-and-EU-countries-by-GDP.html

[5] http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/books.asp?isbn=9175665646

[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2907774/Europe-%27needs-75-years%27-to-catch-US.html

[7] http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2007/gb20070306_734986.htm?chan=search

[8] http://www.singularity2050.com/2008/06/why-the-us-will-still-be-the-only-superpower-in-2030-v20.html

[9] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html

The 1000th visitor

On 3rd August 2008, before 8:00 AM CET (daylight time), this blog achieved yet another milestone – a 1000th guest – 6 days after the 900th guest had visited it. This is a blog that had achieved the 1000-visitors-milestone less than 3 months after it was created.

It can be therefore honestly concluded that this is a reputable, serious, popular blog.

What the Chinese are buying

I have already written a few blog posts and a few mag articles, as well as several AT comments, about what the Chinese are buying with the dollars they earn for their exported goodies. However, a new blog post was necessary, to include additional information. I’ve decided that the more info I publish, the better.

China is the #1 exporter in the world, having surpassed Germany in 2007. The annual Chinese global trade surplus is $315.7 bn as of 2007. America’s annual global trade deficit is $816 bn as of 2007. America’s annual trade deficit vis-a-vis China is $250 bn as of 2007. What do the Chinese spend their cash on? Weapons.

The Chinese are now developing XXJ fighterplanes, which will be as good as F-22s. America must therefore produce hundreds more F-22s. I have not checked if F-14s (which have been retired but could be recommissioned), F-18s or F-15Es could defeat XXJs.

900 visitors

On 27th July 2008, the visitor counter surged to 900. Thank you, visitor #900!

The 900th guest has visited this blog just 6 days after the 800-guest-milestone was achieved.

Europe is not monolithically pro-Obamian

A friend of mine, Kyle-Anne Shiver, recently posted this article on her blog. She’s an excellent columnist, and so is her most recent blog post, but I will not agree with her on one issue:
That all Europeans are pro-Obama.
I live in Poland, which is a European country; therefore, I could be called “a European”. Yet I’m pro-McCain (I would vote for him if allowed to), so no, not all Europeans are pro-Obama. And I’m not the only pro-McCain European; a German man recently came to the Berlin Siegessaule to act as a counterweight to Obama’s German fans. And although opinion polls (one of which Kyle-Anne cited) did reveal that Obama has more European fans than McCain, the AZ senator nevertheless does have some European fans. So no, not all Europeans are for Obama. I’m just as apalled by the European Obamafest as you are, Kyle-Anne, but Europe is not a monolithic continent.