My opinion about potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates

One of my friends has recently (yesterday) written on his blog:

“Ron Paul’s age is going to be an issue for sure, but the man will draw supporters and on economic issues involving trade, debt, spending, printing money out of thin air, etc, etc, there is no one smarter or better. He does deserve consideration.”

You must be kidding. ANYONE is smarter or better than RP. He’s a moron who spends every day lecturing other people about issues he knows nothing about.

Regarding the rest:

Pawlenty: I don’t know enough Pawlenty to judge him, although what he has said so far is good. Maybe he’d be a good presidential nominee, maybe he wouldn’t be.

Romney: Hmmm, what should I say about Romney? On the one hand, he’s been vigorously fighting for low taxes, limited government and a strong defense, and against disarmament policies, tax hikes, bailouts, the porkulus and the crap-and-trade scheme. On the other hand, he’s the author of a state socialized medicine scheme (he signed the relevant legislation with a grinning Ted Kennedy in the background), and he’s liberal on social issues (although he claims he’s not).

Petraeus: I respect General Petraeus, so I’ll just say that the time Republicans spend daydreaming about President Petraeus would be better spent identifying viable presidential candidates.

Daniels: The guy is liberal on social and defense issues. He wants a huge reduction of defense spending. HELL NO!

Mike Pence: I like him, but a mere Congressman would not be a good presidential candidate.

John Thune: A freshman Senator would not be a good president. Vide barack Obama.

Jim Demint: Hell yes! Except that he’s a senator, not an executive.

Fred Thompson: Not really. A guy who doesn’t even want to run for the Presidency will never win the primaries, let alone the 2012 general election.

Bobby Jindal: He’s an accomplished governor, but he’s too young, his opinions on most issues are not yet known, and he said that he does not want to run for the WH during the next presidential election.

Sarah Palin: She’s an accomplished governor, and has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. She scares the ‘Rats to death, electrifies crowds, and attracts more grassroots fans than any other Republican. She has over 2 million fans on FB, while no other Republican has even half a million fans on that website (except maybe Romney). She’s a conservative who, unlike all of us, had actually to PROVE herself as such, by making decisions about, for example, whether or not to abort her own child. Because of her policies, Alaska’s economy is growing, the state has a budget surplus, spending has been reduced during her term by 14% in real terms, and a new pipeline from AK to the CONUS is now being built by American workers. However, Palin has made her mistakes, she’s polarizing, and many Americans remain unconvinced that her 2009 resignation was the right choice for Alaska.

Mike Huckabee: The most liked of all Republicans, a damn likeable guy, Huckabee runs the most highly rated political cable news TV show these days. He has been consistently beating Obama in the polls for several months, and has served as governor for 10.5 years. But if America cannot trust him to protect Americans from criminals, how can he be trusted to protect Americans from OBL, Putin, Kim Jong Il, Ajad, Chavez and Assad?

Newt Gingrich: The best, most qualified, most accomplished of all the potential 2012 Republican candidates, bar none. He’s a towering giant compared to the others. He’s a staunch conservative and offers America a complete, specific, credible portfolio of CONSERVATIVE POLICIES which serve as stark alternatives to Obama’s socialist policies. The root cause is that Obama believes that adult Americans are utterly unable to manage themselves, their families and their businesses wisely, prudently and responsibly, and so, they need to be micromanaged by the federal government. Gingrich rejects this ludicrous belief, and considers Americans to be responsible adults who can easily be trusted with huge responsibilities.

IN SHORT: Newt Gingrich should be the GOP’s 2012 nominee.

Another reason why these guys are unfit for the Congress

There are dozens of reasons why Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), John Kerry (D-MA) and Carl Levin (D-MI) are unfit to serve in the Congress, let alone as chairmen of Senate Committees.

Here’s another reason:

All these Senators – along with other strident liberals such as Alan Cranston (D-CA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Mark Hatfield (R-OR) and William Cohen (R-ME) – voted AGAINST a statute which provided for a death penalty for any terrorist who kills any American citizen abroad.

79 Senators – including most Democrats (who controlled the Senate back then and control it now) and most Republicans (including even Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, John McCain and Ted Stevens) voted for it.

Yet, Levin, Kerry and Harkin voted AGAINST it, and believe that a terrorist who murders an American citizen does not deserve the death penalty. (Such a punishment is constitutional, because according to the SCOTUS – which decides what is constitutional – the death penalty is appropriate for those who murder their victims).

Unfortunately, Carl Levin is the current Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and John Kerry is the current Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

How dare Kerry – a guy who voted AGAINST the death penalty for terrorists who murder American citizens – lecture anyone on nat-sec-related affairs? How dare he lecture a former governor of his state on anything? How dare he lecture anyone on anything?

The roll call vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=1&vote=00275

McCain is an evil man

Some people claim that McCain is a hero. They’re lying. McCain is an evil man, not a hero. A few interesting facts about McCain:

1) McLame used his daddy to get to the USNA and the Flight School;
2) McLame insulted Ronald Reagan by mocking him and other people afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease;
3) McLame is the chief perpetrator of the Keating Five scandal which cost American taxpayers $160 billion;
4) McLame lied repeatedly about many issues, e.g. Romney’s policy on Iraq, his amnesty bills, taxation, the McCain-Lieberman bill, etc.
5) McLame acted as “the Vietnamese songbird”, according to the Swift Boat Veterans;
6) McLame prevented the families of Vietnam war era POWs (the ones not repatriated by the DRV after 1973) to find out whether these POWs were still alive;
7) McLame assaulted a person who was in a wheelchair (http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/1670).

McCain is NOT a hero. Heroes don’t assault disabled people, lie, give military info to their enemies, nor perpetrate scandals. Heroes don’t insult Alzheimer-disease-afflicted people. Heroes don’t need their fathers to get accepted to an academy or a school. McCain is not a hero, he’s an evil man. Period.

McCain is NOT an expert on military issues – he’s incompetent on those affairs

Yesterday, I received a MAF newsletter about Afghanistan. MAF wrongly claimed that:

“Now we have Senator John McCain one of the earliest adopters of The Surge in Iraq, which led to a win there, adopting a similar position when it comes to Afghanistan. Senator McCain, a hero of the Vietnam war, is one of the most respected voices in Washington when it comes to military issues and military strategy. Regardless of how you feel about the rest of his policy standpoints, its hard to argue that McCain doesnt understand our troops and doesnt understand warfare.”

I sent a reply to MAF, which was as follows:

“Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in response to the scandalous newsletter I’ve recently received from MAF about Senator McCain’s comments.

Among other things, you claimed that John McCain is “one of the most respected voices in Washington when it comes to military issues and military strategy”. That claim is false. McCain is not respected by anyone except his fellow liberals such as yourself, and people who are just as ignorant as he is about military affairs (which unfortunately includes many people). That unfortunately means that many people take him seriously and listen to him, instead of rejecting his ridiculous policies.

It is very easy to argue that McCain doesn’t understand warfare. He doesn’t. His military policies are ridiculous.

Not widely known is the fact that he promised to cut the defense budget by a whopping $160 billion if elected, in his first year as president. McCain has regularly railed against crucial defense programs such as the F-22, airborne laser, C-17, C-130J and FCS programs. His military policies are singularly focused on, and limited to, Iraq and Afghanistan, ignoring all other threats to America, including the very real risks of war with China, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Venezuela as well as the ongoing Cold War with Putinist Russia. He’s singularly obsessed with Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s also an ardent proponent of nuclear disarmament, a disastrous policy that will deprive America of its nuclear deterrent. McCain is clearly no expert on warfare or military affairs.
McCain’s ignorance is also exhibited by the numerous gaffes he committed, including a plan to deploy BMD in “Czechoslovakia”, and a claim that there is an “Iraq/Pakistan border”.

Regarding McCain’s call to double the number of American Marines in Afghanistan, his policy is a disastrously oversimplified policy, and McCain clearly hasn’t even considered what’s wrong with Afghanistan and what would the real remedies be before proposing his oversimplified policy.

Moreover, additional Marines will not change anything nor solve any problems. This is a war that cannot be won simply by sending additional troopers to Afghanistan. During the 1980s, the Soviet Union had 150,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, but it failed to win the Afghan war nevertheless. This war cannot be won with additional troopers. What must change is the strategy, the tactics and the equipment. McCain is ignorant of this fact and that’s why he proposed his gimmick.

Calling McCain, who is a false hero, an expert on any military issues is an insult to the 2.6 million members of the United States military. I therefore unequivocally demand that you publicly issue a correction of your newsletter.

Yours sincerely,

Zbigniew Mazurak”

I neglected to mention that McCain cheered, and voted for, Obama’s disastrous defense cuts prescribed for FY2010 and fought all Republicans who tried to prevent those defense cuts. McCain is an incompetent Senator who doesn’t deserve any political office.

Why China is a threat to America

Fred Thompson (who, along with John McCain and 81 other American senators, voted for the MFN status for China), is dangerously naive about China. They claimed that there are only some questions about China’s “peaceful rise”. (However, McCain wisely called on China and Russia to be excluded from the decision-making table and would pursue hawkish foreign policies versus them. Cato Institute, by criticising him, has proven that he’s a hawkish conservative.) Actually, China is a totalitarian state which is now arming itself with ICBMs, SLBMs, subs, planes, surface ships, tanks and other weapons. How does it pay for them? With cash earned for its cheap, defective exports, which China subsidises by 40%. The AFP claimed that the truth that China is annually undervaluing its currency by 40% is an allegation. The AFP also noted China’s growing annual trade surplus vis-a-vis America (which China spends on ships, planes and missiles).

Giuliani is also naive about China; he said that China is a great opportunity for America and that Americans should welcome China as a global player.

Among the weapons that the Chinese are procuring are:
1) Aircraft carriers. They’ve already bought 2 ex-Russian carriers (incl. the “Varyag” (“Viking”) ship) and are now building an indigeneous carrier.
2) SSNs.
3) Conventional SSNs (e.g. Kilo-class subs). One such vessel was stalking CV-63 in 2006 and then emerged close enough to that carrier to sink it. Until it resurfaced, neither the CAW nor the escort ships nor their helicopters could detect that submarine.
4) Dong Feng ICBMs.
5) Su jets, including Su-27s, J-11s and Su-30s. (Su-27s are equally as good as F-15C/Ds but superior to F-16s).
6) Ju Lang SLBMs, which are arming China’s growing fleet of SSBNs.
7) Other types of missiles (including air-to-air missiles ranged far longer than American rockets, even AIM-120s).
8) SSBNs.

The Chinese ballistic submarine fleet will numerically match the British and French ballistic sub fleets – although the Chinese one includes one diesel-powered vessel and one Xia-class vessel (both prone to ASW equipment, but Globalsecurity.org wrote about the Xia-class sub that “Although the range of the JL-l limits the XIA’s utility as a deterrent platfonn, targets throughout the region, including US military facilities, could be targeted with the J-l from launch points inside traditional Chinese Navy operating areas.”). The latter will be retired in 2015, when the Chinese ballistic missile submarine fleet will numerically exceed the British and French fleets because it will have one diesel-powered sub and 4 Jin-class SSBNs (so its SSBN fleet will numerically match the British and French fleets).
By 2020, the combined submarine fleet of the Chinese Navy, numbering 78 subs (71 subs in 2015), will outnumber the combined submarine fleet of the USN, which currently consists of 18 Ohio-class, 48 LA-class, 3 Seawolf-class and 4 Virginia-class vessels, for a total of 73 vessels.

Globalsecurity.org wrote that “A ballistic missile submarine fleet would enhance Beijing’s assurance of an effective retaliatory capability, as well as strengthening her deterrent posture.” http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/type_92.htm

The Chinese military also has 1524 fighterplanes (the PLAAF and the PLAN combined), which fleet will grow to 2025 fighterplanes in 2015 (the PLAAF and the PLAN combined). Together with the Russian military, it already outnumbers the combined fighterplane fleet of the American military. Currently the PLAAF has 1250 such planes while the PLAN has 274. By 2015 the total will include 1800 jets of the PLAAF and 225 jets of the PLAN. Then there are 25 JH-7 fighterplanes of the PLAAF, which will be joined by 175 JH-7 jets of the PLAAF by 2015, 24 J-11 jets of the PLAN, and 20 JH-7 jets of the PLAN, which will be joined by 30 JH-7 jets of this branch of the PLA by 2015. So by 2015, the PLA will have 2299 fighterplanes – more than the USAF has. Their JF-17 jets are inferior to F-16s and F-15C/Ds alike, let alone 5th generation American jets, but they account for only a tiny fraction of the plane fleet of the PLA. F-10s and Su-30MKK (K=China) are as good as F-16s and F-15C/Ds; F-11Bs are superior to them all (as are Indian Su-30MKIs).

MiG-29SMTs, JF-17s and F-10s are superior to American jets by electronic attack equipment. Su-30MKKs and F-11Bs are superior to American planes on that count as well as weapon loads and unrefueled operational radiuses. Su-30MKIs can boast all that and are more maneuvrable than American jets. All of these planes can track as many as 10 targets simoultaneously and engage them with their decent missiles.

Chinese unmodified PL-12 missiles can be launched slightly farther than American AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles; Chinese modified PL-12 missiles and Russian KS-172 rockets are much longer ranged than AIM-120s. As are Russian R-77 (AA-12) missiles, which, with a range of 108.7 miles, are superior to American AMRAAMs (whose range is only 60 miles). (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AA-12_Adder; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMRAAM).

The Chinese military also has 188 strategic bombers (the PLAAF and the PLAN combined) – the PLAAF has 120, the PLAN has 68. Together with the Russian military, it already outnumbers the strategic bomber fleet of the USAF (the USN has no strategic bombers).

The Chinese are also building a secret underground naval base in Sanya, Hainan Province, where they will house 20 submarines and “a host of carriers”, according to the Daily Telegraph. The base will host 20 subs indeed. It’s being built at the southern tip of the Hainan Province. There is also a Naval Air Station in Sanya.

The Chinese also have a network of SAMs and decoy silos. And they’re buying and building more of them.

The land branch of the PLA is also strong – its arsenal includes 7010 tanks, 1200 self-propelled cannons and 6000 antitank missiles. China is now developing a new tank type, Type 99.

China’s annual military budget is $125 bn, according to the Pentagon, i.e. twice more than Britain’s annual defence spending ($60 bn and shrinking). However, China is militarily stronger than these aggregate stats would suggest. Firstly, in China, one dollar can buy much more than in Britain or America. Secondly, China spends its monies wiser than the British MOD and the Pentagon. The British MOD spends large sums on expensive, inferior European military equipment (produced in Europe), rather than on cheap, decent, British-produced British and American weapons. For example, rather than buy 232 stealthy F-35B fighterplanes, which can take off from land bases and carriers alike, the MOD has bought 232 EF-2000 (Typhoon) jets that are not stealthy nor flexible, and are twice as expensive as F-35Bs. As for the Pentagon, the Congress has forced it to waste huge sums on maintaining old planes (for parochial reasons) rather than buy new ones.

Some American pacifists have alleged that China’s military spending is “proportional” to its “legitimate defence needs”, but they’re liars. Firstly, China’s military investment is nominally excessive; secondly, it’s disproportional also, because China is not threatened by any state that would justify such a huge military investment ($125 bn). China is a belligerent actor that plans to fight the Tibetans, nuke America, conquer Taiwan and aid the DPRK if a second Korean War starts.

China will start rivalling the US by winning more gold medals than America during the 2008 Olympics (which Dubya refused to boycott).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/2308979/Beijing-Olympics-Battle-for-gold-offers-China-first-chance-to-defeat-America.html

A reply to Kyle-Anne Shiver’s plan for the ME

Yesterday, a friend of mine, Kyle-Anne Shiver, published her ME-related plan. She called on VT to be expelled from the Union and on the same state to be given to the Jews. That is to say, she called on the Vermonters to swap countries with the Jews.
She rightly based her plan on the reason that the Vermonters produced Howard Dean, but she omitted to mention another infamous anti-American Vermonter, Jess Bachman, who has produced a doctored poster depicting the US Federal Government’s FY2009 budget. This poster is unfair because it, and its webpage description, have unfairly classified many non-military expenditures as “military” and claimed that only the discretionary budget is a credible testimony on the USFG’s “priorities”. Jess also argued with me for a long time about how the DOD is supposedly overfunded.

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

And sorry, Kyle-Anne, but no plan for the ME will work unless America becomes independent from foreign oil. Unless she does, America will need to guard the ME’s oil reserves against her competitors. Let me unveil the Philadelphian Project, which will address this issue, today. The Philadelphian Project, named after Philadelphia (the city where the American Declaration Of Independence and the US Constitution were written, adopted and unveiled), is a compilation of my recommendations for the US Federal Government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution

http://iflynavy.w.interia.pl/thephiladelphianproject.doc

Although a similar project (the Lexingtonian Project) prepared by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is imperfect, McCain nevertheless deserves to be praised for it, because his plan is better than Obama’s.

America needs a better economic stimulus

Photo by the Gazeta Agency.

During the Floridian Republican Debate, moderated by Tim Russert of MSNBC, Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee called on the US government to spend more on freeways, and rightly claimed that the US economy would be stimulated if it did.

Huckabee thus echoed US Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who was criticised for his proposal by Michelle Malkin. source

But the USA’s infrastructure – while it’s great – cannot be taken for granted. It needs to be radically improved.

What America needs is a new freeway Act, which will radically expand the American freeway network, which, although it is 75000 kms long, is scarce compared to the giant American territory (the US is the world’s 3rd largest country after Russia and Canada). Also, several American freeways (e.g. the I-405 and the I-5) are overcongested, so the existing freeways must be modernised.

This is a list of my proposals – a list of the freeways that should be built or modernised. Examples:

1) the part of the US-1 road from Miami to Key West should become a freeway;
2) All US Army, USMC and USN bases, and some USAF bases (e.g. Davis-Monthan AFB), should be connected to each other by freeways;
3) the Hot Springs National Park should be connected to the freeway network;
4) as should be 4 villages around Lake Winnipesaukee (NH);
5) Alaska should be connected to Canada by a freeway.

America depends on freeways, which are the ways through which most American passengers travel. Not railways. Not airports. Not ships. It is freeways that are most commonly used by the American people. If built, my proposed freeways would:
1) reduce ‘travel times’;
2) de-congest American roads;
3) save fuel;
4) reduce GHG emissions;
5) reduce the number of people dying each year;
6) give the US military a better road network (which was important for the US to win the American-Soviet War (1945-1991) and the First Gulf War (1991))
7) return $6 for every $1 invested in them to the American people; and
8) make America even more democratic than it is now, by allowing people to travel freely.

As of today, $50 bn of the $150 bn economic stimulus has not yet been given by the US government, so rather than give it, it should improve the American freeway network, so that Americans will have more roads like the one depicted in the photo included in this post.

The USA’s future President should choose either Huckabee or Giuliani as his Transportation Secretary. Both of them have plans that would improve the USA’s infrastructure.

On August 3rd, 2007, Melanie Morgan claimed that the residents of Minnesota are no longer endangered after the I-35 bridge collapsed:

There’s one big difference between the bridge collapse and the terrorist attacks of September 2001: the imminent danger to the residents of Minnesota has now passed; the danger our citizens face from Islamic jihadists has not.

Melanie Morgan’s article

No, Melanie, the residents of Minnesota (and all other Americans) are STILL endangered by America’s infrastructure, which is great, but insufficient for 300 million Americans who are employed by the world’s #1 economy. You are wrong, Melanie. Americans will only be safe when their infrastructure, for which they pay usurious taxes (like the federal diesel excise), will be modernised.

And, as Rudolph Giuliani said some months ago, the federal government cannot mend this alone. It needs partners – state and local governments.