Tag Archives: america

There is a candidate…

Folks, on January 3rd, Iowa Republicans will cast their votes for their preferred candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination, with voters in other states to follow suit thereafter. I know that most Republican candidates want a credible candidate who is conservative across the board, doesn’t have a lot of baggage, and can defeat Barack Obama.

Does any of the 9 contenders fit that description? Yes.

There is a candidate who is conservative across the board – on social, economic, and defense/foreign policy issues, one who will protect unborn children, defend traditional marriage, cut and simplify taxes, eliminate unconstitutional federal agencies, rein in all three branches of the federal government, and reverse President Obama’s defense cuts.

There is a candidate who has always, consistently, been a conservative, because his conservative views are informed by his political principles and his religious and moral convictions.

There is a candidate who is not afraid to take on Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the liberal judges on the SCOTUS bench to uproot Washington DC, and recognizes that merely trimming around the edges won’t do.

There is a candidate who has served his Country in the military, as a volunteer, around the world, not sitting in the United States safely in military bases like Ron Paul did.

There is a candidate who has stayed married, and loyal, to his wife, his childhood sweatheart whom he married in 1982. He has never had any affairs, despite certain rumors to the contrary.

There is a candidate who doesn’t apologize for his conservative views and doesn’t pander to people, instead saying what he truly thinks.

There is a candidate who believes America is a shining beacon for the world, not the cause of all world evil as some claim.

There is a candidate who is such a loyal friend of Israel that he has received the Defender of Jerusalem Award.

There is a candidate who has decades of experience of governing and leading, and during that time has built a conservative record, cutting taxes, cutting spending, reducing the size and scope of government, securing America’s southern border, and creating a pro-business environment.

That candidate is the current Governor of Texas, Rick Perry.


My proposal of a defense/foreign policy consensus

There is currently a debate ongoing in the Republican Party and in the American electorate at large whether or not to cut defense spending, and if so, by how much; what weapon systems to nix, if any; which missions and commitments to end; how to size the military; which allies to defend; and when, if ever, to intervene militarily abroad.

Unsurprisingly, extremists on both sides of the spectrum are demanding extremist, damaging policies. Libertarians and liberals want to deeply cut defense spending (while claiming it that it still hasn’t been cut), modernization programs, the military’s force structure, and end strength; end all commitments to all of America’s allies; and renounce military interventions abroad completely, hiding behind oceans and retrenching into an illusory “Fortress America”, despite the fact that one nuclear weapon, delivered by a Chinese, Russian, or North Korean ICBM at a high altitude above the US, would set America back to the dark age. On the other hand, neocon promiscous interventionists want the US to involve itself in every war around the world without Congressional authorization.

Both of these sides are wrong. Both of their policies are wrong and unfeasible. However, contrary to the claims of those like Jarrett Steppman of HE who claim that these are the only foreign policy options available to the US government and to the voters, there is a third option, which is much better than the other two. I first outlined this foreign policy philosophy on Conservatives4Palin.com in early 2011 and repeated it, in more detail, in the pages of the American Thinker in October.

I propose the following defense/foreign policy consensus:

1) The US must always have a strong defense and must generously fund it (so the defense cuts ordered by the debt ceiling deal and the sequester should be completely reversed), and equip it with all it needs. Funding should be prioritized and devoted first and foremost to those missions most critical to America’s survival: nuclear deterrence, missile defense, cyberdefense, long range strike, and homeland defense. However, other missions should be funded adequately, too.

2) That does not, however, mean that taxpayers should write a blank check to the Pentagon. Because the DOD has been tasked with the government’s most important function, waste at the DOD is even less excusable than waste at other government agencies. The Secretary of Defense must review the entire budget, line by line, excise everything that is not necessary, and reinvest the money in those programs that are critical to America’s survival. He should start with his own travel budget, which Secretary Panetta has been abusing.

3) The US should continue to defend its treaty allies, provided that they are willing to invest seriously in defending themselves. As President Nixon said, “We shall do our share in keeping peace around the world. But we shall expect others to do their share.”

4) The US should intervene militarily abroad only when its crucial interests or key allies are threatened and only if all non-war means of ending the crisis have been tried and failed. If there is an imminent threat to America (e.g. if enemy SSBNs have been detected off US shores, or if terrorists have acquired a nuclear weapon, or a rogue state is threatening an imminent launch of ballistic missiles), the President should intervene immediately; but if there is no imminent threat, the President must ask for Congressional authorization.

Those are the basic principles and policies of the defense/foreign affairs consensus that I’m proposing. You know who originally invented these ideas? It wasn’t me. It was President Reagan. His policy of rebuilding the military and funding it generously while intervening, after 1983, only in countries where the US REALLY needed to intervene was not only the right policy, it was a very popular policy which helped him win the presidential elections of 1980 and 1984 by a landslide. And I’m absolutely sure that it would be a very popular policy today, if embraced by a presidential candidate.

According to a recent poll, 82% of Americans oppose the sequester’s defense cuts and didn’t want the Super Committee  to impose any further budget cuts on the Pentagon, either. According to other polls, 52%-57% of Americans oppose any defense budget cuts. But at the same time, polls show that a majority of Americans wants American troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible. So a majority of Americans – possibly even a huge majority – professes an opinion on these issues that is practically the same as my policy proposal.

I hope at least one Republican Presidential candidate will embrace it.

Definite proof that Obama’s reset policy has abysmally failed

In 2009, President Obama initiated a policy of “reset” with Russia, i.e. a policy of unilateral concessions and capitulations to Russia based, in the best case, on the naive hope that Russia would reciprocate. As was bound to happen with any policy of unilateral concessions, it has failed: Russia has not reciprocated at all.

Yet, for the last 2.5 years, President Obama, his Administration, and leftist media around the world have been feeding the American people with BS propaganda that Obama had supposedly repaired relations with Russia, that this was “an unqualified success”, and that the “reset” policy has produced real, big benefits for the US, and cited the disastrous New START treaty – which favors Russia – as one of those benefits.

This was never true, and I’ve disproven this a few times already. Now Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has put the final nail in the coffin of the “reset” policy, by publicly threatening to withdraw Russia from the New START treaty, refuse to sign any new arms reduction agreements, strengthen Russia’s nuclear deterrent, and deploy Iskander ballistic missiles in the Kaliningradskaya Oblast along its border with Poland if the US deploys ANY missile defense systems in Europe. That is, Russia is demanding that the US forego ANY plans to deploy ANY missile defense systems in Europe.

BBC News reports that:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned that missiles could be deployed on the EU’s borders if the US pursues its missile defence plans.

In a televised statement, he said “modern weapons systems” could be deployed in Kaliningrad if Russia, the US and Nato failed to come to a deal.

He added that Moscow may opt out of the New Start arms deal agreed with the US.

Washington wants an anti-missile shield ready by 2020 but Moscow considers the idea a threat to its nuclear forces.

The US says the shield is intended to provide protection from the potential missile threat posed by countries like Iran.

Washington had originally intended to locate major parts of its missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic under Bush-era plans.

But Russia had objected vigorously, and when President Obama took office he scaled-back these ambitions.

However, Moscow has yet to be satisfied that the revised plans do not pose a threat to its interests.

BBC actually worded its news article mildly. Russia is demanding a total cessation of any plans to deploy any ballistic missile defense systems in Europe.


Obama has once again proven he knows nothing about defense issues

America’s worst president ever, Barack Obama, has once again proven he knows nothing about defense issues, including the defense budget. During his recent Twitter interview with the voters and with Democratic plants, Obama was asked (apparently by a Democratic plant) a question about whether he plans to cut defense spending to reduce the budget deficit. Obama replied:

“The nice thing about the defense budget is it’s so big, it’s so huge, that a 1 percent reduction is the equivalent of the education budget. Not—I’m exaggerating, but it’s so big that you can make relatively modest changes to defense that end up giving you a lot of head room to fund things like basic research or student loans or things like that.”

To borrow a line from Herman Cain: Mr President, with all due respect, you’re wrong.

Obama was wrong. With that reply, he has proven that he knows nothing about defense issues, including the defense budget. Firstly, the defense budget for FY2011 (the current fiscal year) is $530 billion, and the DOD’s base budget request for FY2012 is $553 billion. 1% of these sums is a microscopic $5.3-$5.5 billion, equals just 4.5% of the federal education budget (i.e. the budget of the federal Department of Education), which is $122 billion for the current FY. This is even less than the 7% that the Heritage Foundation claimed.

Cutting the defense budget by $5.5 billion would not provide enough money for student loans nor for basic research programs. And although Obama has not explained what he means by “modest changes”, it’s likely that for him, even cutting the defense budget by 15-20% would be a chump change.

And although he admitted that “We can’t just lop 25% off the defense budget overnight” and that the US military has legitimate equipment needs that must be funded, he nonetheless insisted that defense cuts are needed, prudent, required by a “strategy”, justifiable, and safe for America – which they are not.

As the DOD has reported on its website, Obama said during the Twitter interview that:

“Though he is committed to cutting the Defense Department budget as part of the overall reduction in the federal deficit, U.S.security and strategic needs must drive the effort, President Barack Obama said yesterday in his first Twitter town hall meeting.

Obama said he conducted the meeting to find out what the public thinks about how to reduce the federal deficit, what costs should be cut and which investments should be kept.

Responding to suggestions for cuts in the defense budget, the president said that is not an easy task.

“We can’t simply lop off 25 percent off the defense budget overnight,” he said. “We have to think about all the obligations we have to our troops who are in the field, and making sure they’re properly equipped and safe.” The need to replace outdated military equipment is another budget consideration, the president added.

“We’ve ended the war in Iraq, our combat mission there, and all our troops are slated to be out by the end of this year,” Obama said. And as Afghan forces take more responsibility for their country’s security, he added, U.S. forces will draw down there as well. But drawing down forces and beginning a new phase in Afghanistan must be done “fairly gradually,” he said.

Obama said that while decisions to cut defense spending will be tough, a reduction requires a balanced approach, as with any government program, to shrink the overall federal budget.

“Those who say that we can’t cut military at all haven’t spent a lot of time looking at military budgets,” he added.

However, the president said, the reductions must take place with the nation’s security in mind.

“One of the things that we have to do is make sure that we do it in a thoughtful way that’s guided by our security and our strategic needs,” he said. “And I think we can accomplish that.””

Actually, I have spent more time “looking at”, reading, analyzing, describing, and devising amendments to, America’s (and Britain’s) defense budgets, as anyone who reads my blog and my articles knows. I’ve spent much more time doing it than Barack Obama or any other Democratic politician has. I’ve spent ca. 90% of my spare time doing so during the last 4 years. America can afford to withdraw its troopers from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and to zero its spending on these countries and the GWOT, but it cannot afford to reduce the size of its defense tooth or its base defense budget (which is already too small).

Obama claims that “our security and our strategic needs” should guide defense budget cuts and he thinks “we can accomplish that.” That is not true. One cannot accomplish defense budget cuts that would be consistent with America’s defense needs and strategic needs. Those needs dictate that defense spending be increased, not decreased. They do not require defense spending cuts; quite the contrary is true.

Therefore, one cannot credibly claim that “US security needs and strategy must drive the effort to cut defense spending.”

Moreover, it is ridiculous for him to claim that any cuts he will make to defense spending and America’s military will be justified by strategy. They will not. They will likely be arbitrary cuts that will weaken the US military. Moreover, they will be made SOLELY to meet Obama’s diktat of cutting defense spending by $400 bn over the next 12 years. Moreover, the DOD will likely lie that these cuts are justified, make up some excuses, and produce some “strategy” that will pretend to justify these unjustifiable defense cuts. (That’s what it did in 2010 with the QDR – it was written solely to justify Gates’ unjustifiable defense cuts.)

By ordering the DOD to cut defense spending by $400 billion, Obama has put the cart before the horse. He has ordered massive defense spending cuts and has told the DOD to find out how exactly to make these cuts.

I am appalled, but not surprised, by the fact that Obama is “committed” to reducing defense spending. He’s a wimpy weak Dhimmicrat, just like almost all of his party colleagues.


The Heritage Foundation has rightly commented that:

“The President’s accounting failures aside, there’s an even bigger problem at work. Obama is of the belief that, for starters, $400 billion can be cut from the defense budget over the next 10 years without putting the military at risk. That’s in addition to the approximately $400 billion already cut by the Administration during the previous two years. In turn, he would take those dollars and apply them to pay for his pet projects at home.

The President is proposing those cuts irrespective of the military’s needs.

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that ill-conceived cuts to defense spending could increase America’s vulnerability in a “complex and unpredictable security environment” and that “the ultimate guarantee against the success of aggressors, dictators, and terrorists in the 21st century, as in the 20th, is hard power—the size, strength, and global reach of the United States military.”

But with the President’s proposed cuts, America’s base defense budget would be at its lowest point in more than 60 years (as a percentage of America’s GDP). Meanwhile, the threats Gates spoke of continue to materialize, while challenges remain in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and throughout the Middle East.

And then there’s the state of U.S. forces. Secretary Gates and the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel have agreed that the U.S. went on a “procurement holiday” in the 1990s. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz has stated that the present fleet of 187 F–22 fighters creates a high risk for the U.S. military in meeting its operational demands. The U.S. Navy has the fewest number of ships since America’s entrance into World War I. And yet the President sees fit to slash defense?

Contrary to Obama’s belief, the defense budget is not an ATM from which he can pull cash to pay for other projects. And he certainly can’t do it without causing further damage to U.S. military readiness. The Constitution demands that the U.S. government provide for the common defense. That’s a fact the President should keep in mind as he looks for ways to increase domestic spending amid a debt crisis.”

Sadly, yes, Obama sees it fit to deeply cut defense spending, as do his party colleagues and most Republicans (with few honorable exceptions such as Howard McKeon, Allen West, and Randy Forbes) – despite the fact that the PLAN is already larger than the US Navy, Russia and China are waging an arms race against the US, the Russian Navy has more SSBNs than the USN, the USAF’s current fleet of aircraft is the smallest and the oldest it has ever flown (with an average aircraft age of 24 years), the USAF’s ICBMs date back to the 1970s and need to be replaced,the USAF has only 20 stealthy bombers, and access-denial weapons are making current and potential future war theaters unsurvivable and unaccessible for nonstealthy aircraft and warships. The US military has huge legitimate modernization needs, yet both Democrats AND Republicans are committed to radically reducing defense spending, as is Obama.

It is utterly unacceptable for Obama to use defense spending as an ATM from which to finance his pet projects.


China is not America’s banker

China is not America’s banker, contrary to what many people have claimed. They’ve also claimed that because China is supposedly America’s banker, America must continue the Kissingerian policy of appeasement towards China. But they’re wrong.

China is not America’s banker. China must buy American T-bonds because it cannot buy anything else. It cannot buy the T-bonds of other countries, nor gold, nor anything else. The huge amount of money that China earns every year on exports is so big that it can be invested only in American T-bonds.

America doesn’t need to ask China to buy US T-bonds, because it could ask someone else to do so (e.g. Japan). Most of America’s public debt is NOT owed to China. 40% of it is owed to the Federal Reserve and other governmental agencies; i.e. this part is owed by one part of the US government to another. Of the other 60% part, only a small part is owed to China. Most of the foreign debt owed by the US to foreign countries is NOT owed to China.

Also, America is China’s biggest export market. The US can buy cheap products from emerging countries other than China (e.g. Vietnam, India), so it doesn’t need China as a producer. (If the Congress instituted protective tariffs, America wouldn’t need any imported products from anyone, except fuels, and the American industry would rebound.) But China cannot survive without America as an export market. 17.7% of China’s export goes to the US. America is China’s biggest export market. China’s total exported cargos, as of 2008, were worth $1435 bn. 17.7% of 1435 bn is $253.995 bn. Only an economic suicider would give up such a huge amount of money. And China would do so if it ruined the US economy (e.g. by selling its stock of American T-bonds).


America doesn’t need China. But China needs America.

Why America needs the FairTax

Today is April 15th, Tax Day. By this deadline, all American taxpayers must complete and send their federal tax forms. As a dear friend of mine remarked on Jefferson’s birthday, “he would be horrified to learn that I’m spending his birthday doing my *FEDERAL* taxes!”

She’s right. He would be. Because it’s unacceptable that hard-working Americans who have to pay their state and local taxes and (in most states) complete their state and local tax forms, must also do this unnecessary, long, costly paperwork of figuring how much they owe the feds and complete their federal tax forms.

The federal tax code, measuring 66,000 pages, is an extremely complicated mess. It’s extremely expensive to comply with – for individuals and businesses alike. They, combined, spend $265 bn per year to just figure out how much they owe. That’s $265 bn per year that could be used for more productive purposes. That’s effectively a 22.2% tax surcharge on every tax dollar you pay.

For small businesses, the compliance cost of this huge, complex tax code is so high that it actually exceeds the cost of tax rates themselves. Every year they pay $3-4 just to comply with the federal tax code per every tax dollar they pay to the federal government. That is, the compliance costs of the federal tax code are, for small businesses, 3-4 times higher than federal tax rates!

America cannot afford this complex Marxist tax code any longer. And no, Chairman Ryan’s “tax reform proposal” (which is actually an old, rehashed RSC proposal which would create another complex Marxist tax code on top of the existing one) is not a serious proposal, not even at the first glance.

The ONLY way to solve this program is the FairTax, which would entirely abolish the current tax code and the IRS, and to repeal the 16th Amendment.


Julian Assange is a false hero. No wonder why Libertarians like him.

Libertarians (who, like Assange, hate America), have been portraying Julian Assange as a hero, and his cause as the cause of free speech. They’re mistaken.

Free speech is the right to freely preach and publish YOUR OWN opinions, claims, products, and documents – not those of other people. Even if you discount laws protecting classified information (which was classified for good reasons), there is still copyright law. In no civilized country in the world are you allowed, under any circumstances, to publish other people’s products and documents without the express permission of the author, unless they’ve relinquished copyright or have themselves slated the speicfic products or documents to be published.

In no civilized country in the world are you allowed to publish someone else’s bills, checks, account balance sheets, or private documents. No one except the recipient of a letter is authorized to publish it. There are many people sitting in prisons around the world right now for violation of this legal principle.

As for “secrecy laws”, former SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld refuted this argument on Nov. 30th, 2010, when he wrote on FB: “I was an original co-sponsor of the FOIA in 1966. There is a legal, appropriate way for declassifying information. It is not Wikileaks.”

What Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning have done is not “fight for free speech”, merely a casual crime, motivated by anti-Americanism, i.e. racism.

Also, I would like to note that:

1) Why the media hoopla about it? What is so extraordinary about these cable docs? The only thing I found out from them, and didn’t know earlier, was that much fewer people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than what some leftist organizations claimed.

2) These documents are of dubious credibility. They’ve evidently been selected to fit a pre-established goal (to harm Western democracies, including the US), so why wouldn’t they have been doctored or even falsified? They cannot be compared with the original docs. Wikileaks has, to date, published NOTHING that would harm China, NK, Iran, Russia, Cuba, or Venezuela. Wikileaks clearly sympathizes with these countries, and is probably even financed by one of them.

3) Wikileaks is clearly a mere tool for some much more influential player. It has supposedly uploaded thousands of documents on the Net. Do you guys even realize how much time and bandwith it takes to upload any document onto the Net, even a simple picture? I once ran a primitive website about American military aircraft. Uploading a single large picture of a fighterplane took several minutes. Uploading thousands of documents onto the Net during a period of just 4-5 months is too big a task for a small band of crazy hackers. This had to be done by a much bigger, better-financed group.

4) Julian Assange is guilty. Unless he runs away like his fellow anti-American rapist Roman Polanski, he will be tried in Sweden by fair, impartial court, not by a kangaroo court in his beloved Russia, China, NK, or Iran.

5) The Army JAG Corps has charged Manning with “aiding the enemy” under Art. #104 of the UCMJ, but has requested only lifetime inprisonment, not the death penalty. It’s wrong. Manning has leaked thousands of cables to a foreign group led by a guy who hates the US, a group probably sponsored by countries hostile to the US. Thus, he deserves the death penalty.