A Brokered GOP Convention?

As Allahpundit noted, my God, it’s full of page views…so, what the heck, I’ll look over Sean Trende’s analysis, too:

… in truth, I’m actually hopeful about this year’s campaign, because I think it could be unlike anything we’ve seen in a very long time. I think the Republican Party really could wind up with a brokered convention – that is, a race where no candidate receives a majority of the delegates by the end of voting. In fact, it might well be the most likely outcome, if only because no particular outcome is particularly probable.

This race is intriguing not just because of one possible outcome. It is interesting because it is difficult even to formulate a workable theory of the race. Charlie Cook uses a brackets metaphor, while Jim Geraghty and Larry Sabato think of the race in terms of tiers, but all of these have problems. Instead, I see a race that is largely chaotic. It is one where an unusually large number of candidates have perfectly plausible paths, if not to the nomination, then at least to lengthy runs deep into the balloting process.

This is because 2016 really is the deepest GOP field in a very, very long time. In fact, it isn’t even close…

It is, indeed, that. In fact, in terms of talent, the GOP has an embarrassment of riches. Contrast this to the pathetic state of the Democrats – to-be-69 year old Hillary; and if the Democrats pass on her they’ve got the intellectual and achievement powerhouses of Biden, Warren and O’Malley to choose from. None of the Democrats can hold an intellectual or achievement candle to even the weakest GOP contenders. The bad news is that the Democrats are still favored to in in 2016, even if worn-out, hacktastic Hillary is the nominee. But, still, there is that chance the GOP can win, so the GOP contest is worth winning and thus we see the large field of contenders. Will it wind up brokered? One is wary of disputing someone like Sean Trende, but I’ll say there isn’t a snowball’s chance in heck of it happening.

To be sure, Trende is right in that each of the contenders represents a certain segment of the GOP base and as the total vote is widely divided, even someone commanding relatively small support could battle far into the primary process and the sum total of all this is that no GOPer obtains a first-ballot, nominating majority and thus a brokered convention. I just don’t think it will work out that way.

The reason I don’t is because there is Scott Walker, and to a lesser extent, Bobby Jindal. Both are successful governors who battled the left and won. Both are youthful (especially compared to the Democrats), energetic and have great biographies. Both, as far as can be told, haven’t so much of a touch of scandal behind them and neither of them bear strong and public connections to the Establishment money-bags of the party. While both have plenty of good points for both Establishment and TEA Party to like, they also neither frighten overmuch the Establishment nor disappoint overmuch the TEA Party base of the GOP. Both are credible with social conservatives without being tied to positions which can turn off independent voters. They can credibly run as anti-government outsiders while being enough on the inside to garner support from low-information-voters who don’t want a war against government, per se. Each of them is a potential Reagan in the sense of being able to bridge the gaps and form a grand coalition for victory – with Walker having the better shot at this due to his epic battle against – and victory over – the forces of the left. In the end, one of the two men seems likely, to me, to slip in and start winning enough early victories to start an avalanche of support to fall their way in time to secure the nomination on a first ballot.

There are a lot of people in the GOP contest – and one must have at least some sort of egoism to even desire to be President, so a lot of GOPers who can’t win the contest will stay in when they really shouldn’t. A lot of money will be spent – and ink spilled – as various forces and factors try to take control and impose their will. But in men like Walker and Jindal, we have the sort of leaders, I think, who can impose their will upon the throng…just as Reagan was able to do in an equally fractious time (people forget that Reagan was despised by many in the GOP). And I think that either man can beat Hillary, or whomever the Democrats nominate. Not easily. Not in a walk over. But the trick can be done – because both men can unify the disparate elements of the GOP while retaining more than enough cross-over appeal to make an aged Hillary representing a corrupt and worn-out Establishment a loser.

The “Affordable” Health Care Act?

Obamacare (a/k/a The Patient Protection and “Affordable” Care Act), was passed during the Christmas season of 2010 in the dead of night ‘to find out what’s in it’ This progressive panacea pitched as a means to supposedly insure the then-projected figure of 30-million uninsured Americans (many of whom were young, healthy and uninsured by choice); was passed in a convoluted effort to supposedly ensure that no American went without “affordable” health insurance. At the time it was pitched, Obamacare was supposed to cost somewhere to the tune of $900 billion dollars..and for that ‘investment’ we would supposedly in turn be ushered into an era of American Health-Care Nirvana, a new, Utopia in which there would be no more uninsured citizens (or undocumented immigrants, for that matter). As a bonus, if Americans liked their current health plans and doctors–they could keep them– PERIOD! What a deal, right?

But oh– the Pièce de résistance– the crowning, promised achievement, the “Promised Land”– would be that moment in time in which which those 30,000,000 unwashed Americans (Remember that figure– 30,000,000) projected to be without health insurance–the very raison d’etre for Obamacare’s very existence, would finally be insured! Everyone would get and receive the ‘affordable’ health care they needed! Boffo! Yay Obama!! Healthcare Nirvana–we have arrived!! .

Well, here we are– four-and-a-half years later. Now, Americans can no longer choose to be uninsured, at least not without paying what is amounting to a hefty fine on their taxes (much higher than was originally quoted, btw). Millions of those who thought they could keep their current health plans and doctors got a surprise letter from their insurance companies to the very contrary. The $900 billion dollar original price tag is now a hefty $2 TRILLION–$50,000 per person covered– over 10 years. Many who don’t qualify for taxpayer-subsidized insurance premiums are seeing a two- to three-fold increase either in their premiums and/or in the skyrocketing deductibles they must pay out of pocket before the benefits even begin to kick in. I have personally spoken with a number of people who bought insurance on an Obamacare exchange who were in need of surgical procedures but can’t afford the new higher deductible, and so are foregoing those procedures. And a number of those people told me that the insurance that they had held prior to the Obamacare rollout (and was discontinued forthwith) would have covered those procedures at little or no out-of-pocket cost beyond their premiums.

To bring it full circle– First the good news: remember those 30,000,000 unwashed Americans who weren’t insured, but mostly didn’t want insurance– you know, those healthy young people for which this entire fiasco was purportedly set into motion to cover? Many of those are now covered!

The bad news? We now have 31,000,000 (yes, that’s with a *31*) projected people that Obamacare will NOT cover– many who desperately need and WANT insurance–and many remain uncovered because the new premiums are now just too expensive for them to afford (refer to the word “Affordable” in the first sentence). On top of that, many millions more now do have insurance that isn’t worth the paper on which it is written, because they can’t afford the ridiculously high deductibles that before the ACA were absent or much lower.

The “Living Antonym to King Midas” (C), Barack Hussein Obama, with the help of a willing democrat-controlled Congress as well as propaganda organs such as the AARP and Big Unions, has transformed what was an imperfect, yet perfectly functional, highly innovative health care system into an abject mess that creates many more problems than it could ever solve (look up the acronym FUBAR).

We began this unicorn-fart propelled gallop into health-care hell with 30,000,000 uninsured, yet with a fairly functional and affordable system for most people, at most times.

Now, four- and a-half years into that long goodnight, we STILL find ourselves with *31*,000,000 uninsured Americans, but now with a “new and improved’ system populated by skyrocketing premiums and deductibles putting health care costs out of the reach of millions upon millions more.

Anyone else besides me see the sardonic irony in this?

A Greek tragedy writ large. God help us.

Obamacare To Cost $2 Trillion Over Next Decade, Leave 31 Million Uninsured

According to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com

Tax Liberalism!

Muhahahahaha!!!!

I don’t know whether this is demonic, inspired, or both: “A sweeping proposal to cut taxes for Maine families and businesses could upend one of the most widely accepted practices in the country: the property-tax exemption for nonprofit organizations… A recent budget plan by Republican Gov. Paul LePage calling for an overhaul of individual, corporate and sales taxes also would make Maine the first state in the nation to require colleges, hospitals and other large charities to go on the property-tax rolls in their municipalities.” This proposal – which specifically exempts “churches and government-owned entities” – would be the first of its kind in the country, and will probably not pass without a bloody brawl in the state legislature.

I’ll go with “inspired”, even if Governor LePage wasn’t thinking about crushing the left – because it is steps like these which will destroy the left. Another strong tactic is what Governor Walker did in Wisconsin – even if he didn’t intend his reform of government-sector unions as an anti-left measure, that is what it has worked out to be, and one of the best developments in American government since the misbegotten “Progressive Era” started in the early 20th century.

It is my view that the left retains political power by gift of government – which means, at bottom, by gift of the American taxpayer, 70%+ of which disagree with the left (yes, even when someone of the left like Obama gets 51% of the vote, it still stands – if people prior to voting for Obama knew precisely what he was up to, they’d have voted for a guy serving 10-20 for armed robbery before they would have voted for him…you have to be pretty darned kooky to agree with what Obama actually does, as opposed to what his spin-meisters say he does…if Obama had run on what he was actually going to do, he wouldn’t have cracked 30% of the vote). Via direct subsidy from the Treasury or via various tax gimmicks, the left is awash in funds provided by people who disagree with the left, and the left then uses this vast wealth to purchase the influence necessary to get their views enacted – by law or by extra-legal action, whatever works best for the moment. If we were to de-fund the left – kick them off the taxpayer’s dime – then the left would dry up and blow away. Going after the public sector unions – and the tax-free institutions that are the bedrock of the left – is the way to do it. Though I’d add that my wealth tax is also geared precisely towards crushing the left…I know a lot of conservatives are opposed to any such thing, but that is because most conservatives don’t understand that the filthy rich, even when they are Republican, are functional Progressives…they grow up with Progressives, go to school with Progressives, work with Progressives..they might have a different idea of defense policy and be more in favor of lower taxes than Progressives, but when push comes to shove (ie, when it is time to put, say, reasonable restrictions on abortion or actually eliminate a government program) the rich by and large come down on the side of the Progressives. The wealth tax I propose would hit hard at the money such rich people tend to use for buying support…which more often than not means providing funds for Progressive causes.

The main thing, though, is to take away the left’s money – Enact the Equal Income Fairness Act of 2015 and take every dime for it from liberal organizations…use the money to help poor and middle class people start up businesses. Its a win/win – we’re destroying the left and helping to create more middle class people to vote against them.

HAT TIP: Moe Lane.

Make a Deal With Assad?

So opines Leslie Gelb over at the Daily Beast – also noting that we’d have to do some sort of deal with Iran, while also keeping Saudi Arabia and Turkey on-side. Which is, well, a rather muddleheaded thing to try because, just as one for-instance, Iran and Saudi Arabia are not going to see eye to eye as long as their respective government’s are in power.

Now, as far as rat-bastards go in the Middle East, Assad is certainly not the worst, though he is pretty darned bad. In choosing what to do in that area, any where we turn we’re going to be dealing with nefarious characters. The question is which nefarious characters do we want to deal with, supposing we want a deal?

You see, we don’t actually have to be deeply involved at the moment in the area. To be sure, leaving it to fester in it’s own nastiness will carry the risk that some of the nastiness will be directed our way – vast numbers of people over there live for the day when they can kill lots of Americans. I’m sure ISIS has already got at least some preliminary plans to hit us – though being tied down in head-chopping, slave-dealing and attempted conquest, they probably can’t spare the time for us at the moment. We can pull back right now – and, in fact, under Obama it is probably better that we do so, given his complete incomprehension of the realities of power politics in the global arena. But even a hard-headed realist can make the argument that a U.S. withdrawal is a good course of action for the moment.

That argument goes like this: the American people don’t want to fight over there right now. The various factions fighting for power and influence all have, at best, grave doubts about us and, at worst, bitter enmity. For a variety of reasons, our post-9/11 campaign in the Middle East has failed and our prestige is at rock bottom in the Middle East. Getting our people out of there takes the immediate pressure off us – and by getting out of there, I mean all of us…troops, aid workers, diplomats, etc. If we really feel the desperate need to keep some sort of U.S. presence in a particular Middle Eastern nation (say, in places like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt), then it should be as small as possible. Essentially, don’t leave many American targets for the Islamists to attack. As we have recently proved, we’ve got enough oil and natural gas here at home so that even a complete collapse of oil production in the area can be endured…we’d be up to $5 a gallon gas, but as we recently paid $4 a gallon, we’d survive (and, of course, no one who attains any power over there is really going to cut off the oil spigot completely). As we are no longer involved, the blame for what happens there will less and less accrue to us and if there is an attack on us from the Middle East, the political will for war will swiftly return to the American body politic.

But we’re going to stay, of course, because inertia in politics is like that – we’ve been there, we are there, and so we’re going to keep on being there. And suppose Obama came down with a case of the ‘flu and had to spend a week in bed and during that time someone slipped him a copy of, say, Churchill’s The World Crisis or Hanson’s The Father of Us All and so Obama finally learned a thing or two about how the world works? We then might be able to proceed to a policy of U.S. engagement which isn’t stupid. And in an engagement policy which isn’t stupid, what is the best course of action?

Quite simply, it is to find a power player who can be purchased by us – and that does indicate Assad more than anyone else. His Iranian allies have not been able to restore his fortunes in Syria and he might be in the market for a new friend who can help out. Of course, he’d have to change his tune on a few things. We can’t expect him to do something enormous like make peace with Israel – but there is much he can do.

First off, no longer allow his territory to be a conduit of aid to the Iran-backed Islamists in Lebanon. Also, no longer keep any of his troops in Lebanon, thus freeing up that nation to be at least neutral in the various conflicts in the region…demilitarized, Jihadist sent packing or into the hereafter. Still a Muslim nation making rote denunciations of Israel and the United States, but no longer a subsidiary of Tehran and Islamism.

Secondly, part of Syria is going to have to become autonomous Christian areas…with Christian militias ostensibly under Syrian command, but really existing to keep Islamists out of Christian territory. It isn’t going to be much territory, but it has to be enough for Christians to live on in peace and security…and as they’ll be set up to lack heavy weapons, they’ll never constitute a threat to the existence of the Syrian government. Think of it as being akin to the Kurdish area of Iraq before everything fell apart in that nation.

Third, he’d have to amnesty those parts of the rebels who are not the full on, head-choppy Islamist fanatics…and incorporate them into his army and offer them a genuine seat at the power table in Syria. Not a full democracy – such is not really possible – but with veto power over government proposals which directly effect their lives. This new Syrian army – no longer being just the personal following of the Assad family – could then, with US air and some ground support (mostly special forces types), probably make short work of the biggest problem in Syria – the ISIS goons. Once the are taken care of, Assad gets U.S. aid to rebuild Syria and lines up with us against Iran in the regional balance of power.

Carried out with vigor and a keen eye to realities, such a policy could bring immense security relief to Israel (we might even be able to get Israel to give back a symbolic portion of the Golan: they can’t give it all back for security reasons, of course), free up Lebanon and turn Syria from long-term enemy to at least temporary friend – friend at least during the impending crisis of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and attempting to make Iraq a satrapy of Tehran…and if the deal can also be worked that the Kurdish areas of Syria are joined to those of Iraq in a new Republic of Kurdistan, then we’ve picked up three dominoes in the area and are in a much better position to confront Iran as well as an increasingly hostile Turkey. We’d also be less strategically dependent on Saudi Arabia and so we could start to systemically detach ourselves from the Saudis…until such time as they really feel the pressure from Iran and are willing to, well, not be quite so stoning-people, owning-slaves, flogging-bloggers sorts of people.

Of course, we’ll end up doing neither – we won’t get out, we won’t go in sensibly. So, get prepared for the worst of all worlds in the Middle East.

France’s Go Ahead and Go (If You’re Brave) Zones

I was working the Worst President Twitter account and I came across a tweet by National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke, regarding an article he’s written about Paris. In the article he discusses, among other things, the now-infamous Fox News report about Paris’ no-go zones:

Outside the periphique, it’s dangerous, ugly, tense—often lawless. If you’re Jewish you’re in trouble. There’s little sense of “Frenchness.”

To which I responded, in Twitter form, that if it isn’t French; if Jews better watch out and it is rather lawless then that would fit the definition of a no-go zone, if you ask me. Cooke took exception to that, asserting vigorously that the concept of a no-go zone is untrue. I promised to read his National Review article. Proving definitively that National Review is not part of Obama’s America, I had to pay twenty five cents for the privilege of reading it – and it was well worth the two bits (actually, it is worth quite a bit more than that). If you’ve got a quarter and a little time to spare, I highly recommend it – and you can read it here.

Getting down to no-go brass tacks, the article includes this:

Approximately 80 percent of those who live in Aulnay’s cités are Muslim, I am told. “So,” I ask, “is this one of those sharia-bound no-go areas that we always hear about?”

To my surprise, the question provokes laughter. “That’s a myth,” my hosts exclaim. “It’s impossible.” There are certainly serious “tensions” between the police and the locals, one guide says. “Police won’t go and interfere with women illegally wearing niqabs because they don’t want to prompt retaliation. Definitely, there’s tolerance toward this stuff.” Recently, I learn, a veiled woman who was stopped by police refused to hand over her ID. Instead, she called for help. Quickly, the police in the area were surrounded, and, hoping to defuse the situation, the local commissioner let her go. Angry at the intrusion, a gang came back and burned a copy of the civil code.

This, it seems, is fairly typical. But sharia, as we understand it? “No.”

I have immense respect for Mr. Cooke and enjoy his writing on a regular basis – but, for crying out loud, the wearing of the niqab is required by Sharia law and forbidden by French law…and the French authorities allowed the lady in question to adhere to Sharia law.

I get the point that what is in the public mind when they think “no-go” is an exaggeration; the concept that there are places under French jurisdiction where the police and other authorities never go. If that is what is claimed as a myth, then I concede the point. The French police and military are fully capable of entering any place under French jurisdiction any time they wish and I’m sure that when something the authorities can’t ignore happens, they go in. But, as it actually made pretty clear in Cooke’s article, there is massive criminal activity going on in parts of Paris and the authorities aren’t doing much about it. Cooke’s story of pretty open drug dealing out in front of a Mosque means, to me, that the police know full well that if they try to interfere with this then Muslim radicals in the area will kick up a fuss and lots of elite voices in France will start making accusations of racism…and so they just don’t go. The area is, for practical purposes, a no-go zone for the French authorities. Not because they can’t go, but because they won’t go – and they won’t go because they believe the political costs of going outweigh the benefits of not going.

Don’t be too down on the French about this: there are no-go zones in the United States, as well. Why do you think in places like Chicago there are neighborhoods horrifically crime-ridden while the neighborhood just down the street is nearly crime-free? I can’t think of any other reason than that the police are protecting one area very well, but not too interested in what is going on in the other. Take a look at the crime stats for the Hyde Park and Washington Park areas of Chicago – Hyde Park ranks 44th of Chicago’s 77 neighborhoods in violent crime; Washington Park ranks 5th. They are right next to each other. Seriously – you can cross the street from Hyde Park to Washington Park. Criminals can’t cross the street? Of course they can – but for some reason they don’t. In fact, why don’t criminals routinely head to the richest areas of town to rob and burglarize? Its not like criminals don’t have cars – why beat someone for $50 when you can beat someone else ten miles away for $500? One area is protected, another area isn’t. One area is under the laws of the City of Chicago, one area not quite so much. As to why these two neighborhoods are different I’ll leave that to someone with the time for more in-depth research…but, to me, Washington Park is a no-go zone. I won’t go there. Certainly not after dark. So are those neighborhoods of Paris where Mr. Cooke recently toured. They aren’t entirely part of France – I can’t expect a friendly and polite French police officer to protect me in some areas. I can’t even be very certain that if I were killed in one of those areas that an in-depth investigation would be done…after all, it might lead to someone of a certain faith being the prime suspect and arresting him could cause a riot. Better just to send the American stiff back home and close the case as “unsolved”.

As a citizen of the United States, there should be no part of the United States where it is unsafe for me to travel – any time, day or night. And if I got myself a visa to visit France, I should be able to wander aimlessly about France with never a worry for my safety. That is what government’s which are doing their job ensure. Indeed, it is the prime reason to have a government. Most of the rest of what government does is dross. But, that is not the case. Of course, it has always been like that: there have always been bad neighborhoods that are best to stay out of. But the difference we have today with the past is that a bad neighborhood in the past might have been that way for a multitude of reasons, but some of the bad neighborhoods in Paris (and elsewhere in the Western world) are to be stayed out of simply because of the faith of a majority of the people living there. Safely defended by a craven fear among our elite leadership, areas of the West are being sutured off from our laws and customs. To be sure, a great deal of run-of-the-mill criminal activity is going on in these areas, but the defense of the run-of-the-mill criminals is the fact that they operate out of primarily Muslim areas.

There are various kinds of injustice in the world but one of the worst is when average folks are not afforded protection. In our elite’s desire to not deal with real problems, they have essentially thrown a large number of people to the wolves. In the Muslim neighborhoods of Paris – as Cooke points out – you don’t see a lot of women on the streets and those you do would fit nicely into Mecca. But is that what they really want? Do all Muslim women in those Paris neighborhoods want to wear the niqab? I doubt it. Human nature being what it is, there are certainly some who would prefer to dress like French women – but they dare not, because French law and customs don’t matter and while in theory a Muslim French woman in those areas could appeal to the police for protection, the reality is that she’s at the mercy of those who actually rule the neighborhood. We do it, too, you know? Just for one example we throw people to the criminal wolves on our border because we refuse to enforce our laws – and if we won’t enforce our laws, then someone will enforce their laws. In the case of our border the laws are those of various criminal gangs. If what it would take to ensure the enforcement of French law is an armed French policeman on every corner in the Muslim neighborhoods, then that is what France’s government is morally bound to provide. But, they don’t. Too difficult. Might get called a racist.

It is a paradox of the modern West that as our governments have asserted increasing power over our lives, they have less able to actually protect our lives. This is a sign of civilizational collapse. I’m not at all certain how this is all going to come out in the long run, other than a solid assurance that it can’t go on too much longer, and when the final smash comes, it will be quite astonishing. Whether the remains of western civilization will emerge to rebuild – or be buried forever – remains to be seen. But if we do want our western civilization to survive, then it is a requirement that we look at the facts with a clear eye. Needlessly causing offense is wrong – that is why I asserted a few days ago that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were wrong – but if telling the truth is offensive, then offend away.

Muslims living in the West have an absolute right to the same freedoms that the rest of us enjoy and if we don’t guarantee them their rights, then we have failed in our duties. Among these rights are, of course, the right to be as devoutly Muslim as they wish to be – but they also have a right to be as slipshod and/or heretical as they wish to be, just as the rest of us have the right to be devout about our beliefs, or ignore them nine days out of ten. Just as, say, a Jew must be in no danger if he doesn’t adhere to Judaism, so much a Muslim be in no danger – no matter where the Muslim lives in the West – for not adhering to Islam. And whatever amount of law enforcement activity is necessary – guided, of course, by a strong sense of justice tempered by mercy – to ensure this state of affairs, that is what must be done. Say, if you wish, that there aren’t any no-go zones in Paris or other Western cities. Fine. Granted. But what are we going to do about those non-no-go zones where a person steps away from the ruling orthodoxy at the peril of their life?

112 And Counting……

Here is a list of unkept promises from other State of the Union addresses…. some realistic, some fantasy, most he did not even try and most are what the low information voter, “progressive” drones wanted to hear.

https://grabien.com/story.php?id=20735

2009

1. The stimulus bill will create 3.5 million jobs over the next few years, 90 percent of which will be in the private sector.

2. Create program that will enable Americans facing foreclosure to lower their mortgage payments and save their homes.

3. Double the supply of renewable energy within the next three years.

4. The “largest ever” federal spending program on science will yield breakthroughs in energy, medicine, science, and technology.

5. Lay down 1,000s of miles of power lines to connect Americans’ homes to these new sources of energy.

6. Reduce Americans’ energy bills by “billions of dollars.”

7. Cure cancer “in our time.”

8. Use stimulus funds to spend on preventive health care, which will get federal health spending “under control.”

9. Use the savings that result from the stimulus’ reform of health-care to reduce the deficit.

10. Cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.

11. Go “line by line” through the federal budget to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs – saving $2 trillion over the next 10 years.

12. Never raise taxes “a single dime” on any family earning less than $250,000.

13. Stop the growing cost of Medicare and Social Security.

14. Make Social Security sustainable.

15. Create tax-free savings accounts for all Americans.

16. Close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

2010

17. Use stimulus funds to build a high-speed railway in Florida.

18. Research funds from the previous year’s stimulus will cure cancer, lead to “the cheapest solar cells.”

19. Building a new generation of nuclear energy plants.

20. Passing a climate-change law that will make clean energy profitable

21. Passing health-reform that lets Americans keep their doctors and their plans.

22. The health-reform law will reduce costs for “millions” of families and businesses

23. The health-reform law will bring down the deficit $1 trillion over the next 20 years.

24. Starting in 2011, government spending “ will be frozen for three years.”

25. Cut programs we don’t need to maintain a balanced budget.

26. Veto spending bills that don’t adhere to balanced budgeting. ($7.5 trillion added debt and counting)

27. Go through budget “line by line” to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work.

28. Create a bipartisan fiscal commission; the recommendations of which he’ll enact.

29. Restore the pay-as-you-go budgeting rules.

30. Create a website that publishes every lawmakers’ earmark requests.

31. Never give up “ trying to change the tone of our politics.”

32. Pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

33. Secure America’s borders.

34. Enforce existing immigration laws

2011

35. More nuclear power, more natural gas, more wind and solar.

36. Pass comprehensive immigration reform.

37. Secure America’s borders.

38. Enforce existing immigration laws.

39. Reduce unemployment by increasing the number of people working on infrastructure projects – ensuring these projects are “fully paid for.”

40. Recruit private sector financing to assist these infrastructure projects.

41. Projects will be prioritized by importance, not by politics.

42. Give 85 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years.

43. Within the next three years, enable 98 percent of Americans to receive high-speed wireless Internet.

44. Lower the corporate tax rate and eliminate loopholes.

45. Reduce business regulations restraining growth and investment.

46. Starting this year, freeze domestic spending for the next five years.

47. ObamaCare will slow rising costs of health-insurance premiums.

48. Enact medical malpractice tort reform.

49. Consolidating various federal departments to streamline federal bureaucracy and ensure it’s “more competent and more efficient.”

50. Create website that lists all federal spending.

51. Veto every bill that contains earmarks.

2012

52. Reduce corporate income taxes.

53. Consolidate federal jobs-training programs – creating a single website that makes all information about these programs available in one place.

54. Convert federal unemployment insurance into a system that focuses on finding the unemployed jobs.

55. Enact comprehensive immigration reform.

56. Force all high schools to require students to stay in school until they graduate or turn 18.

57. Open more than 75 percent of off-shore U.S. territory to drilling.

58. Go “all out” on every type of energy.

59. Take “every possible action” to expand natural gas production.

60. Ordering “every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense.”

61. Create “financial crimes unit” to crack down on white-collar crime.

62. Work with Congress to procure power to consolidate federal bureaucracy.

63. “End the notion that political parties must be engaged in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction.”

2013

64. Reform Medicare and Medicaid to save as much as was proposed by the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

65. “Reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies.”

66. Raises taxes on the wealthiest seniors.

67. Bring down health-care costs by changing the way the federal government pays for Medicare.

68. Eliminate loopholes and deductions for the “well off.”

69. Enact comprehensive tax reform that brings down the deficit and encourages job growth.

70. Cut “red tape and speed up new oil and gas permits.”

71. Create an “energy security trust.”

72. Create a “fix it first” program that will direct the unemployed to the highest priority programs.

73. Make “high quality” preschool available to every child in America.

74. Require that aid to colleges be distributed according to the value they impart upon students.

75. Pass comprehensive immigration reform.

76. Raise the minimum wage to $9/hour.

77. Create a tax incentive for companies to hire the long-term unemployed.

78. Create a program to put people back to work by rebuilding vacant homes in rundown neighborhoods.

79. Enact new tax credits for businesses that hire and invest.

80. Eliminate the marriage penalty for low-income couples.

81. Encourage fatherhood through tax policy adjustments.

82. By the end of 2014, end the war in Afghanistan.

83. Never make promises the government can’t actually keep.

84. Keep the promises already made. (Bwahahahahahahahahahaaa!)

2014

85. Lower corporate income taxes, close loopholes.

86. Use the money saved from corporate tax reform to finance new infrastructure spending.

87. Slash bureaucracy through executive orders.

88. Create an additional six “high tech manufacturing hubs” in 2014.

89. “Do more” to help entrepreneurs and small business owners.

90. Use government research funds to create entirely new industries – like vaccines that adapt to evolving bacteria, and inventing material thinner than paper but stronger than steel.

91. Pass a patent reform bill.

92. Use executive orders to cut red tape to enable factories to be built that are powered by natural gas.

93. Reform taxes so that fossil fuel companies are taxed more and “ fuels of the future” are taxed less.

94. Enact new fuel-efficiency standards for trucks.

95. Pass comprehensive immigration reform.

96. Consolidate federal jobs training programs, helping match people with skills to jobs they can fill.

97. Reform unemployment insurance to encourage Americans to return to the workforce faster.

98. Assemble a coalition to help more kids access pre-K education.

99. Pass the “Equal Pay Act” for women.

100. Raise the minimum wage to $10.10

101. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit

102. Reform the tax code to help lower-class Americans save

103. Give every American access to “an automatic IRA on the job.”

104. Ensure Americans never have to wait more than a half hour to vote.

105. Pass legislation that will prevent mass shooting tragedies.

106. End the Afghan war by the end of 2014.

107. Reform NSA surveillance programs.

108. Close Guantanamo Bay Prison in 2014.

109. End the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

110. Ensuring the Iran will stop installing advanced centrifuges.

111. Be the “first” to call for more sanctions if Iran doesn’t abandon nuclear program.

112. Reform Veterans Affairs so that vets no longer have to deal with backlogs and instead receive the health care that they need.
———-

We can confidently say that this pResident is INCOMPETENT and a FAILURE.

Update: We have a reason why obame has failed in keeping his promises, from the loony left.  The reasons are, “it’s because he’s black and the evil GOP wants him to fail.”  Wow, talk about regurgitating dumbed down talking points. So, if the GOP was so effective at stopping obame’s agenda, where did cappy’s “success” list come from? Also, when his own party opposed him on some issues, were they being racist also?

So when obame and his party had control of both houses before 2011, what is the excuse for not keeping those promises in 2009 and 2010?  Plus for 2011 till present, why not sign more Executive Orders?

Thinking About “American Sniper”

First off, let me just say the movie is emotionally devastating. It is a very powerful movie – and very gritty. It is not at all for kids – or, indeed, for anyone who has trouble with not so much violence, as a thing, but the horrific reality of what counter-insurgency warfare is like.

The movie is not about a hero so much as it is about how a man – just an average man – deals with events which force him to be heroic. Bradley Cooper, as Chris Kyle, plays a sort of man I’ve known in my life. For one, the man who recruited me into the United States Navy; a Navy SEAL of Vietnam-era vintage. I’ve met a few others of the type over the years. Quiet, calm men who are dedicated to defending those who cannot defend themselves. You have to think about it for a moment when you’re with them – the knowledge that they know how to kill and will kill without hesitation if they believe it necessary. Men who are also, as depicted in the movie, pursued by what they have done long after it is over – the man who recruited me dealt with it by making a big joke out of life (I’ll never forget the gales of laughter he had while telling me the story of his father – trouble was, it was about how his father, a submariner in the Navy, was accidentally killed by a torpedo).

The story also gets into how the families of these men are forced to live in desperate fear of what will happen; how they still have to keep up a brave front to the world while they are worried sick; how when the warrior comes home, they are often dealing with a person who is at least partially broken by the terrible events endured.

But as I’ve pondered the movie over the last 24 hours, what has most struck me is that when we engage in war – when we send men like Chris Kyle out to do battle – then we’d better be in it to win it; and we should be doing it vastly different from how we’ve done it. You see, Chris Kyle’s job was to protect his fellow soldiers by using his sniper rifle to kill the enemy before the enemy could kill our troops. But in a counter-insurgency campaign, such a job means that the sniper will have to make snap decisions on who lives and dies…and then live with the consequences of that decision for the rest of his life. One thing I would now prefer for all time to come is that if we have to go to war, we don’t go into that particular kind of war.

You see, the enemy knows us – and knows our weakest point: our desire not to harm. In our desire to be nice (can’t think of a better word), I think we do a disservice to ourselves and, in the end, end up with more harm than we need. The sort of people we fight – and the sort of people we’ll always fight for the foreseeable future – are brutes. They care nothing for human lives. They deliberately hide themselves among civilians knowing that when we come to kill, we’ll kill at least some of the civilians and those dead – which are 100% the fault of the enemy – will be blamed on us. Mogadishu is the battle plan at all times – draw Americans into built up areas, set bombs and ambushes and just wait for civilians to be caught in the cross-fire. Chris Kyle dealt with that through four tours of duty. No more of that, as far as I’m concerned. If we must fight, we’re not to fight the way the enemy wants.

I would never agree to sending Americans into a house-to-house battle to clear out terrorists dug in among civilians. If we’re ever faced with something like Fallujah, again, then I say we just properly besiege the place, allow no one in or out, no food in, and just wait for them to starve into surrender. Yes, people will die. Yes, some of them will be civilians. But they won’t die because of cross fire between us and a barbaric enemy…and when the enemy does come out to stack arms, and he will because starvation will do that to you, the world will know and see that the enemy surrendered to us…coming out, hands in the air, into our prison camps. I’m tired of fighting the war the way the enemy wants. When we send the like of Chris Kyle into battle, I want them to win it all with an enemy begging for peace…not coming home after a nasty fight to deal with PTSD while idiots at home condemn them for fighting.

God rest your soul, Chris Kyle – and may God cast His blessings upon you and your fellow warriors.