All too often, we hear promise after promise from candidates seeking to be elected or re-elected.
And all too often, those promises don’t come to fruition. It’s a sad reality, because the voters put their trust in the candidates to do what they pledged to do.
So, when politicians do keep their promises, they deserve credit.
Last fall, U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., promised that if he were re-elected to the Senate he would get the necessary votes to vote to repeal Obamacare.
Early this month, McConnell stuck to that promise and almost on a party-line vote passed legislation that would repeal Obamacare. Similar legislation to repeal Obamacare passed the House in late October.
If it wasn’t a letdown to most Americans, that’s only because their expectations were so low. Obama’s streak of failing to come to grips with the terrorist threat, both substantively and rhetorically, remains intact.
He retreated to a euphemism to assess the menace of ISIS. He said it’s “evolving.” Please, Mr. President, it’s growing in front of your eyes – in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and, most alarmingly of all, here at home.
What a remarkable speech. In an era where a jihadist army controls more territory, commands more fighters, and has demonstrated broader striking power than any jihadist force in modern history, the President of the United States spends just about as much time lecturing Americans about Islamophobia as he does laying out his utterly inadequate strategy for defeating ISIS.
The very idea that our nation needs yet another lecture about discrimination is deeply disrespectful to the American people. After fourteen years of war against Islamic jihadists – at a cost of more than 60,000 American killed or wounded and countless thousands more suffering the lingering effects of difficult deployments — America is so tolerant of Islam that Jews — Jews! — face far more hate crimes than Muslims. When was the last time Jewish-Americans launched a deadly terror attack? The Jewish homeland is among our closest allies, matched only by countries like the United Kingdom. Yet America is less tolerant of Jews than Muslims. Americans have responded to large-scale Islamic terror and tens of thousands of broken bodies with remarkable grace and tolerance. The American people should be applauded, not lectured.
President Obama and some 150 other heads of state are poised to adopt policies that will slow economic growth, spread poverty, and stymie human progress, all in slavish service to an utterly bogus “problem” of their own imagination.
A few years ago they quietly retired the global warming rhetoric and, instead, began shouting about “climate change.” Why the jumped-up new slogan?
“Global warming” stopped happening, and complaining about it increasingly made them look deranged.
As this graph clearly indicates, scientific observations from weather satellites have reported zero warming in global mean temperatures since February 1997, when readings from recent decades peaked.
Simply put, despite the warmists’ high-decibel bluster, there has been no global warming for 18 years and nine months. The data come from satellites that orbit Earth.
The global warmists are the true deniers of science. They ignore actual data from satellites and embrace the alchemy of computer models supervised by the United Nations’s International Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC’s PCs spew predictions of a planet asphyxiated beneath a duvet of “carbon pollution” — Obama’s mendacious new epithet for carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gas that humans exhale and plants inhale, before the latter produces life-sustaining oxygen.
If these vaunted models truly can foreshadow the supposedly apocalyptic conditions on Earth in, say, 2050 or 2100, surely they have traced correctly this planet’s temperatures from their inception until today.
Not even close. Between January 1990 and September 2015, these models have predicted 0.45° Celsius (0.81° degrees Fahrenheit) more warming than satellites actually have detected. If these sacred computer models blew it this badly over the last 25 years, why should anyone believe any of their prophecies about the next 35 to 85 years?
These facts refute the utter mythology that fuels this week’s festivities in Paris.
Three days after the Islamic State terrorist attacks in Paris, Americans were primed to hear their president express heartfelt anger, which he did in his press conference in Antalya, Turkey, at the end of the G-20 summit. And they did hear him describe ISIS as “this barbaric terrorist organization” and acknowledge that the “terrible events in Paris were a terrible and sickening setback.”But what really got him angry, as the transcript and video make clear, were reporters’ repeated questions about the minimal success of his strategy against ISIS; Republicans’ proposals for more active engagement in Syria and Iraq; and critics of his decision to allow 10,000 Syrians into the United States.
Elections are not mysterious events subject to the whimsy of unpredictable candidates and voters. They’re actually highly predictable, with a set of variables that influence outcomes in familiar ways.
Because of that, we can say, with reasonable confidence, that a Republican will be moving into the White House in 2017.
That conclusion is based on the results of a data model we created, and is primarily the result of two factors, both related to the challenges faced by “successor” candidates — candidates from the same party as the incumbent. First, a Republican will win because voters typically shy away from the party currently in power when an incumbent isn’t running. In fact, a successor candidate is three times less likely to win. Second, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are too low to suggest a successor candidate will take the White House.