Comments

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Comments

powered by Typepad

Saturday, May 09, 2015

Comments

powered by Typepad

Contact IR

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Pic_giant_111413_SM_How-Roe-Happened-Clarke-Forsythe
By Nancy Thorner – 

With the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton establishing “constitutionalized” abortion in all 50 states, the United States is one of the most permissive in its treatment of abortion. It ranks with China, North Korea and Canada as the only countries in the world that permit abortion for any reason after fetal viability.

Wishing to spread the message of the Reagan Revolution, the Republican Assembly of Lake County (RALC) annually sponsors  a Reagan Day Dinner. The Republican Assembly of Lake County is associated with the National Federation of Republican Assemblies. The first Republican Assembly was founded in 1934 in California.  Ronald Reagan called the Republican Assemblies “the conscience of the Republican Party,” while others have called them “the Tea Party” before there was a Tea Party.

This year, RALC’s Reagan Day Dinner’s featured Chicago area’s own Clarke D. Forsythe, senior counsel of Americans United for Life  and author of “Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade.

Ronald Reagan would have been pleased to welcome Clarke D. Forsythe to the podium.

In 1983 Reagan wrote an article, “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,” in which the president said “Abortion concerns not only the unborn child, it concerns every one of us,” and further wrote, “We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life—the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life.”

Ronald Reagan was America’s most pro-life president, Forsythe said. Shocked over his signing of a 1967 bill as governor of California, Reagan later considered its signing as the greatest disappointment of his life. Such was the guiding factor that helped Reagan become a strong human life advocate, even to promote the overturn of Roe vs. Wade.  Reagan’s legacy, according to Forsythe, was that presidents can’t solve issues all by themselves; states should have the most effect on abortion policy.

According to Forsythe, prudence in politics has been lost. That raises the question as to how America should move forward to preserve human life.

Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the Dred Scott decision of 1858 by opposing the extension of slavery. He believed if slavery was confined to the original slave states, it would die its own natural death. Overall, the Dred Scott decision had the effect of widening the political and social gap between North and South and moved the nation closer to the brink of Civil War.

Throughout much of American history, prior to Roe vs Wade in 1973, states banned or severely restricted abortion. Law enacted in the 19th and early 20th centuries often targeted abortion providers rather than pregnant women seeking abortions, as the aim was not to prosecute, but to protect pregnant women and their unborn babies from injury.

The decades that followed introduced the women’s suffrage fight, followed by the feminist movement, which ushered in great political and sexual freedom at the cultural, social, and legal levels. The change was well underway when the Supreme Court tried to fashion a national solution to the abortion issue in 1973.

Also of importance in accepting abortion at the state level were campaigns against population growth, increased marketing of the contraceptive pill in the 1960s, funding and support from wealthy benefactors such as John Rockefeller and Warren Buffett, and the American Medical Association’s eventual endorsement of abortion reform.

It also didn’t help when falsehoods were spread by advocates of abortion reform in the 1960s and 1970s, such as the lie that thousands of women died annually from illegal “back alley” abortions.  Not unlike what often happens today to sway public opinion, advocates of abortion reform thought that deceptive means were justifiable to promote their cause.

Part 2 will explain how “Roe” — a reckless and lawless decision — became law of the land in 1973.  Also, why the times are right for Republicans to grasp the life issue as a winning one.

Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 08:30 AM | Permalink

Monday, May 04, 2015

 

AFP_Getty-526301787

By Nancy Thorner – 

The fight for women’s suffrage, followed by the feminist movement, ushered in great sexual profligacy at the cultural, social, and legal levels. By 1970 abortion laws had been passed in many states under which a woman could legally receive an abortion. The result: There were court challenges to many older state abortion laws.

It was in the early 70’s that the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases challenging laws that restricted abortion. In each case the Court affirmed the lower courts’ conclusions and struck down both statutes by a vote of 7-2, declaring the statues unconstitutional because they denied a woman the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term, believing that both cases violated the privacy and liberty interests contained in the Constitution.

In case one, Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a Texas law outlawing abortion in all cases except those in which the life of a mother was at risk. In a second case, Doe v. Bolton (1973), the focus was on a more lenient Georgia law that allowed a woman to terminate her pregnancy when either her life or her health was in danger.

The Court did address this question in its ruling: As states have an “important and legitimate interest” in protecting the health of the mother and even “potentiality of human life” inside her, when does a state’s legitimate concern for maternal and fetal protection rise to the level of compelling interest?  In addressing the issue, Justice Harry Blackmun drew up a Three Tier Trimester Framework that can be viewed here.

While the Dred Scott decision of 1858 declared a slave not a person, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling (and its companion case Doe v. Bolton) denied fetal viability, thereby establishing “constitutionalized” abortion, having the effect of nullifying the abortion laws of all 50 states. 

 

Events leading up to the sweeping Roe abortion decision

Not being the standard practice for the Supreme Court to accept cases that decide political issues, what happened in 1973 to allow the Supreme Court justices to issue such a sweeping abortion decision that created a torment of unrest throughout this nation, which has allowed the Supreme Court for 42 years to assume the role of the National Abortion Control Board.

Few if any constitutional scholars think Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v. Wade(1973) was flawless.

Clark D. Forsythe called Roe vs. Wade “a reckless and lawless decision.” Forsythe shared little known details gleamed from the published papers of Supreme Court Justices as featured guest at the Republican Assembly of Lake County Ronald Reagan dinner on Saturday, April 25, at Lambs Farm in Libertyville.  His expressed thoughts now form the basis of his book, Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade, which lays out the many missteps, errors and fabrications made by the justices in deciding

According to Clark D. Forsythe, Senior Counsel of Americans United for Life, a serious mistake was made after the Court decided it did have jurisdiction to hear the two cases, when it proceeded to consider whether abortion was a constitutional right without a concrete factual and medical record to review in either case. Accordingly, the Court should have reached no decision, or sent the case back for trial, or taken other cases with a trial record, or at least reached a narrow decision

It was also a time of flux in the court’s makeup: Justices Hugo Black (a holdover from the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration) and John Harlan (Dwight D. Eisenhower) had resigned from the court in September, 1971and President Nixon was about to appoint two new justices which could have altered the final vote of Roe.  Although Chief Justice Warren Burger (a Nixon appointee) urged that the case by held over for re-argument until the court would be at full strength, that didn’t happen until October, 1972, with the court issuing its decision in January, 1973.  Although viability was argued — Was it present at 12 to 18 months? — nothing was agreed upon.

 

Changes since 1973 allow Republicans to win abortion issue 

Mr. Fosythe believes that the life issue is a winning one for Republicans.  Much has changed since 1973. The country has come far in the last 50 years.  Ultra sound has made light of the viability issue.  Since ultrasound the number of abortions and providers of abortions have dropped. Young people are also becoming more pro-life. Only 7 – 9% support abortion for any reason.

A handout at the event, “State of the States:  Where Are We Now?”, indicated that thirty-eight states treat the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide.  Strong polling data strong shows that the American people want less abortion; want it rare; and early in the pregnancy. Capitalizing upon how the American people view abortion in 2015, Republicans would be wise to promote a message that calls for reducing abortion by making it as rare as possible.

 

Abortion for population control and as a personal decision

Although abortion is still viewed by the elites, including the United Nations, as a way to control population (eugenics), Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg ascribes to this view. In a five-year-old interview, Ginsburg first advocated taxpayer funding of abortions. Ginsburg then followed up by saying she backed Roe to eliminate “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”  So according to Justice Ginsburg, poor people should have abortions and not children!

According to Mr. Forsythe, abortion is linked to the fostering of mental problems.  There is also an increased chance of breast cancer after an induced abortion. Broaching the issue of population replacement, sufficient birthrates are needed to ensure the economic growth of a nation.  This nation has near replacement levels, but in Europe (consider Russia and Italy) where many women are consciously limiting the size of their families, there are negative replacement levels.  Also frowned upon is the selection of the sex of a child while yet in the womb, with abortion being the answer if the fetus is found not to be of the desired sex.  China was given as an example, where because of its one-child policy boy babies far outnumber girl baby births.

A question posed to Clarke D. Forsythe in the question and answer session was the role of men when dealing with the abortion issue.  Forsythe agreed that it was a huge social problem.  There a lack of responsibility among men who impregnate women.  As such, men must become part of the solution.

Check here to see view fetal homicide state laws. Illinois is one of 29 states that defines the killing of an unborn child at any stage of gestation as la form of homicide.

Monday, May 04, 2015 at 08:24 AM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: Illinois Review

Monday, May 04, 2015

AFP_Getty-526301787

By Nancy Thorner – 

The fight for women’s suffrage, followed by the feminist movement, ushered in great sexual profligacy at the cultural, social, and legal levels. By 1970 abortion laws had been passed in many states under which a woman could legally receive an abortion. The result: There were court challenges to many older state abortion laws.

It was in the early 70’s that the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases challenging laws that restricted abortion. In each case the Court affirmed the lower courts’ conclusions and struck down both statutes by a vote of 7-2, declaring the statues unconstitutional because they denied a woman the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term, believing that both cases violated the privacy and liberty interests contained in the Constitution.

In case one, Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a Texas law outlawing abortion in all cases except those in which the life of a mother was at risk. In a second case, Doe v. Bolton (1973), the focus was on a more lenient Georgia law that allowed a woman to terminate her pregnancy when either her life or her health was in danger.

The Court did address this question in its ruling: As states have an “important and legitimate interest” in protecting the health of the mother and even “potentiality of human life” inside her, when does a state’s legitimate concern for maternal and fetal protection rise to the level of compelling interest?  In addressing the issue, Justice Harry Blackmun drew up a Three Tier Trimester Framework that can be viewed here.

While the Dred Scott decision of 1858 declared a slave not a person, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling (and its companion case Doe v. Bolton) denied fetal viability, thereby establishing “constitutionalized” abortion, having the effect of nullifying the abortion laws of all 50 states. 

 

Events leading up to the sweeping Roe abortion decision

Not being the standard practice for the Supreme Court to accept cases that decide political issues, what happened in 1973 to allow the Supreme Court justices to issue such a sweeping abortion decision that created a torment of unrest throughout this nation, which has allowed the Supreme Court for 42 years to assume the role of the National Abortion Control Board.

Few if any constitutional scholars think Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v. Wade(1973) was flawless.

Clark D. Forsythe called Roe vs. Wade “a reckless and lawless decision.” Forsythe shared little known details gleamed from the published papers of Supreme Court Justices as featured guest at the Republican Assembly of Lake County Ronald Reagan dinner on Saturday, April 25, at Lambs Farm in Libertyville.  His expressed thoughts now form the basis of his book, Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade, which lays out the many missteps, errors and fabrications made by the justices in deciding

According to Clark D. Forsythe, Senior Counsel of Americans United for Life, a serious mistake was made after the Court decided it did have jurisdiction to hear the two cases, when it proceeded to consider whether abortion was a constitutional right without a concrete factual and medical record to review in either case. Accordingly, the Court should have reached no decision, or sent the case back for trial, or taken other cases with a trial record, or at least reached a narrow decision

It was also a time of flux in the court’s makeup: Justices Hugo Black (a holdover from the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration) and John Harlan (Dwight D. Eisenhower) had resigned from the court in September, 1971and President Nixon was about to appoint two new justices which could have altered the final vote of Roe.  Although Chief Justice Warren Burger (a Nixon appointee) urged that the case by held over for re-argument until the court would be at full strength, that didn’t happen until October, 1972, with the court issuing its decision in January, 1973.  Although viability was argued — Was it present at 12 to 18 months? — nothing was agreed upon.

 

Changes since 1973 allow Republicans to win abortion issue

Mr. Fosythe believes that the life issue is a winning one for Republicans.  Much has changed since 1973. The country has come far in the last 50 years.  Ultra sound has made light of the viability issue.  Since ultrasound the number of abortions and providers of abortions have dropped. Young people are also becoming more pro-life. Only 7 – 9% support abortion for any reason.

A handout at the event, “State of the States:  Where Are We Now?”, indicated that thirty-eight states treat the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide.  Strong polling data strong shows that the American people want less abortion; want it rare; and early in the pregnancy. Capitalizing upon how the American people view abortion in 2015, Republicans would be wise to promote a message that calls for reducing abortion by making it as rare as possible.

 

Abortion for population control and as a personal decision

Although abortion is still viewed by the elites, including the United Nations, as a way to control population (eugenics), Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg ascribes to this view. In a five-year-old interview, Ginsburg first advocated taxpayer funding of abortions. Ginsburg then followed up by saying she backed Roe to eliminate “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”  So according to Justice Ginsburg, poor people should have abortions and not children!

According to Mr. Forsythe, abortion is linked to the fostering of mental problems.  There is also an increased chance of breast cancer after an induced abortion. Broaching the issue of population replacement, sufficient birthrates are needed to ensure the economic growth of a nation.  This nation has near replacement levels, but in Europe (consider Russia and Italy) where many women are consciously limiting the size of their families, there are negative replacement levels.  Also frowned upon is the selection of the sex of a child while yet in the womb, with abortion being the answer if the fetus is found not to be of the desired sex.  China was given as an example, where because of its one-child policy boy babies far outnumber girl baby births.

A question posed to Clarke D. Forsythe in the question and answer session was the role of men when dealing with the abortion issue.  Forsythe agreed that it was a huge social problem.  There a lack of responsibility among men who impregnate women.  As such, men must become part of the solution.

Check here to see view fetal homicide state laws. Illinois is one of 29 states that defines the killing of an unborn child at any stage of gestation as la form of homicide.

Monday, April 27, 2015

By Nancy Thorner and Elvira Hasty – 

The Climate Change issue may very well represent the biggest deception in the history of mankind – one sold to gullible individuals and elite multimillionaires. The same wealthy globalists that have exploited our economies have also taken advantage of the scientific ignorance of our populations.

The Vatican will host a major conference on climate change this week on Tuesday, April 28, featuring some of the world’s leading climate scientists including an opening address by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The conference, Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity: The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development, will also feature Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent American economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

This event is just the latest in what many are calling Pope Francis’s “green agenda.” He has become an outspoken advocate on environmental issues, saying acting on climate change is “essential to faith”  and calling the destruction of nature a modern sin. He has vowed to only increase pressure on world leadersafter his disappointment with the Lima climate talks. He is hoping that his encyclical will influence the climate talks in Paris at the end of the year.

The Heartland Institute has sent a team of climate scientists to Rome to bring the Vatican a message of truth for all with open ears to hear, that science is not settled, and global warming is not a crisis. The world’s poor will suffer horribly if reliable energy – the engine of prosperity and a better life – is made more expensive and less reliable by the decree of global planners.”

Scheduled for today, Monday, April 27, a slate of independent scientists and policy experts will offer a “prebuttal” to what will follow tomorrow when the Vatican’s Climate Summit takes place.  It is then that scientists and policy experts will lay out a detailed case explaining why climate science does not justify the Holy See putting his faith in the work of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

When was science changed to a democratic vote by the majority based on flawed reports circulated by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The science currently taught in schools comes from politicians and the media’s reliance on junk science, such as spread through Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” A large number of scientists throughout the world have been skeptical about global warming for years, and with good reason. CO2 levels on earth have in the past been four to eighteen times the current readings.  Global climate has warmed since the Little Ice Age (1400 to 1700 AD).   The first warming period occurred between 1900 and 1945; the second in 1975 until 1998, and then stopped and began falling again after reaching a high of l.l6 degrees F. above the average Global Mean Temperature.  There hasn’t been any warming since 1998.  It is important to understand that the information being accepted as indisputable truth comes from IPCC reports based on computer models.  The actual temperatures measured by both satellite data and independent balloon data show a near zero trend from 1979-1997.

Does loving the poor include making earth our God?  What we need is moral courage to stand for our Judeo/Christian principles.  This is the only way to really love the poor.  The environmental regulations that environmentalists consider beneficial will cause more unemployment and poverty.  Consider the following excerpts from Climate Depot, “The Environmental Case for Fossil Fuels”:

“The United States has the best air, water, indoor temperature, crops, sanitation, water supplies, storm-protection, sanitation, and overall environmental quality in human history — while other are plagued by heat waves, cold snaps, droughts, storms, crops failures, malaria, and dozens of other dread diseases, filth, dung-burning fire, lack of clean drinking water.  The reason for this development — the improvement of nature to meet human needs.  Every aspect of development has one common requirement: cheap, plentiful energy”. . . “And we would not have cheap, plentiful reliable energy without the fossil fuel industry”. . . “And when you hear heartbreaking stories of children with diseases that we once had but no longer do — malaria, tuberculosis, even the plague — you should commit yourself to bringing about a world that produces more energy.”

Pope Francis and some bishops are correct in saying that the environmental issue is a moral issue, but unfortunately they have sided with the elitists who falsely consider themselves to be moralists.  How is it moral to deny cheap energy for the poorest people on earth so that the elitists can enjoy nature at their pleasure by placing the earth above human beings?

Genesis 1:27 – 28:  “God created man in his image, in the divine image He created Him:  Male and female He created them.  God blessed them, saying:  Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.  Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds on the air, and all the living things that move on earth.”

Without cheap energy millions throughout the world cannot provide food and clean water for their families.  Why should the poor in Africa have to the development that energy has brought to the West?  Reduction of carbon emissions would bring disaster to the poorest people on earth, the ones Christians are supposed to love.  A 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 would only reduce Global Average Temperature in 2100 by an inconsequential 0.07C.  Even an elimination of all CO2 emissions by the United States would prevent only 0.17C of warming.

We don’t need to lower carbon dioxide emissions to protect nature.  After all, it is essential gas for life.  How ignorant have we become that we can be so easily deceived?  The only reason global elitists fight for environmental regulations like Cap and Trade is to expand their control over the world economy and impose their political and social views.  Are we not seeing enough already of how well the global elitists have so far managed the world?

Surely the Pope is not calling for less people to inhabit the earth through population control that for some justifies forced abortion, sterilization, and contraception because we as human beings are destroying the planet and more people equals more pollution.  Here in the U.S. there are twice as many people living here than in the early seventies, yet the skies over our major cities are clearer now than they were a half century ago.

Surely Pope Francis is not in compliance with the United Nations Population Fund UNFPA that continues to cheerlead China’s one-child policy, ignoring the forced abortions and forced sterilizations that follow?   The same UN fund continues to distribute 40 million doses of Depo-provera each year to unsuspecting women—despite the fact that this product is so unsafe that the FDA recommends against its use. India still sterilizes over 4 million women annually under a system of statewide sterilization targets, ignoring the rising death toll of women who have died in such campaigns.

Two recent articles provide a nice springboard for what the Pope needs to hear from the climate scientists and policy experts at his Conference on Climate Change, who will lay out a detailed case explaining why climate science does not justify the Holy See putting his faith in the faulty work of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

  • A Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records and found our climate models are WRONG:  Global warming slowed – and recent changes are down to “natural variability.”

In what has become a political issue, an encyclical by Pope Francis to influence climate talks in Paris at the end of the year is unbecoming and unwarranted action for Pope Francis, as the leader of the Catholic Church world-wide, or for any church to be engaged in.  May the Pope’s mind be open to reason when climate scientists today and tomorrow bring a message of truth to the Vatican and the Pope that science is not settled, and that global warming is not a crisis, both of which the Pope accepts as true and indisputable.

On this topic, IR contributor Nancy Thorner collaborated with Elvira F. Hasty, PhD, a retired chemistry professor living in Florida.

Monday, April 27, 2015 at 08:30 AM | Permalink

Comments

Comment below or sign in with Typepad Facebook Twitter Google+ and more…

Contact IR

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Thursday, April 23, 2015

IgEPyjxM

By Nancy Thorner – 

The results of CNN poll on April 20, placed former Governor Jeb Bush, as of yet an undeclared candidate, at the top of the Republican Party’s presidential picks for 2016.  With no competition Hillary won the top spot for the Left.  Although name recognition is helpful in attracting supporters, in regard to Jeb Bush, how much is really known about him?  Jeb describes himself as a “Conservative Reformer”, but it will be remembered that his brother’s presidency exhibited “Compassionate Conservatism”.  After G.W. was elected president conservatives were not at all pleased with what his compassionate conservatism was all about.

It would be negligent not to explore and investigate Jeb Bush, the candidate. Is Bush really the conservative he vigorously touts as being when he served as a two-term Florida governor? There are reports that claim Jeb Bush governed as a conservative, but a number of years have passed since Jeb completed his second term in 2007.

As detailed in Part 1 of “Jeb Bush, a Conservative, a Moderate, or a Globalist,” Bush didn’t allow challengers to stand in his way when running and winning the governorship two times in Florida.  As such it is fair to use past behavior to present insight into Jeb Bush’s possible conduct in his yet-to-be-announced presidential bid.  A  Crowley Political Report on Feb. 26 questioned whether Jeb Bush would act like a bully if and when he declares himself a GOP presidential candidate. Since Bush vowed that he would run for president only if he could do so “joyfully”, the bully concept cannot be dismissed.

Noted in a New York Times article is that behind the scenes Bush and his aides have pursued the nation’s top campaign donors, political operatives, and policy experts with an eye to rapidly locking up the highest-caliber figures, making it all but impossible for other Republican candidates to assemble a high-octane campaign team. In each of his governor elections in 1998, and 2002, Bush attempted to corner the market, willing to “joyfully” hurl a fastball straight to the noggin of anyone who dared to get in his way.  This Times story is worth reading for more insight in the “Bush way of campaigning joyfully.”

As observed when Jeb Bush made an appearance in Nashua, New Hampshire, on April 18, Bush may very well mirror his actions that twice helped him win the governorships of Florida.  As reported on April 18, ties between Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (a 43-year-old son of Cuban immigrants) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (a 62-year-old member of one of the nation’s most powerful political dynasties), political allies for more than a decade, are fraying as the Republican presidential campaign picks up steam.  In public, mentor Bush and protege Rubio, have avoided criticizing each other since Rubio announced his candidacy, but Bush allies have started quietly spreading negative information about Rubio’s record.  So far Rubio’s team has declined to respond in kind.

As Al Cardenas remarked, a Bush adviser also close to Rubio: “Sparks are going to fly. For the first time in our country’s history you’ve got two guys from the same town in the same state from same party running in the same primary.” A well connected individual in Florida told Thorner that it was Jeb Bush who pushed Rubio into supporting amnesty in the Senate, which in turn hurt Rubio with the Republican conservative base. Jeb wasn’t pleased when Rubio withdrew his amnesty position.

Early on there are cues pointing to likelihood that Jeb Bush is being endorsed and funded heavily by the Republican establishment.  As Phyllis Schlafly relates in her book. “A Choice Not An Echo.” in early 1936 a little group of secret kingmakers (prominent financiers and industrialists) laid long-range plans to control the Republican Party. This group has used every trick to dictate the choice of the Republican presidential nominee up to now.  It was the kingmakers who were responsible for derailing and destroying Senator Barry Goldwater in the election of 1964. In the eyes of the kingmakers, it was anyone but Goldwater, preferring, as they did, the continuation of the policies of Democrat incumbent Lyndon Johnson to those of Goldwater.

With this in mind, there is every reason to believe the kingmakers of today, although faces have changed, are partial to Jeb Bush as the 2016 Republican presidential nominee. The perception being, Bush is himself a loyal Republican Establishment member and also a confirmed globalist, following in the steps of his father (G.H.) and brother (G.W.). Writing in the Christian Science Monitor Mark Sappenfield had this to say about Jeb Bush as a yet undeclared candidate:

“Bush III is not yet in the presidential race, though he is apparently raising enough money to singlehandedly send Richard Branson to Jupiter, so there’s not much mystery about his intentions”. . . “Bush’s hundreds of millions are as good an indicator as any right now of where the establishment’s money is (literally).”

To some it might seem conspiratorial to imply that the mechanics are already being set in motion to ensure that Jeb Bush is the 2016 Republican candidate.  Consider this:  Even before Jeb Bush has officially declared his candidacy for 2016, he is preparing to give the traditional campaign a makeover by turning some of his campaign’s central functions over to a separate political organization (a PAC) that can raise unlimited amounts of money.  Not that other candidates haven’t done so, but for Bush the potential benefits are enormous. Campaigns can raise only $2,700 per donor for the primary and $2,700 for the general election. A super PAC, however, enables a candidate to raise unlimited cash from individuals, corporations and groups such as labor unions.  This means that in theory a small group of wealthy Bush supporters could pay for much of the work of electing him by writing massive checks to the super PAC.

Bush, when he finally does declare, would begin a White House bid with confidence that he will have the money behind him to make a deep run into the primaries. Even if Bush should stumble early on, spooking small-dollar donors and starving his own campaign of money, he would still have the means to carry on.  It is perceived that the ability of the super PAC to legally raise unlimited amounts of money far outweighs its primary disadvantage, that of not being able to legally coordinate its actions with Bush or his would-be campaign staff.

On the whole, conservatives aren’t happy with the broken campaign promises of those they elect to office, such as now exists in the 114th United States Congress where Republican Party members are failing to live up to their campaign promises.  Few would dispute that our vote for president stands above all others in importance.  This is especially true in 2016 given the precarious state of this nation and its descent into financial insolvency and moral bankruptcy.

Does Jeb Bush have what it takes to turn this nation around as a conservative reformer?  It’s going to be extremely difficult to convince many American, other than establishment Republicans who want to win at any cost, that Bush’s views on Amnesty, Common Core, and Climate Change are not Democrat-lite in their scope.

Part Two will explore Jeb Bush’s positions on  Amnesty, Common Core, and Climate Change, as expressed by Bush himself, in his still unannounced campaign.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015