The Coming Fighter Gap

Once again, Robert Gates has been shown to be wrong, wrong, WRONG on the F-22. And it's going to hurt us. Badly. Today, Mackenzie Eaglen and Lajos F. Szaszdi of the Heritage Foundation released What Russia’s Stealth Fighter Developments Mean for America, a look at what the forthcoming fifth-gen Russian PAK FA stealth fighter, meant to rival the F-22, will do to our hold on air superiority over the next 10-20 years and beyond.

Let's quote Secretary Gates, as per the paper's abstract:

"Defense analysts, officials, and industry personnel have long believed that the U.S. F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter would not face serious threats from foreign fifth-generation fighters for the next 20 years. In September 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates repudiated claims of a looming “fighter gap”—a deficit between the services’ fighter aircraft inventories and their operational requirements. “[T]he more compelling gap,” he argued, “is the deep chasm between the air capabilities of the United States and those of other nations.”"

Whoops. Thanks to Secretary Gates' termination of the F-22 program, ostensibly due to its expense (duh, you kept cutting it back, OF COURSE the price per aircraft is going to go up) at 187 aircraft, instead of the roughly 500 originally planned, and the serious problems with the F-35's various incarnations (none of which come close to matching the stealth or air-to-air capabilities of the F-22 Raptor), including rising costs which may even force the cost per plane near what we're paying for the Raptors. We may as well have bought the 500 Raptors, from a budgetary perspective.

To make matters worse, Eaglen and Szaszdi tell us the Russians will be looking to sell the PAK to people like Algeria, India, Vietnam, Libya, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Indonesia, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, and yes... the People's Republic of China. Doesn't that sound like a good time? They're all going to have fighters superior to the F-35 and the Typhoon, and the near equal of the Raptor. Maybe a LOT of them. Thanks, Gates!

Hopefully the GOP will do something to resuscitate the F-22, and quick, in Congress after the New Year. But in the current fiscal climate, I doubt it.

Gingrich strikes again... this time on health policy...

...spouting in this speech about hoe the right needs to move from rejection of federal helath policy (the correct and Constitutional course) to "replacement" (the neoconservadouche, liberal-lite course of action) to modernize conservatism.

PLEASE, someone shut this clown up!

Gerson just won't stop...

disparaging conservatives every chance he gets, like in this Post piece.

Listen to this clown:

"And even a vast political victory does not change an iron law of politics: The quality of candidates matters. Serious, mainstream Republican Senate candidates could have won in Delaware and Nevada. But Christine O'Donnell was not serious. And Sharron Angle - warning of "Second Amendment remedies" in case of political loss - was not mainstream. Weak, poorly vetted Senate candidates were the main reason that while Republican gains in the House were historic - the largest in 72 years - gains in the Senate were not.

O'Donnell and Angle were gifts of Sen. Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin to their party. Tea Party enthusiasm and shallow ideological purity were supposed to be better than outdated, "establishment" attributes such as achievement, wisdom or qualification. This approach to politics is expected of DeMint, who has gained national prominence by accusing his Republican colleagues of compromise. Coming from Palin, however, it is a threat to the Republican future."

First off, I admit O'Donnell was absolutely nuts and stood no chance. The upside is that she defeated Mike Castle, a Democrat in GOP clothing. Castle immediately had consultations at the White House after losing the primary to O'Donnell. That's a fair measure of his conservatism, or utter lack thereof. Better to have a real Democrat that we can oppose in 2016.

Angle was a Bidenesque gaffe machine at times, butwould have made a fine Senator and is personally a very nice lady. Reid's victrory was a function of his power as Democrat leader in the Senate and his seniority, as well as some ham-fisted tactics by the gaming industry and unions. Fortunately his son got housed in his bid for the state house.

But listen to Gerson... "shallow ideological purity"... You mean ACTUALLY STANDING FOR SOMETHING, YOU DOUCHE??? Please, shut up, Gerson. As much as you try and snow people, "Roman Catholic social thought" is never going to be an impetus of conservatism. Ever. It's liberalism wrapped in a religious shroud.

Jim DeMint is currently America's finest Senator (pending the arrival of Rand Paul) and has been for several years. Gerson could learn a thing or thousand from him. But, let's move on...

"This election season called that perception into question. Palin's support for O'Donnell showed poor political judgment. But Palin went further, also endorsing Constitution Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo in Colorado, one of the most divisive figures in American politics.

Tancredo has made a career of fanning anti-immigrant resentment and lobbing ideological grenades. The people who voted Barack Obama into office, in his view, "could not even spell the word 'vote' or even say it in English." The National Council of La Raza is "a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses." Miami is a "Third World country." Pope Benedict's embrace of immigrants is all about "recruiting new members," in an attempt at "faith-based marketing." "The guy sitting in the White House," says Tancredo, is a greater threat to the Constitution than al-Qaeda. "If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?"

It was one of the best outcomes of Election 2010 that Tancredo was exiled from any position of public trust. But it is disturbing that Palin found Tancredo to be the "right man for the job." Her endorsement raises the question of whether Palin has any standards for her support other than anti-government rhetoric. Either as a power broker or a candidate in the 2012 election, Palin's increasingly erratic political judgment should raise Republican concerns."

Guess what, Mikey? Tom Tancredo is not "divisive" (a word liberals whip out to imply racism or whatever when they're losing an argument badly) and is positively correct about all of the above. Go ahead..bring some logic, you DC loser. No? That's what I thought. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but she made a fine choice in endorsing the Tank. My only quibble is his not seeking the GOP nomination from the start. If he had, he'd have won easily.

This election cycle is a repudiation of Gerson and all his little GOP establishment friends. I can't wait for the day when McConnell and his ilk are cleaned out of leadership, both in Congress and the GOP itself. But hey, Gerson will insist on some kind of excuse. Douchebag conservatism at its finest.

Karl Rove, establishment tool.

Here he is ripping on the victorious Christine O'Donnell.

This guy sucks in every way, shape and form. It makes me vomit that his book is subtitled "My life as a conservative in the fight" when he's spent the past 10 years tearing down conservatives and boosting moderates and neocons. Please, go away, Karl.

My favorite DC rears his head again...

...and I somehow just came across it a week and a half later.

Fear not, friends, I must and shall deliver the smackdown Gerson so richly deserves. Again. Still.

Back in the first post ever on this blog... I demolished him for his attempt to pervert conservatism into... well, whatever it is he believes it should be. The man is still at it. He even does his best impression of a race-baiting, guilt-ridden liberal with his "questions" for tea party candidates.

But hey, being the nice guy I am... Let's give Mikey the answers to his questions, shall we?

"First, do you believe that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional?"

YES. And Ronald Reagan did not "move Republicans past Alf Landon's resistance to the New Deal and Barry Goldwater's opposition to federal civil rights law, focusing instead on economic growth and national strength." He tried to eliminate whole federal departments but was prevented from doing so by Tip O'Neill's gang and Republicans like YOU, Gerson. You even seem to admit you're wrong, that a "consistent Constitutionalism" would preclude all the social tinkering rubbish you so love. But you're so lost in your own demagoguery that you brush that aside as unimportant. Do you even realize your own nihilism?

"A second question of Tea Party candidates: Do you believe that American identity is undermined by immigration?"

Look at him trying to conflate all immigration, legal or illegal. Classic open-borders racial demagoguery. Mike, just leave the party and go be the Democrat you so clearly are at heart. So let's take apart the answer. LEGAL immigration, no. But we have the absolute right as a nation to decide who gets in, who doesn't , from where, how many, anything. No one can say otherwise. ILLEGAL immigration, YES. It must be stopped. It does incredible social, economic and political damage to the republic. Not that you care.

And Mikey's third and final "question"...

"Question three: Do you believe that gun rights are relevant to the health-care debate?"

Again with the leftist demagoguery, this time used against Sharron Angle. I think the Second Amendment exists to prevent the government from having a monopoly on coercive force, and yes, to allow the people to resist said government over overreaching garbage like socialized medicine.

The tea party's ideology is NOT "incompatible with some conservative and Republican beliefs." It's at odds with your big-government douchebag conservatism. But Mikey goes on...

"It is at odds with Abraham Lincoln's inclusive tone and his conviction that government policies could empower individuals. It is inconsistent with religious teaching on government's responsibility to seek the common good and to care for the weak. It does not reflect a Burkean suspicion of radical social change."

Lincoln is NO model of conservatism in any way, shape, or form. He was a disciple of Henry Clay and an enemy of Constitutional government. And for the umpteenth time, it is NOT the responsibility of any level of government to "care for the weak." As for "radical social change"... we're just looking to undo what you and your liberal friends have done to us, Mikey. Best of luck stopping us. We're coming. Douchebag.

Lindsey Graham strikes again...

Yet more evidence of why this guy needs to go.

He's worse than John McCain.

Happy Independence Day

...a bit early, since I know many of you will be leaving to spend time with family and friends this long weekend.

A quick shout out to everyone who's ever worn the uniform. Thanks. No matter how many idiots and moonbats try to run you down, know that most Americans love you and appreciate everything you do, so we don't have to.

Much ado about nothing...

...is how I see the tempest over Patrick Murray's views on abortion. This is the 8th district people. This issue is NOT a priority for most of the voters in the 8th one way or the other. Can we please focus on more important issues, like fiscal issues and defense issues? Maybe even the competence and experience of the candidates? There is a real chance to beat Jim Moran this year, let's not waste it. Patrick is the more broadly-experienced, articulate, personable candidate by a large margin. I like Matthew Berry, but have you seen him speak in public? Seen the debates thus far? I have concenrs about how he'd handle the stage with Jim Moran. No concerns with Murray. The worst thing you can say about the Murray campaign is that they haven't updated and fact-checked their mailers. While bad, that's a common mistake.

Dick Black enters the 33rd District race...

...for keeps, it appears. That makes it apparent he's challenging his friend Patricia Phillips, as well as Michael "Spike" Williams (pending what the Dems do with Hunter Mill in redistricting, of course.)

He's been to multiple events promoting his candidacy now, and given his reputation there's no going back.

As discussed at Too Conservative and Renaissance Ruminations, Dick Black CANNOT win a general election. He allowed himself to be vastly outspent in his 2005 reelection campaign, even when it was clear it wasn't good year for Republicans, got beat, tried to carpetbag his way down into the 1st Congressional seat in 2007 (and then ended up advising Bob Berry NOT to be a "perennial candidate" before he jumped into the U.S. Senate contest!) and now, plastic fetuses in tow, he's going to try and bump off Patricia, a much better candidate, for the sake of his own ego. No, thank you, Dick. Please, do the smart thing, stay on the sidelines, help Patricia raise money, and relax.

Patricia Phillips for Senate. Still.

The evangelical types dislike the tea party activists because...

...they're not focused on ridiculous issues like abortion and stopping gay marriage.

Theocons are a cancer on conservatism, and by nature are NOT conservative because they want to use the power of the government for social engineering just like the left does. They simply have different goals. I'm glad they don't like us.

RINOs jumping on Beck's CPAC speech

It's a couple weeks on, and the RINOs and DCs are still upset about Glenn Beck's amazing keynote speech at CPAC. It started with Bill Bennett, who has always been a huge RINO in my estimation, like his friends Jack Kemp (RIP) and Newt Gingrich. Then Limbaugh and Levin surprisingly piled on, basically saying the GOP needs help right now. As Beck essentially said, it's no longer good enough to be just slightly less socialist than the Democrats. If that's their sole justification, we're sunk. We need to be FOR something. Glenn Beck did well by real conservatives.

Cuccinelli takes on the EPA ruling and the IPCC

This is another example of why I support this man. He is doing everything he said he would do. Not least was his promise to take on the overreaching federal government. The Washington Post has the story on his filing a petition in federal court Tuesday against the Environmental Protection Agency (as well as one with the EPA itself...good luck with that one) for a review of EPA's decision to brand carbon dioxide a danger to public health, and thus subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. All of this stems from the politically motivated, demonstrably false 2007 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has mainly been in the news lately for the errors in it and the attempt to cover them up ("Climategate") by left wing global warmists.

Here's hoping Ken is successful and gets this ruling thrown out.

UPDATE: (via RWL) Ken had a press conference yesterday where he ripped the IPCC and the "science" as "unreliable, unverifiable and doctored." Good times. Predictably, the environmental nuts showed up, including the VA Sierra Club, and talked about how bulletproof their "science" is. Keep right on thinking that, guys. AS RWL points out, the DCPost reporter, Helderman, makes a lot of excuses for the IPCC and slants the story. THIS is why no one regards them as neutral. It's not an opinion piece, is it?

Gary Johnson: Conservative Rock Star

Have a look at former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson here on Freedom Watch with Andrew Napolitano today. He lays out what the real problems are with our government. He'd be an amazing President. He's speaking at CPAC this weekend. Everyone should familiarize themselves with this champion of liberty, he is one of the few.

As of now, he's the leader for my endorsement in the 2012 presidential nomination race, should he run.

Patricia Phillips for Senate

Now that some blogs have picked up the race and Spike Williams is in, I should state my unequivocal support for Patricia Phillips in the 33rd district. She has the right mix of fiscal and Constitutional conservatism to appeal to a broad base of voters in both Loudon and Fairfax. I like Spike Williams just fine, having met him a couple times when he ran for Supervisor in '07, but Patricia is the conservative choice here.

Cuccinelli nails it on federalism...

... in his brilliant op-ed in the Washington Examiner. He lays out the basics of why federal power is limited, and why any sort of "individual mandate" is illegal and unconstitutional. THIS is why I worked for him, putting out signs, making calls, etc. That's actually extremely unusual for me to explicitly support a politician. Now that he's been elected to statewide office, he's rewarding my faith.

In stark contrast, read this Politico article on the same issue from Tuesday. Waxman is so impossibly arrogant. He, along with avast majority of Congress (both parties), just don't get it. They think "federalism" means supremacy of the federal government in all things, all the time. Please, people, TRY and read the Constitution, The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers before you run for public office.

Go, Ken, go!

EDIT: And Connolly, too, in that Politico piece.

Newt Gingrich... Neocon

This article by the NewAmerican, the magazine of the John Birch Society, really lays it all out. The sooner conservatives dissociate themselvesfrom him and others like him, the better.

Patrick Murray For Congress, 8th District

Met him at the Advance, was very impressed. Read on his background, including his interviews. I'm sold. No intentional disrespect shown to Berry or Ellmore (Socci is a complete tool and should withdraw) but I'm endorsing Col. Murray in the 8th district primary, and will be voting for him.