A few months ago, Palin officially endorsed John McCommie for a FIFTH Senatorial term and excused herself with lies. She also falsely called McCommie a “hero” and a “statesman”.

Recently, McCain’s spokesman announced that Palin will organize a rally and a fundraiser for McTraitor.

“She will speak about McCain’s values and what she learned from him during their 2008 presidential campaign and through his battles against his own party line, Rogers said.”

The URL: http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/03/preview-of-palin-campaign-rally-for.html

Oh yes, McCain DID battle against his own party. Most recently, McTraitor battled his party over the Obama defense cuts, which most Republicans opposed, but McCain endorsed. These defense cuts began the process of gutting the US military, a process which continues to this day.

Previously, McCain fought against his own party to implement an amnesty policy, which would’ve rewarded 20 mn illegal aliens with green cards and “a path to citizenship” while allowing ACORN to register these 20 mn illegal aliens.

Not surprisingly, McCain plans to vote for the newly-introduced Schumer-Graham amnesty bill. He never renounced amnesty.

If Palin was a real conservative, she would’ve never endorsed him. She would’ve remained neutral on the issue of the McCain-Hayworth duel. Instead, she endorsed him.

And guess what? Palin admitted during the 2008 campaign that she supports amnesty (which she euphemistically calls “a path to citizenship”). Proof:

“Univision: To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

SP: I do because I understand why people would want to be in America.”

The URL: http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?chid=3&schid=10414&secid=25534&cid=1716304&pagenum=2

Of course, Univision does not call these immigrants whom they really are – illegal immigrants. But it has revealed that Palin is a proponent of amnesty.

Let’s face the facts: Palin is a RINO, a fake conservative, a traitor.

And so I say to Sarah Palin: keep your hands off the GOP, off Arizona, and off the White House. You have betrayed us conservatives, the GOP, and the United States. Together with your idol, John McTraitor, you’ve sold America out to illegal aliens who invaded the country. You have no right to call yourself a Republican, a conservative, a leader of the GOP or a leader of conservatives. If you dare to run for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, I can assure you that you will not win it.

Liberal Republicans, led by John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Rick Moran and David Frum, are now waging a war to liberalize the Republican Party, i.e. to remold it into a clone of the Democratic Party “in McCain’s center-right image” as the media say. David Frum claims that the GOP needs to become a “centrist” party to attract “moderates”, independent voters and Democrats and points to the “Modernization strategy” of David Cameron.

Cameron has turned the party of Winston Churchill into nothing more than a clone of the British socialist party. He has violated his “cast-iron” pledge to organize a referendum on the undemocratic Lisbon Treaty if he’s elected. He has refused to promise to allow British citizens to own and use guns (even for sportive purposes). He has endorsed the “high-speed-rail” boondoogle. He fervently believes in the “global warming” lie and has endorsed “green taxes”. He opposes the construction of a third runway at the LHR airport.

But if the “Modernization strategy” of David Camoron (as he is frequently called) is the model for these liberal Republicans, then they will surely produce an electoral disaster. The evidence shows that Cameron’s strategy, which made the “Conservative Party” a mere clone of the British “Labor Party” (i.e. the British socialist party), derisively called “the Blue Labour Party”, has failed abysmally.

The most recent opinion polls suggest that if a British general election occured today, the “Conservative Party” would fail to win a majority of seats, and would be 23 seats short of a majority. Those polls are based on the assumption that Cameron’s men would get 37% of the votes, the socialists would win 30%, and the Liberal Democrats would win 18.64%. Some earlier polls suggested that the socialists will win the 2010 British general election.

So rather than allow the party of Churchill to recapture Westminster and Downing Street, Cameron’s “Modernization Strategy” has made that party a mere clone of the British socialist party, thus alienating millions of its voters. McCain’s “centrist” strategy would, likewise, alienate the GOP’s voters while failing to attract moderates and Democrats.

Almost all of the voters of the Democratic Party (about 90%) are strident liberals who wouldn’t vote for the GOP under any circumstances. The GOP competes for its voters not with the Democrats, but with right-wing third-parties such as the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party and the NY Conservative Party. Those parties “steal” hundreds of thousands (sometimes even millions) of voters from the GOP everytime the Republican Party nominates a liberal for an office. Most “independents” are fiscal conservatives who oppose Big Government, and they, too, don’t vote for liberal Republicans.

For example, George H. W. Bush implemented liberal policies as president (e.g. he violated his “no new taxes” pledge). The GOP nonetheless nominated this failed president in 1992, so conservatives dumped the GOP and voted for a third-party candidate, Ross Perot, who did not win the election but “stole” enough voters from Bush to ensure that he wouldn’t win.

Similarly, when Republican Party nominated John McCain (the most liberal Republican nominee since Gerald Ford) for President, millions of conservatives stayed home or voted for a third party candidate. Thus, the GOP achieved its worst presidential election result since 1964. It should be noted that without Sarah Palin as the GOP’s Vice Presidential candidate, that result would’ve been even worse than it was.

The truth that liberal Republicans need to understand is that a party cannot be acceptable to everyone, and cannot woo its sworn opponents while betraying its principles, because by doing so, it alienates its loyal voters. As long as the GOP continues to nominate liberals for the Presidency or for the offices of non-liberal states, it will remain a minority party.

For years, McCain’s backers have been falsely claiming that John McCommie is a hero who just promotes a few liberal policies.

They’ve been disproven many times, by myself and other individuals. Today, RenewAmerica.com published additional evidence that McCain is not a hero, but a communist traitor who is bringing the US down.

McCain recently introduced an unconstitutional bill numbered “S. 3081″. If approved by the Congress and signed by the President, this draft statute will enable the Executive Branch to arrest and permanently imprison anyone deemed “hostile”. It will practically mean that the Executive Branch will be allowed to arbitrarily arrest and permanently imprison ANY American citizen. No arrested American will have the right to a trial, Miranda Rights, Habeas Corpus rights or even charges from a DA. Like the Soviet government, the Executive Branch will be allowed to arbitrarily arrest anyone it will want to arrest.

Of course, this draft statute is unconstititutional. It violates the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as the Miranda ruling of the SCOTUS and the habeas corpus law of the US. But McCommie doesn’t care. Presumably, he wants all of his critics to be arrested and permanently imprisoned.

The claim that McCain is a hero or an honorable man or a conservative has been discredited long ago. Now it’s the time to oust McCommie for the Senate. How to do it?

1) Endorse, write articles approbative of, donate to, or campaign for, any of McCain’s primary challengers.
2) Tell everyone you know about this draft statute McCain introduced recently, and about McCain’s history.
3) Call your Congressmen and your Senators and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them if they vote for the McCain statute.
4) NEVER vote for anyone who has already endorsed McCain, who is running for a 5th senatorial term, including RINO Romney and RINO Palin.
6) Warn all Presidential aspirants that you will NEVER vote for them (neither during primaries nor during the general election) if they endorse McCain or his statute.
7) If the politicians you warn don’t heed your warning, don’t vote for them.

8) Campaign for retroactive term limits.

If you do, you will likely succeed, and consequently, America will remain what it is – the last redoubt of free men, the example for the world, the beacon of the world, the shining city on the hill.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/baldwin/100316; http://www.examiner.com/x-21818-Virginia-Beach-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m3d12-Sen-John-McCain-wants-to-allow-US-citizens-to-be-arrested-held-indefinitely

Ever since Obama was installed as president, many Republicans (including some conservatives) said that they miss President Bush. Some of those Republicans, including Richard N. Weltz of AT, even claimed that Bush was strong on defense, and contrasted Bush with Obama (who began a series of disastrous defense cuts 8 months ago).

Although Obama has failed to execute his duties as Supreme Commander of the US military, and is rightly hated by military families, the claim that Bush is strong on defense is wrong.

President Bush inherited a weak military, massacred by the disastrous defense cuts orchestrated by his father and by President Clinton. By 2000, America’s military equipment, unreplaced, was decrepit. Defense spending fell to the lowest level since FY1941 – 3.0% of GDP. That year, ervice chiefs reported that they needed additional tens of billions of dollars to rebuild the military. American military bases had become slums. In 1997, the then-USAF chief of staff, Gen. Ronald Fogleman, resigned because the Clinton Administration refused to sufficiently finance the aircraft fleet of the USAF.

So President Bush certainly inherited a decrepit military.

And on some scores, he improved it. The aggregate defense budget was slightly raised, by 14.3% over 8 years. By FY2009 the DOD had a budget of $512 bn, as opposed to a paltry $371 bn for FY2001. Secretary Rumsfeld implemented many defense reforms, including the largest BRAC round ever; a new FRP doubling the number of employable carrier groups; targeted pay rises; etc.

But by many other measures, President Bush failed.

Firstly, the budget increases were not consecutive. The Bush era was not an era of uninterrupted DOD budget growth. For example, in 2005, the Bush OMB ordered the military services to trim their budgets. As a result, the Navy was forced to make a tough choice, and to retire one aircraft carrier. (The Navy mitigated the bad results of that decision by retiring a defective carrier, the USS John F Kennedy). Read this.

Secondly, Bush and his defense secretaries (Donald Rumsfeld and Bob Gates) wrongly concluded that the only threats America is facing right now, and the only threats America will ever face, are irregular threats (insurgent groups and terrorist organizations). They ignore all other threats, including conventional threats, including states such as Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, even though each of those countries constitutes a significantly bigger threat to America than Al-Qaeda and the Taleban ever will. The 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks pale in comparison to threats like the Chinese submarine fleet, which continually stalks American aircraft carriers. Even worse, they naively believe that Russia and China are America’s allies. Consequently, they conducted a policy of appeasement towards these countries, a policy continued to this day by Bob Gates.

Because of their wrong belief (with which Obama agrees) that the only threats to the US are irregular threats, after 9/11/2001 they began remolding the US military into a mere counterterrorist unit, a tinpot gendarmerie, a mere special ops unit. This resulted in the closures and reductions of dozens of crucial weapon programs (including the Comanche program), and a severe reduction of America’s conventional arsenal. The US Navy has now only 280 ships; in 2005, 45 F-16s were retired unreplaced; etc. C-141 aircraft were retired unreplaced in 2006 because Rumsfeld refused to sufficiently invest in planes. As soon as he was confirmed as Defense Secretary, he significantly reduced aircraft orders; as a consequence, during the Bush era, the USAF bought very few planes. The consequence is that currently, the USAF has only a few modern planes and a fleet of obsolete aircraft (F-15s, F-16s, A-10s, Hercules planes, B-52s, B-1s, etc.).

Irregular weapons designed to fight rabid terrorists were financed instead of – not in parallel with – conventional weapons. The high costs of the Iraqi war and the Afghan war compounded the military’s financial problems.

President Bush also failed to implement a proper ballistic missile defense. Although the Congress continually obstructed missile defense and refused to fund it sufficiently, President Bush himself limited its planned scope to a missile defense large enough to defend America only from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea – not from a superpuissance like China.

Bush also failed abysmally to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal. He even reduced it significantly – down from ca. 10,400 nuclear warheads on 1/1/2005 to just 2200 nuclear warheads on 1/20/2009. Admittedly, the Congress voted against the RRW program and the RNEP program, but Bush failed to implement any policies that would’ve at least reserved plutonium for nuclear weapons, maintained the American nuclear arsenal at its 2005 size, or prevented the shrinkage of the DOE army of scientists. Consequently, last year SECDEF Gates noted that the American nuclear arsenal was decrepit, and earlier this year, he made the case for  (and drafted plans for) a new generation of nuclear weapons – but was overruled by Obama.

Bush and Rumsfeld – like Ronald Reagan – wrongly believed that the missile shield was a replacement, rather than a complement, for nuclear weapons. It cannot ever replace nuclear weapons. The problem with Bush and Rumsfeld was even worse than the problem with Reagan – his version of the missile shield was supposed to be large enough to intercept all Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles simoultaneously, and it was explicitly designed against Moscow as the principal adversary. On the other hand, the Bush missile shield was an inferior product, limited only to one layer barely sufficient to protect America against Iranian and Korean missiles.

THE CONCLUSION

President Bush certainly did implement some good policies. He increased defense spending (although to a still low level – 4% of GDP); repealed the ABM Treaty; implemented some kind of missile defense; and implemented defense reforms.

The bottom line is negative for Bush, however. Although he promised to rebuild the US military, he implemented very few policies that truly strengthened the military of the United States. Conservatives should not hail him as a proponent of a strong defense – because he wasn’t one.

If the newest Floridian polls of Rasmussenreports.com are accurate, they clearly indicate which direction should the GOP choose.

The poll pertaining to the GOP’s nomination says that Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio are equally likely to win it, so it belies liberals’ claim that Rubio cannot win the nomination. Several months ago, polls evidently favored the Floridian governor over the young Cuban-American.

The poll pertaining to the scheduled general election indicates that whichever Republican wins the GOP’s nomination, he will win the election, but Rubio would win in by a much bigger vote margin than the governor would. (http://tinyurl.com/klxv6l) Rubio would win by 14 pp (49%-35%), whereas the governor would win by 6 pp (42%-36%).

When the NRSC and its chairman endorsed Charlie Crist, they claimed that only he could win the 2010 general election. They were wrong.

These polls have proven that a new commitment to conservative principles (limited government, a capitalist government, traditional families and a strong defense) is the right direction for the GOP, and that the direction proposed by the NRSC and by John McCain is the wrong direction.

Some liberals falsely claimed that the Soviet military was weak during the Reagan era and that the Reagan-orchestrated defense programs and defense spending were not needed. These liberals lied.

When Reagan became President on 20th January 1981, the Soviet military was significantly stronger than the US military. Compare the Soviet Navy to the USN:

As of 1983, the Soviet Navy was significantly larger than the US Navy. The Soviet Navy boasted 67 SSBNs (including 2 Typhoon class SSBNs, each of which had 200 nuclear warheads installed on its missiles); 15 conventional ballistic missile subs; 48 nuclear-propelled cruise missile submarines (armed with nuclear warheads); 17 conventional cruise missile subs (also armed with nukes); 70 nuclear-propelled hunter submarines; 159 conventional hunter submarines; 3 aircraft carriers; 2 helicopter carriers; 2 nuclear cruisers; 30 missile cruisers; 11 light cruisers; 99 frigates; 61 light ships; 131 ASW corvettes; 27 missile corvettes; 100 missile OPVs; 62 hydropteres; and hundreds of smaller ships.

The total tonnage of the Soviet Navy accounted for 55% of the combined tonnage of all navies of the world. This means that the tonnage of the Soviet fleet was larger than the combined tonnage of all other navies COMBINED. Compared to the Soviet Navy, the USN was a miniscule fleet.

The air arm of the Soviet Navy had: 270 Tu-16 bombers; 87 Tu-16  bomber-patrollers; 45 Tu-95 bomber-patrollers; 6 Tu-22 patrollers; 40 Tu-22 bombers; and 85 Tu-22M bombers. That was a total fleet of 533 bombers and bomber-patrollers.

The source: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_soviétique#A.C3.A9ronautique_navale

Ronald Reagan addressed that inequality.

For many years, liberals masquerading as “moderate Republicans” have been claiming that the GOP must embrace fiscal liberalism to win elections, and that the Party must choose: either Americans’ votes or fiscally conservative policies.

These liberals were wrong. The American people have repeatedly said that they demand a limited government, not a welfarist bureaucracy. The vast majority demands a capitalist Republic, not a European-style socialist state.

Yesterday’s RR poll indicates that 66% of Americans demand a limited government of lower spending than the current levels of spending and lower taxes. That’s right, the VAST MAJORITY of Americans demands a limited government with a small budget. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/america_s_best_days)

That is what is demanded 88% of GOP voters, 63% of independent voters, and 86% of conservatives. Liberals, of course, prefer a “social democracy” like Germany.

62% of Americans say that tax reductions are better tools to solve the economic crisis than Congressional appropriation Acts.

On the issue of the Fair Tax – which hasn’t been explained to most Americans yet – a plurality of Americans (44% of voters) favors the Fair Tax policy as a replacement for the current federal tax system, and only 36% of voters oppose it. 20% of Americans haven’t decided their opinions yet. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/december_2009/24_favor_national_sales_tax_65_oppose)

65% of Americans oppose a sales tax as an addition to the Federal Tax System, and only 24% of voters approve of such an addition to the tax code. Please note that the Fair Tax is a proposed REPLACEMENT for the current tax code. Nothing else should be called “The Fair Tax”. A sales tax that would not replace the current tax system is not the Fair Tax and should not be called the Fair Tax.

To win elections, the GOP must embrace fiscally conservative policies.

A few days ago, Robert Maginnis suggested that the number of soldiers of the US military should be expanded and that the DOD and the QDR should endorse the ludicrous policy (instituted by Melvin Laird) that “people, not hardware, should be our highest priority”.

Contrary to what Robert Maginnis wrote, the QDR should NOT endorse Laird’s opinion that “People, not hardware, must be our highest priority”. It’s not true that Congress should endorse Laird’s opinion. The Congress must not endorse it.

Hardware, not people, must be the DOD’s highest priority. A poorly-trained or outnumbered military could win a war if it had the superior weapons, but without superior weapons, even the best-trained, the most numerous, the least-stretched military cannot win. Hardware, not soldiers, decides about the results of wars.

If the DOD is forced to choose between hardware and people, it must choose hardware.
Hardware must NEVER be sacrificed to pay for anything else (incl. personnel).

To reduce the stress on the US military, the DOD should withdraw the Mazurak-designated American troops from Europe, the Persian Gulf, South Korea and Japan, and cancel the Afghan surge. Such a no-cost solution was, sadly, never endorsed by Maginnis. (Specifically, the DOD should withdraw all the troops stationed in Europe except the troops at Ramstein AFB and Landstuhl; USMC troops in Korea; the 8th US Army (stationed in Korea); USMC troops in Japan; all troops stationed in the Persian Gulf; and a USAF fighterplane wing that is currently stationed in Japan.)

It’s not true that a volunteer military is cheaper than a conscript military. A conscript military is cheaper than a volunteer military.

The DOD should care for American troopers, but it should not be a socialist welfare institution. It should stop overstretching America’s military, withdraw American troops from the above-listed areas, and start to respect American troopers by not prosecuting those troopers who fight America’s enemies.

(cross posted)

Robert Gates and his boss, Barack Obama, repeatedly claimed that their “defense policy” is a reform policy, designed to “reform” the Pentagon, how it buys stuff, and what it buys. But they lied.

Their ludicrous “defense policy” is not a reform policy, but rather disarmament. They’ve failed to reform anything. What their “defense policy” is really about is disarming the US military unilaterally by reducing defense spending and closing (or reducing) dozens of necessary defense programs.

Why have they adopted such a ludicrous policy? Not just because they personally believe in the pacifist ideology of total disarmament, but also because they’re hostages to the pacifist groups (such as the “Caucus for Priorities” and the “Center for American Progress”) which elected Obama.

When speaking to the C4P, Obama promised that he would:

1) reduce defense spending (which he believes to be waste) by “tens of billions of dollars”;

2) reduce investments in “unproven” missile defense systems (for liberals, every missile defense system is unproven);

3) slow the development of Future Combat Systems;

4) institute a liberal defense spending commission;

5) pursue the goal of nuclear disarmament;

6) significantly reduce America’s nuclear arsenal;

7) refuse to develop any new nuclear weapons.

Later during the campaign, the C4P demanded that Obama abolish the following programs: FCS, F-22, Airborne Laser,  the Bush missile defense shield for Poland, the Next Generation Bomber Program, and the CSAR helicopter program, and that he abolish 2 USAF fighterplane wings and one USN aircraft carrier group.

And Obama has already executed all of these requests by signing the FY2010 “defense budget” (which should be called the disarmament budget). He has already terminated all of the programs listed above: the FCS, Reliable Replacement Warhead, F-22, ABL, Bush Missile Defense, Next Generation Bomber, and CSARH programs. His defense secretary has reduced orders for F-35s by 150 jets, which means that simply by attrition, at least two fighterplane wings will be disbanded because they’ll have no planes to fly when their current planes retire. And the FY2010 DOD budget also reduces the carrier construction rate to 1 ship per 5 years, which will result in a 10-carrier-Navy by 2041. Obama also plans to sign the treasonous START-3 treaty, which will cut America’s nuclear arsenal to just 1800 nuclear warheads (in the best case) and prohibit the development of a new bomber type.

Obama didn’t just stop with the programs marked by the “Caucus for Priorities”. He also ended many other crucial defense programs, including the Next Generation Cruiser program, a program that was designed to replace America’s current fleet of Ticonderoga-class cruisers, most of which will retire during the 2010s and the 2020s.

Conservatives should therefore examine if the GOP really committed to a strong defense. The GOP’s record to date is not good. To prove that it is a true friend of the military, the GOP must not only “fully fund” Obama’s own defense requests, but also oppose all of his defense cuts and provide defense budgets ABOVE Obama’s defense requests – defense budgets which would fund the crucial defense programs that Obama is now conspiring to abolish.

STOP OBAMA’S DEFENSE CUTS!