John Yoo!: I Hate You!

I don't hate many people on the Right, my political adopted homeland, but i think John McCain gots company cause now I hate my second Republican: John Yoo. Plus, I can't stop saying "John Yoo! I hate You!" try it, its addictive, my god. Anyways, I hate John Yoo, not you, just John Yoo, for the following reasons,

1. I watched this interview with nice-guy preppy interviewer of the Right, the Hoover Instuition's Peter Robinson, the Reagan speechwriter who coined the sentence, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" at an enviously young age and has since hosted the one time PBS, now even better NRO hosted, show, Uncommon Knowledge, which to me all true conservatives watch regularly,

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NjI4ZWFmZTQ5ZWUyNzVhMjZhYzliM2JlYjc3ZTdlZGY=

2. Here's my charcheter sketch of John Yoo: As you can see if you watch all 5 unusually unlively segments of the Uncommon Knowledge interview with Yoo, the man is such a neocon, so totally preoccupied with foreign policy and the "vital importance" of the Afganistan and Iraqi wars, that he has, quitely (though, really, whose asking?), morphed into a Obamacon as he divuldges here). I mean you really do get the sense from the manifestly unstimulating, John Yoo, that he cares about anything outside foreign policy, politically, at all. He exsplains to Robinson that he thinks Obama is going to go down as a great president because alone, he "realized Afganistan wasn't another Vietnam" and has gone hawkish. Now A. Afganistan is Vietnam exactly and it shouldn't take much more than Berkely proffership to realize that and B. even if Yoo was right and the Afgan war was this hugely important war as the Neocons hype it to be it is going to be only a segment of Obama's legend. Yoo reminds me of a mediocre follower, true beliver type who comes to the scene to late, like a Reaganite graduating college in 1996 but with an ideology that is terrible for America and self evidently weak unlike Reagonomics aka free markets. John Yoo seems like the only frustrated youngish product of the College Republicans brigade in America to have not just liked George W. Bush (which isn't something few so called active younger Republicans even did post-2004) but saw George W. Bush as Peter Robinson and David Frum and Ann Coulter, saw Ronald Wilson Reagan, a far far superior and more admirable man and politician. It seems, I'm almost certain of it, that Yoo was a very smart asian kid (you know the type) who has little talent or flair for talking especially public speaking but can kick your ass at a Geometry test, who is outside being incredibly gifted at Math is the model Everyday Average Kid and who thinks politics and liteature which white males tend to be suspetible towards at a early age than asian males. Suddenly, the John Yoo i have erected in my imagination goes to Stanford Unviersity just anothe brick in the great wall of American Education that is the Asian-American college student, having had hardly any intrest in politics, writing, liteature, music, or the like at all. At college, he finds his smartness, steely work ethic and traditional Chritian mores alienate him from dumb pot smoking leftists: a Republican is born! Yoo, his intrest in mathematics fading, applies his steely Asian-American Christian work ethic to a new field of intrest and work, the Republican Machine. Accept with one caveat, John Yoo is going to college in the post-Reagan era, post-bloated welfare state, post-huge taxes, post-hippies America. During Yoo's college days at Stanford, Clinton is in office, John Yoo's mind like the nation itself is no longer so focused on internal, domestic issues because the hippies are off the street (and in the establishment), the hige welfare state is being somewhat dismantled, taxes are not so high, immigration is not yet a big issue, the decline of morals doesn't attract John Yoo or any youngsters energies, so there is a huge void for some conservatives like John yoo and that void is filled by foreign policy, the fight against depotism, spreading of democracy and fighting of terrorism. Remember, at this time, during the political dogdays of the Clinton adminstration on the American right which was to an extent, save the brief 94' revivial, neutralized and partly co-opted by Bill Clinton with the help of the brazen if brazen aide of Jesse Helm's former political strategist, Dick Morris-who would resign only to rise back to promimence on the right after the curtain was raised on his ludicrous and often hilarous escapades with a high class D.C. rent-a-chick. The inevtiable lull for conservativtism in the years after immediatly following the twin triumphs of the Reagan years, the ending of the Cold War and the economic Reagan revoultion, had opened up the way forward for those strange guests within the Republican Party, the Neo-Cons, to hijack the Republican Party. Hense the rapid rise of the flagship neoconservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, which is launched in the mid-90's by David Brooks and the less talented, Ivy league, sons of neoconservatisms two founding fathers, Bill Kristol (son of Irving) & John Podhoretz (son of Norman). The Weekly Standard was symbolic not only of a resurgent neoconservtive movement during the 90's but of a mainstream rebranding of neoconservatism as no longer just a almost exsplicity ethno-centric, in this case, Jewish, movement.
The Weekly Standard would supplant Commentary magazine, father Norman Podhoretz's exsplicitly jewish centered magazine which began as the magazine of the American Jewish Commititee until Norman Podhoretz, a friend, at one time, to the leftist celebritys of NYC such as Norman Mailer, Allen Ginsberg and the Trillings, took the magazine toe the left in reaction to the tumultious hippy student movement in the 1960's.
So John Yoo became a Neo-con young true believer, with not only a bookshelf full of books by Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and Sidney Hook but his very own magazine, the Weekly Standard, just like the Grover Norquists and David Frums who grew of age during the late 70's and ages had William F. Buckley books and Nation Review. For non-whites in America it is hard to leave the left without feeling a sense of betraying the race. I don't know how much of this pathology is present among asians but I know it is present and wouldn't be suprised if neoconservatism was the perfect for Yoo ideolgically because it could give him an identity (e.g. "I'm a neoconservative...that's reall grown up & cool."), a mission, and also a exsplanation to Asians who might think he wanted to be white by being a Republican, he could always say as neo-cons love to say that, he was part of the "good conservtive movement not the racist, nativist, old right of Robert Taft" that carried about immigration and keeping America out Europe's wars and mantaining American white Christian civilization. So off Johnny Yoo goes to some senators office or think tank in Wasshington D.C.. He takes the Matt Latatimer route and finds himself, just essentially naother college Conservative "geek" at the top end of the US State Department and find yourself at the center of a firestorm over executive power in regards to the Iraq war. Some provocative and, if I may say so, rather ridiclous statements in your memos about the Commander in Chiefs executive priviledges exsplode on the left. In these memos John Yoo deems that the executive has the power to declare war without Congressional or Senatorial approval and many other absurd statements. PBS does a Frontline episode inwhich Yoo is a central focus (he is interview in it making some the type of ludicrous constuitional assertions I reffer to). According to the Frontline documentrary which seems honest enough, Yoo was essentially used in the drum roll to war in Iraq in 2003 basically given the job of being in-house constuinal yes-man for the Bush adminstration. Its seems as if Dick Cheney or Wolfwitz gave one of his Strausian friends at whatever law school John Yoo was teaching constuinial law at the time and said "Look, do you have any young, wide-eyed, neocon true belivers on the Law School staff whose crazy enough to believe the President can go to war with the Senate declaring war?" and they had returned the name John Woo. I would even go so far as to say and i could easily be wrong, that Yoo was kind of brought into the Bush adminstration as kind of the desiginated constuitional fall guy.
And what was and is (because no one is more consititant than neocons) John Yoo's Constuinal law? Yoo is a living-document "conservative" legal guy who thinks that we can go to war without a declaration of war on the grounds that "we've had alot of wars without declarations" and that dispirate impact law is da bomb. The only bright spot in Yoo's constuinalism is his defence of waterboarding. John Yoo has rehabilated himself very well finding himself a job as a proffesor at Berkely of all places and publishing two books. The first book is just another forgettable Bushie White House memoir entitled "War By Another Name" and the recent book, "Crises and Command" which is far better in my view for its an actual history extending from Washington to Bush. Yoo's arguments are so weak as you can see here that it seems almost certain that he was a mediocre Bush adminstration buercrat that was shot into the spotlight by accident and was wiley enough to squeeze a book deal out of that. Yoo has the terrible job shared by the neocon movement of trying to exsplain why America needs to stay in two useless wars in Iraq and Afganistan for another decades, talking about 9/11 till its worn out beyond belief. Yoo as a indivual is innocent enough but insidious for what he reprsents. He reprasents the part of the GOP that is obbessed to an bizarre degree with neocon hawkishness and foreign policy epitomized by Rudy Gilullani and Glen Beck and the other segment of the party which is obbessed with talking about 9/11 and big goverment alone.

My List of Best Conservatives

Would you like to know how I formulated this list? The list is based on two variables: influence and righteousness. Thus if I were ranking conservatives by who is the best on the issues and stating their views I might include myself in this list and Christopher Hitchens wouldn't be in it at all but that would to boring like being a communist.

1. Steve Sailer


2. Patrick J. Buchanan


3. Micheal Savage


3. Paul Gottfried


4. John Derbyshire


5. Peter Brimelow


6.Mitt Romney


6. Peter Hitchens


7. George Will


8. Antonin Scalia


9. Peter Schiff


10. Thomas Sowell


11. David Frum
David Frum has some defects on some of the policies he wants (give in on carbon taxes, etc.) but thats not his self-realized role in the GOP. Frum has taken on a crucial crusade, he was and remains the leading and sometimes, seemingly, the only Republican critiquing Sara Palin during the 2008 campaign. Quite simply he pointed out the obvious, or what should have been ovbious truth about Palin, that she was a yokel, a embarssment and catosphere for the GOP that reinforced all the worst sterotypes of the right that Bush had enforced for 8 years in which the GOP became a laughingstock because Bush like Palin can't speak and is not up to far for high office intelllectually. Frum wants to David Cameron-ize the Republican Party in a sense which is to say he wants to
reform the Republican Partys terribly managed image from jesus-freak, unsophisticated, uncultured, anti-intellectual yokels to smartly dressed conservative urbanites with nice suites and Evelyn Waugh by the bedside which is the image of the new Tories lead by David Cameron. This is crucial because the current GOP image has blocked the conversion of millions of Americans, paticularily young people and city slickers to the right for converting to the party of Palin and Bush is social society and too embarsing for millions who would move right otherwise. If America woke up tommorow to find a GOP, un-changed policy wise, but which looked like, dressed-like, was as clearly euridite as the British Conservative Party I gaurnetee that in the course of 6 months of re-adjustment tens of millions of Americans, mostly located in urban areas and under 35, would quitely move to the right. This would entail, there being no Sara Palin, no George Bush as face of the GOP but David Frums insteads (he is, in person the model of what the new Republican showuld look like). It would mean that rather than old, dreary, senile, out of touch, old geezers with white hair like John McCain and Newt Gingrich running the GOP and always having a monopoly on the nomination that conservatives in their 40's who look like David Cameron or Scott Brown should be the GOP presidential candiates. This is the good part of Frum's rigetous crusade there are just a few down sides policy wise. Frum seems to make dumb moves to the left on the enviorment, taxes, and so fourth (though this might not be as bad as I describe it, anyways its not anywhere near the fore front of his crusade). David has also been notable on the right side of history when it comes to immigration which is more important than one might think considering that David Frum has kind of supplanted David Brooks as the favriote or preffered Republican of the Left which is usually a indiment of a respective Republican's oppurtinism but with David is the product of the very image-related subjects that I write of. Frum, as i say knows how to do what the GOp needs to learn how to do, and what Sara Palin doesn't know or try to do, which is how to talk to not just the left, the young, the upper middle class, the urban, the well educated who revile the ignorance of Sara Palin.


12. Christopher Hitchens
So Christopher Hitchens makes the list because, although he is wrong on foreign policy, religon and much else and is a intertionalist to the bone, he has morphed in the last 10 years into one of the best critiques of the more masochist elements on the left. He is read by the media and political and ruling classes so his influence is huge. If anything he is injects a crucial self-conciousness into the left that makes the Democratic Party ignore the Nation magazine (his former employer somehow) more which is always a good thing. He has admirable integrity and has displayed it by recently checking movements and groups on the left that need checking especially by a polemcist with the gifts of Hitchens, recent victims include: the religous Global Warming movement, the inane-sheep like audience of the Daily Show, Al Franken, Obama worship, the leftist pussyfooters who won't even try to stop jihadist terrorists in airports, etc. He also has been the most brillant critique of anti-Americanism and sympathy for jihadism on the left.


13. Rush Limbaugh


14. Rich Lowry


15. Mark Steyn


16.Taki Theodoracopulos


17.Victor Davis Hanson


18. Tom Tancredo


19. Jonah Goldberg


20. Ron Paul


21. Thomas Woods


22. Niall Ferguson


23. Robert Bork


24. Mark Sanford


25. Mike Pence


24. Peter Robinson


25. Mitch Daniels


26. Clarence Thomas


27. Ramesh Ponnuru


28. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts


29. Richard Brookhiser


30. Steven Hayward


31. L. Brent Bozell III


32. Paul Rahe

The Republican Party of John McCain vs. The GOP of Michael Savage

There are two Republican Parties. There is John McCain and George W. Bush and Sara Palin's GOP and then there is Pat Buchanan and Peter Schiff and Michael Savage's GOP. The overwhelming majority of Republican voters and the majority of real Americans (aka Patriots) agree with and want to vote for Buchanan & Savage's GOP. Though some of them will settle for voting (without enthusiam) for McCain & Bush's GOP if thats all there are again allowed to vote for. What's the difference between the two? Conventional (liberal) wisdom holds that the GOP of George Bush and John McCain is "acceptable" and "moderate" and "reasonable" (meaning they will help vote for liberal bills & are PC) while the GOP of Buchanan and Savage is "extremist" and "far right", not to mention "racist" (meaning: they won't help the Democrats pass amnesty or single payer health care and don't like PC lies or racial quotas).
We all have incessantly heard liberals who haven't spent a moment in there lives ever thinking about whats good for the GOP offering there own disgenous bogus prescriptions to the Republican Party in the months since McCain's defeat. These liberals unsolicited advise to the GOP is almost always the same, each resembling, more or less the following each time: the Republicans are "too right wing" and they need "to move to the center" or they will be totally creamed by the Obama adminstration and be in the wilderness for decades to come. Ofcourse anyone with a iota of sense can see right through this manifestly dishonest meme. All one needs to ask in order to asseses the merits of this arguments which rests on the assertion that the GOP is "so right wing" is ask who the GOP nominated for President in 2008 (or 2000 & 2004 aswell). McCain is so un-right wing that John Kerry offered him the slot of VP nominee in 2004.
The term "move to the center" implies a parties move towards the views of the majority whilst going to the "far right" implies the GOP adopting increasingly unpopular fringe positions that few Americans share. The irony is that when the GOP moves to the "center" and becomes more McCain-like the GOP is, in fact, moving a way from the majority/mainstream and adopting policys increasingly unpopular with the public. When and if the GOP, atleast as of now, were to move to the "right" to the more Buchanan-Savage side of the party, it would be moving towards the majority and adopting the populous views more by doing so. The "moderate" center-right Republican Party of McCain is unappealing to most Americans and Republicans alike. The GOP of McCain has, first of all, a incredibly unpopular foreign policy that is outdated. This policy which the party is gradually shedding, slowly but surely, is basically a position of default hawkishness, it means, that these Republicans (like McCain) disregard changes in the wars abroad and stubbornly, unthinkingly, in order partly to not contradict themselves or the Bush Doctrine, just take up the most hawkish position on Afganistan and Iraq. This means they want to stay longer in both, Iraq and Afganistan and will only critique the Obama adminstration on grounds of being to dovish in these 2 decade long wars of charity. They will vote to extend these endless war as long as possible and critique Obama for leaving to early when and if he does (almost no matter when Obama does do so). These are the types like McCain and Bush who have no actually conserative principles outside economics and who have abandon national intrest usually to show how moralstic and idealist they are. They want a world democratic revoultion and want the US to act like a dream UN as world policeman and nanny.
These default hawks have almost no fans outside Norman Podhoretz and his crew especially outside the population of the District of Columbia & New York City. Right now, the GOP's actual grass roots voters are the most vocal critiques of staying in these 2 wars of choice that have nothing to do with our national intrest (and which we have no more trillions to fight). In fact, the overwhelming majority of the country, left and right, black and white, agrees that we should leave these 2 wars behind now and focus on our own affairs. They have, as of now, no party voicing there national intrest foreign policy views. However if the Buchanans and Schiff's and Savages can capture there party, the majority will have a party reprsenting it on foreign policy. Notice that these Republicans, Schiff, Buchanan, Savage, the national intrest conservatives, are the most popular among Americans & Republicans both, they attract far far broader audiences and fans than the average Sean Hannity or McCain espousing the views of the McCain-esque PC neocons. The truth is that Micheal Savage has more popular policy views than Glenn Beck or Sara Palin, same with Schiff & Buchanan.
The Palin's, McCain's and Bush's are really more like poltical careerists than genuine conservatives who didn't go into poltics out of concerns about the path America was on or because of there deeply held ideas but, generally because of more vain and person reasons-using poltics for therapy or as a vechile for achieving notiriety, fame or riches (e.g. Palin resigns from the governship to host her own FOX show). In Bush jr.'s case he ran for governor of Texas, in part, to avenge his repuatation within the Bush clan as the families unserious, acholic, "black sheep" aswell as to partially prove himself against his fathers famous achievments. With McCain, another son of a famous public servant, you get a similiar motivatation for entering poltics to the drive to match or exceed the promimence of his famous father, the head of the navy during Vietnam, Admiral McCain. Ofcourse, McCain surely was inspired by his patriotism but he seems not to have many well thought out ideas, or a rigorous mind but seems to have seen poltics as a good career path as a handsome returning war hero and the well-connected son of a very influential and famous military leader. Plus McCain, atleast for awhile in recent years was obbosed with not jeoperdazing his de facto position as the liberal media's favriote Republican (by doing things like voting against amnesty) and this fixation was patheticly confirmed in 2008 when it was revealed that McCain not only watched not FOX news but Keith Oblerman each night and was all torn up inside when he didn't meet Oblerman liking. Report after report from McCain campiagn leaders (such as Charlie Black) desribes McCain being driven up the wall when Oblerman, Maddow and the rest of the leftist pundit class stopped liking him, this revealing/confirming much about why McCain was/is in poltics in the first place. Sara Palin shows how much she cares about actual poltical ideas by how little she discusses them instead everytime she seems to open her mouth prefering to act like a feuding school girl devoting pretty much her whole book as well as most all of her interviews to pursuing bitter vendettas she has with Katie Couric (for asking her what she read) , "the elites" and ofcourse the "media" all of whom tricked the nation into doubting her qualifications according to her. One must realize that its not as hard as it to become governor of Alaska as it is to become governor of most every other state in the Union (its about 50X harder in Illinois for instance). She started out as a PTA mom, then small town mayor and then somehow governor, she basically a PTA mom today still, her intrests are extremly narrow (all she talks about at her own will is 1. how misunderstood Alaskians (so she claims) 2. autism 3. drilling for oil in Alaska and 4. What a "maverick" John McCain is. Basically like most women she is much more focused on the things immediately in front of her: Alaska's oil, Tripp's autism, Alaska, and little else at all. Basically, Sara Palin is a featherweight compared to Pat Buchanan or Michael Savage or Peter Schiff. Her mind isn't close to being on the same level as them, she can hardly articulate her argument, knows very little, sounds provincial and uninformed, and hardly has many concrete well thought views and arguments. Maybe she didn't enter poltics for vain or personal reasons but, no matter how genuine her intrests, she is simply not meant for a national stage she could only have gotten to the governership in such a small and idioscratic state as Alaska.
These types will change positions on amnesty and affirmtive action just because a Rovian pollster says it will win them the latino vote (perhaps less with Palin) and they all have little quarrels with going by the dishonest PC conventions instead saying the truth like say Buchanan, Savage and Schiff. The reason these 3 are honest is in part because there not polticians but that doesn't mean they or some like them would fail in politics, quite the contary. The McCains are under the illusion that they can win the latino vote if they just pander to latinos and vote for Amensty. Ofcourse, latinos will still vote Democratic no matter what as they have shown. They would rather vote for free health care than to ban gay marriage.
Perhaps the most extremly unpopular positions the McCain Republicans have is in the areas of immigration, racial preferences, spending and education.

1. There for amnesty & do nothing about the border or sanctuary citys and are for free health care, education, scholarships and welfare for illegals. The overwhelming majority of Americans are vehemently against this.

2. They also don't take a stand against continued mass immigration despite the fact that over 80% of Americans say they don't want anymore mass immigration since 17 mill. of us are out of work.

3. They share the lefts penchant for affirmtive action, racial quotas, dispirate law and bogus discimination lawsuites like Ricci v. DeStefano, which again the majority of the nation hates (minus minoritys). This especially like 1 and 2 alienates and losses white Republican voters.

4. Spending: they vote "yes" to more useless wars in the middle east and vote "no" to providing health care to laid off GM assembly line workers. In other words, they are fiscally conservative and considered with the huge debt when it comes to domestic issues yet abandon those principles utterly when it comes to foreign policy. This is extremly unpopular and also the best argument/case the left has against Republicans in 2010 & 2012 elections. It debases the domestic arguments Republicans are making about health care, the debt and so fourth and makes it seem like the GOP is, as the left claims, is just knee-jerkly opposing everything for purely poltical reasons.

5. They support "No Child Left Behind", a incredibly idiotic policy which is unpopular for many reasons on both the right and the left. Conservatives hate it cause 1. it has absurd PC goals about how everyone is equal in ability and 2. it increases the massively disportionate amount of money that is being spent on the very worst students (whilst less than 10% of education $ go to the most gifted students which is most important for our future). 3. It involves the federal Goverment in education like never before. 4. cause much cheating by public teachers. On the left they basically hate "No Child Left Behind" because it imposes standards on public schools and there teachers and liberals want teachers to grade themselves instead of having tests as standards (so that the failure of public schools can be covered up).

6. As far as counter-terrorism, ironically "the hawks" are sacrfices poltical correctness for security. They are against waterboarding and logical profiling at airports. Most everyone in the U.S. outside those who the Rachel Maddow's who graduated from Brown Unviersity with a degree in calling people racists, agree that 7 year old blonde little girls should not be checked as much as 28 year old Nigerian muslims.

The Buchananite Republicans have the opposite position on all 5 of these, meaning that they have the consesus view on all 5. Simply put they like a majority of Americans want (the following),

1. An immediate end to both wars in the middle east which we can't afford and aren't in our intrests to fight for another decade. We can protect our selves in a much more cheap way by A. securing our borders (which let 14 of the 19 9/11 hijackers in) B. increasing port security C. fixing immigration department D. ending sancutuary cities and E. decreasing Muslim immigration greatly/only letting in known moderate muslims (that we need).

2. An end to anti-white legal discrimination aka affirmtive action, quotas and the like.

3. An end to absurd discrimination dispirate impact law suites like Vulcan Society v. New York or Ricci v. DeStefano.

4. Spend the amount we spend funding the Iraq and Afgan wars in a month and a half and secure our borders forever with a hi-tech barrier. Build it as a public works project that would employ thousands and which would pay for itself in 2 years and then save America billions every year hence fourth in the tax dollars we won't have to give away to the millions of illegal immigrants (in free edu., healthcare, etc.) who would be stopped from entering the US as a result of the border. This would lower crime, raise wages, lower class size, etc.

5. Deport all illegal aliens in jail and save billions of dolllars inturn.

6. Have a state trooper stationed in every emergence room in America verifying citizenship and arresting illegal immigrants (granted they don't need urgent life or death care). Get rid of law which requires hospitals to give illegals all the medical care they want and demand (which has bankrupted hundreds of hospitals and raises rationing and costs and hospital waits).

7. No more tax dollars should be going to illegals in free education, scholarships, welfare or non-emergency health care.

8. End the era of "sanctuary cities", unleash I.C.E. to do its job and finally go after illegal immigrants who are allowed now to lounge in front of police with no fear of being caught. Empower all law enforcment officials to ask people if they are citizens or not and to check if they are arrest illegals.

9. Implement rational religous/ethnic profiling at airports in order to lower risks of next attack. Also, empower CIA and FBI to wiretap radical mosques within US. Finally, ban all imams from operating and recruiting inmates in all prisons (thousands of convicts are being radicalized in jails as a result each month).

10. End "No Child Left Behind". Devote more rescources to bright students. Implement vouchers and open up citys to charter schools as a way of inducing compeitition that will lead to better results and more creative thinking and effort among school adminstators.

11. Stop giving out billions of dollars in foreign aid to almost every nation on earth when we are so deep in debt.

12. Get out of NAFTA, which Ross Perot and Buchanan correctly predicted would lead to the outsourcing of US jobs.

13. Don't impose a carbon tax that will A. raise energy prices and prices in general for Americans B. be the biggest tax in US history at a time of high unemployment none the less C. hardly cut any carbon (which will be canceled out by China easily) and will have no effect on the climate cycle D. and will certainly have the effect of forcing companies, who won't be able to afford doing business in the US (which already has the highest corporate tax on earth) and will move and take millions of jobs with them increasing unemployment and E. thrwating any chance of real economic growth.

14. Don't give Africa and its many corrupt sinister leaders over a 100 billion dollars to "prepare for global warming" (the meaning of which isn't clear) especially when we have no money.

15. Build new firehouses in Boston, Massuchessutes not Basra, Iraq.