James Antle lies on behalf of Mitch Daniels

W. James Antle seems to be a fan of Mitch Daniels.

Recently, he’s written a ridiculous propaganda column on behalf of the current governor of Indiana. (http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/05/mitch-daniels)

This column (and the associated blog post) constitute yet another BS article and BS blog post by James Antle.

Antle wrote in his blog post:

“My cover story on Mitch Daniels should be online at some point in the near future, but I’ll weigh in with a few observations. He is pro-life and believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. His record is generally quite conservative, with the few blemishes being on taxes rather than social issues. And he does understand that when it comes to restoring the country to solvency, solving the entitlements crisis is more important than cutting the defense budget (though all spending needs to remain on the table).”

No, Mr Antle, Mitch Daniels is NOT pro-life – he’s a pro-abortion liberal who has called for “a truce” with the Dems on social issues so that the he can work with them to gut the military. And such a “truce” would be fake, because the Dems don’t need any “truce”. They’ve already accomplished almost all of their goals on social issues. Abortion on demand, without any limitations (not even a ban on transporting minors across state lines and not spousal notification) is the law of the land, as SCOTUS ruling. The Defense of Marriage Act has been ruled unconstitutional by federal courts; ESCR is financed by the federal government; 2 activist judges nominated by Obama have been confirmed to the SCOTUS; the Pledge of Allegiance and the 10 Commandments have been banned from the public square; and the Senate plans to repeal the DADT policy during the lame-duck session.

It is also untrue that Daniels is conservative on taxes and spending. Daniels is a tax-hiker (he has increased taxes on cigs), believes in AGW, and has spent taxpayers’ money on “renewable en.” projects. One AmSpec commenter has written that „Pawlenty is a an AGW proponent and “My Man Mitch” is supporting all kinds of renewable energy schemes and he is for constructing pipelines throughout Indiana to collect CO2 for burial in southern oil wells.” (http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/03/why-it-cant-be-sarah-palin)

Most worringly, Daniels has called for radical cuts of defense spending, which would utterly wreck the military and invite war against the US while not balancing the budget. (The defense budget is so small that even abolishing the DOD altogether would not balance the total federal budget.) Also, Mitch Daniels, who claims he’s a “numbers’ guy”, has proven that he knows nothing about defense spending. He claims it’s $800 bn per year. Actually, it amounted to $534 bn in FY2010, and together with the FY2010 GWOT supplemental, it constituted only $664 bn in FY2010, a paltry 4.5% of GDP.

Daniels is a strident liberal, and so is James Antle, who has praised him. Nominating Daniels for the presidency or the vice presidency would be a heinous betrayal of every conservative principle that Ronald Reagan espoused.

PS: Why can’t the US military afford any defense budget reductions?

Because the DOD budget is already too small (it constitutes a paltry 3.65% of GDP and just 14.87% of the federal budget), inadequate to provide for a strong defense, and America’s enemies (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela) are arming themselves to the teeth. They’re itching for a war.

Severely reducing defense spending would mean a weak, totally decrepit, totally impotent US military that would be utterly unable to defend the US even from Iran, let alone NK or China. The US military nowadays uses weapons produced during the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s, while America’s enemies are arming themselves with 1990s’ and 2000’s Russian, Chinese and native weaponry (Su-30s, Su-35s, Su-35BMs, J-10s, JF-17s, Sovremenny class vessels, etc.).

Also, the mathematical reality is that cutting defense spending is NOT necessary, nor would it significantly reduce the defense budget. Defense spending constitutes only 14.87% of the total federal budget, and the GWOT supplemental less than 4%. 81.5% of the total federal budget is purely civilian spending. That is the spending which must be radically reduced. Even a TOTAL ABOLITION of the defense budget ($534 bn in FY2010, $549 bn proposed for FY2011) would not even HALVE the budget deficit, let alone balance the budget. Even with the DOD completely abolished, you would still have had an almost $800-bn-dollar budget deficit in FY2010.

The budget could be easily balanced if the Congress bothered to dramatically reduce bloated domestic spending (entitlements, subsidy programs, welfare programs, etc.). And it is the ONLY way to balance the budget.


UPDATE: Yesterday, an AmSpec commenter by the name of Sandy agreed with me about Mitch Daniels, writing:

Zbigniew Mazurak- I am with you all the way, particularly with respect to the defense issue. At a time when America’s enemies are ramping up, and our current president is apologizing for how bad America is, the last place to cut the budget is in defense. After Clinton all but decimated our military, equipment,and weapons, we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq “with the army that we had” rather than with the army that the world’s superpower should have had. We are lucky we did as well as we did, and that credit goes to our finest and bravest, working on shoestrings.

I am please that Daniels has been saying what he has, as we have the chance to “vet” him before he throws his hat in the ring. So far he has-

Peed on the Social conservatives in calling for a “truce” on social issues. We just threw out many immoral social engineers, that have worked diligently to denigrate the traditional morals this country was founded on. It is the 60’s “if it feels good do it” hippies that are now in power in Washington. Pro-life rhetoric has not decreased, it has been very loud and very vocal in this election cycle particularly. Same sex marriage has been voted down in almost every state by that states voters over the past few years, except of course in Daniels ID.

Peed of the National defense conservatives, for the reasons I listed above.

Peed off the fiscal conservatives with his support for a VAT.

Peed off the Tea Party people with his comment about the Republicans running some bad candidates. I wonder who he means- no doubt O’Donnell, Angle, Buck and Miller. I suspect he would have been on board with the elite class in DC who shunned Rubio for Crist. No doubt he would prefer Murkowski to Miller.

There really aren’t many more segments of the voting public that he can appeal to, except of course the Progressives. His positions all lean that way.”

The comment was written on November 6th, 2010, 10:54AM.
UPDATE: As of FY2010, the federal government maintained 2,001 subsidy programs, ranging from the food stamp program to subsidies for ethanol producers, corn growers, and Amtrak. Why do politicians continue to single out the DOD for spending cuts, rather than these subsidy programs? Because they depend on them (and the constituencies which benefit from them and will vote against any politician who opposes these 2,001 subsidy programs). AT contributor John Watson has written that:

We are facing deficits that can and will cripple our nation if not addressed. Perhaps our new Congress should look at cutting subsidies as part of our efforts to reduce our spending and thus our deficit. As of January, there are now more than 2,000 federal subsidies. Many, if not most, are imprudent or even absurd in today’s world. In May, we provided a subsidy of over $140 million to Brazilian cotton farmers.

The government subsidizes products that cannot survive on their own, such as ethanol, bio fuels and wind farms, to name a few. When these products are ready for prime time on their own, they will supplant other fuels via the free market, but now, without subsidies, these technologies are prohibitively expensive. Hiding their true costs in subsidies is dishonest, in that we all pay for it in increased government spending, more taxation and higher deficits.”



Sarkozy says that Western media are biased against Russia

Oh boy. Sarkozy is such a desperate pro-Russian appeaser that he will not refrain from saying ANYTHING to appease Moscow.

I’ve recently found the videoclip posted below. It’s from a December 2007 press conference, during which Sarkozy claimed that the Western media are biased against Russia. He also claimed that the 2007 Russian parliamentary election was fair.

Sarkozy lied. The truth is that almost all Western media (except FN and a few newspapers) are biased in favor of Russia. They never criticize Russia, always present it in a positive light, and always present the West (or the US) as the culprit/aggressor/troublemaker.

And only a blind person (e.g. a pro-Russian appeaser) could seriously claim that the 2007 Russian parliamentary election was fair. Most Russian parties didn’t even bother to partake in it. The results were fabricated by the Kremlin.