Thursday, December 18, 2014

China Tests ICBM With Multiple Warheads--Clinton-era tech transfer Aided China's multi program



By Bill Gertz
Excerpts

China carried out a long-range missile flight test on Saturday using multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs, according to U.S. defense officials.

The flight test Saturday of a new DF-41 missile, China’s longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile, marks the first test of multiple warhead capabilities for China, officials told the Washington Free Beacon.

China has been known to be developing multiple-warhead technology, which it obtained from the United States illegally in the 1990s.

SHAW the new Chinese multi war head technology came from  the Loral Company who makes space satelittes. Loral was major friend and donors to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton Ok'd the new technology for China.

However, the Dec. 13 DF-41 flight test, using an unknown number of inert maneuvering warheads, is being viewed by U.S. intelligence agencies as a significant advance for China’s strategic nuclear forces and part of a build-up that is likely to affect the strategic balance of forces.

China’s nuclear arsenal is estimated to include around 240 very large warheads. That number is expected to increase sharply as the Chinese deploy new multiple-warhead missiles.
The current deployed U.S. strategic warhead arsenal includes 1,642 warheads. All 450 Minuteman III missiles have been modified to no longer carry MIRVs. However, Trident II submarine-launched missiles can carry up to 14 MIRVs per missile.

Additionally, the development of China’s multiple warhead technology was assisted by illegal transfers of technology from U.S. companies during the Clinton administration, according to documents and officials familiar with the issue.

Larry Wortzel, a former military intelligence official who specialized on China, said the Chinese military has been working on a MIRV-modified DF-41 for a number of years.
Wortzel said Chinese military research literature has documented work on the DF-41 but the Pentagon “has been reluctant to discuss or confirm these developments.”
“The United States is now threatened with a more deadly and survivable nuclear force that makes our weak ballistic missile defenses less effective,” Wortzel said. “We need to improve our own defenses and modernize our own deterrent force as the Chinese are doing.”
Rick Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military, said the advent of China’s MIRV capability should mark the end of U.S. efforts to reduce the number of nuclear warheads.
“The Chinese have not and likely will not disclose their nuclear warhead buildup plans, Russia is modernizing its nuclear forces across the board and violating the INF treaty with new classes of missiles, so it would be suicidal for the Washington to pursue a new round of nuclear reductions as is this administration’s preference.”

Fisher, with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said China may deploy a combination of single-warhead and multiple warhead DF-41s, with the single warhead version carrying a huge “city buster” multi-megaton bombs.
“The beginning of China’s move toward multiple warhead-armed nuclear missiles is proof that today, arms control is failing to increase the security of Americans,” Fisher said. “Instead, it is time to be rebuilding U.S. nuclear warfighting capabilities! to include new mobile ICBMs, new medium range missiles and new tactical nuclear missile systems.”
Read More@Free Beacon

Rush Limbaugh: 2016 Dream Ticket - Hillary Clinton & Jeb Bush , VIDEO




 By Jim Hoft


Limbaugh announced the “moderate” Republican wet dream on Wednesday.

Rush explained how there is no differences between Republican “moderates” and Progressives in today’s political world. 

Thus, Rush announces the ABSOLUTE PERFECT PRESIDENTIAL TICKET FOR 2016… a “moderate” Republican wet dream. Rush doesn’t care who’s on top since there’s no difference between the two. If something happens to the candidate on top while in office, the other could take over and no one would notice a difference in how they rule.

Transcript via The Rush Limbaugh Show:
So what was it that happened on yesterday’s program? Well, one of the things that happened was that Jeb Bush announced he was gonna do an exploratory committee, and in his announcement, and many times previous to his announcement, Jeb Bush has made it clear that he wants to win the Republican nomination without needing the votes of the Republican base, i.e., the Tea Party.

He doesn’t want to have to sell his soul for the Tea Party vote. What that means is, he doesn’t want to have to pretend to be a conservative at any time during the primary to get the Tea Party or conservative vote. He’s going to win the nomination. He’s not gonna pander. And as evidence, I offer you this from the Washington Times. This is back in 2009, May 3 of 2009, but it’s important that you have this in the hopper.
“Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it’s time –” this is May 3rd of 2009, so five years ago, admittedly, but it fits nicely with yesterday.
“Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that
it’s time for the Republican Party to give up its ‘nostalgia’ for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election.
‘You can’t beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don’t like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that,’ Mr. Bush said.”…
Read More@Gateway Pundit


Did Obama’s new Cuba policy just launch Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign? VIDEO

By Aliester

As the son of parents who left Cuba for a better life in America, this is a subject Rubio cares about deeply.

He’s also extremely well versed in the history of America’s relationship with Cuba as you’ll see in the videos below.

Watching these videos, though, I can’t help wonder whether Obama’s new Cuba policy will be the spark that launches Rubio’s presidential campaign. I’ve never seen him more impassioned and he now is the leader of the opposition in an area, foreign policy, for which he was not known.

One of Rubio’s main concerns is the precedent it sets for any government which might think it can use hostages as a bargaining point. Susan Jones of CNS News reports:
Rubio: Obama’s New Cuba Policy ‘Puts a Price on Every American Abroad’
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says he’s glad that American “hostage” Alan Gross has been released from a Cuban prison after five years, but he opposes the process by which his release was secured — “because it puts a price on every American abroad.”
“Governments now know that if they can take an American hostage, they can get very significant concessions from the United States.”
As part of the deal to free Gross, the United States will release three Cuban spies: “They’re not just benign Cuban spies,” Rubio — the son of Cuban exiles — told Fox News on Wednesday. “These Cuban spies were involved in providing information to the Cuban government that led to the murder of U.S. citizens in the infamous shootdown of the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft back in 1996.
“These were airplanes that used to patrol the Straits of Cuba to find people on rafts and save their lives. The Cuban government shot them down over international waters and they did so largely based on information that at least one of these spies provided them.
Read More@legalinsurrection

Why Liberals Really, Really Hate Us



by David P. Goldman

They really, really hate us. George Orwell wrote a morning “Two Minutes Hate session into the daily life of his dystopia in 1984. One blogger notes that 2,000 of Rachel Maddow’s facebook fans wished that Ted Cruz would fall into an open elevator shaft. What would he have made of the hyperventilating hatred that liberals display against conservatives? Over at National Review, Katherine Timpf reports on a hate manifesto published by the chair of University of Michigan’s Department of Communications. 
Republicans “crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all,” wrote Prof. Susan Douglas, ““So now we hate them back,” she explains. “And with good reason.”
In fact, they have their reasons to hate us. They are being silly. We know they are being silly, and they know we know, and they can’t stand it. It isn’t quite how we repudiate the idea that the opposing party has any legitimacy at all. But we can’t stop giggling.
 
“Reductio ad absurdum” does not begin to characterize the utter silliness of liberals, whose governing dogma holds that everyone has a right to invent their own identity. God is dead and everything is permitted, Zarathustra warned; he should have added that everything is silly. When we abhor tradition, we become ridiculous, because we lack the qualifications to replace what generation upon generation of our ancestors built on a belief in revelation and centuries of trial and error. 
 
Conservatives know better. G.K. Chesterton said it well: 
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”
The antics of the “small and arrogant oligarchy” that controls the temples of liberal orthodoxy have turned into comic material that Monty Python couldn’t have dreamed up a generation ago. There are now dozens of prospective genders, at least according to the gender studies departments at elite universities. 

What do the feminists of Wellesley College do, for example, when its women become men? The problem is that no-one quite knows what they have become, as a recent New York Times Magazine feature complained:

JEB TIDE

by Mark Steyn 

Bush has announced the formation of a committee to explore a run for the Presidency. He therefore becomes the first official all-but-candidate of Campaign 2016, ahead even of the designated President-in-Waiting, Hillary Clinton. So this March headline appears to have come true:
Influential Republicans Working To Draft Jeb Bush Into 2016 Presidential Race
For a while now I've told interviewers that I doubt Hillary will be the Democrat nominee - because she's a terrible candidate and eventually even she will know that. But I made one exception way back in March: If Jeb Bush jumped in, Mrs Clinton "would be insane not to run". Now that Jeb has indeed jumped in, I have nothing to add to what I wrote nine months ago:
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton now and forever, at least until George P Bush marries Chelsea Clinton and the two ruling houses are consolidated into one House of Bush-Clinton-Rodham-Coburg-Gotha. I've nothing against Jeb Bush. I happen to disagree with him on "immigration reform", but he was a competent executive of Florida and he's a thoughtful and (on his game) gifted speaker.
But there are over 300 million people in this country, and, granted that 57 per cent or whatever it's up to by now are fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community, what is it about the Bush family that makes them so indispensable to the Republic as to supply three presidential candidates within a quarter-century? Say what you like about actual monarchy but at least you get a non-heriditary political class: this may seem incredible to Americans but neither Canada's Stephen Harper, Australia's Tony Abbott, New Zealand's John Key nor Britain's David Cameron is the previous Prime Minister's brother or wife.
Jeb is campaigning "to restore the promise of America". A Bush has been on six of the last nine presidential tickets, but the smart money in the GOP thinks they're so indispensable to the Republic that they should now be given a shot at a third presidency. One man and his sons will have supplied three-fifths of America's presidents within a quarter-century - in a republic of over 300 million people. I don't think that's any way "to restore the promise of America" - and, in fact, like the unconstitutional amnesty, the hideous CRomnibus and the bipartisan debt mountain, it's another sign of the seedy dysfunctionalism of America's political institutions.

Yet, following Jeb's announcement, the big money and the A-list campaign operatives will already be gravitating to Bush. From my March post:
Read More@steyonline

Commmunists Win the Day. Frank Marshall Davis Would Be Proud Of Obama



By Erick Erickson
Image SHAW

Few could have predicted that communist regimes would win the day on December 17, 2014. Communism was so twentieth century. But Barack Obama, promising to fundamentally transform America, has done so. His mentor, communist activist Frank Marshall Davis, would be proud of him.
To reiterate my conclusion on Barack Obama’s world view and policy objectives: to make the world safer, the United States must be less safe. To make the world more stable, the United States must be less stable. To make the world more prosperous, the United States must be less prosperous.
Barack Obama in this are the Washington technocrats, bureaucrats, and numerous party apparatchiks of both parties who have decided America is in decline and the decline should be managed instead of overcome.
So as the ruble craters and Venezuela crumbles, both having subsidized the communist regime in Cuba, Barack Obama will step in to prop up the regime.

It is worth noting that, despite all the claims that the Cuban embargo was not successful, its requirements that Cuba purchase American products in cash instead of on credit has kept the Cuban regime from accumulating wealth to the degree of other communist despots. Read the liberal Washington Post Editorial Board on this.

Now, Barack Obama will ensure the Castro brothers and their heirs accumulate great wealth and all the Cubans have to do is promise to give greater internet access to their citizens. That’s it.
Meanwhile, North Korea gets to threaten and intimidate an American film company and then threaten 9/11 style attacks on American movie theaters. The American response? Nothing. Sony Pictures folded, along with American movie houses, knowing the President would never back them up against the thuggish North Korean regime.

President Obama should invite the head of Sony Pictures, the actors and director of “The Interview, and the press to a screening of the movie at the White House. But then that would be an act of strength by the President who wears mom jeans.
And America cannot do that. We must be weak for the world to be strong in Barack Obama’s world view.
Barack Obama sought to fundamentally transform America and he is doing it. As Rush Limbaugh noted to much outrage, for America to succeed, Barack Obama must fail. Unfortunately, the nation is failing as Obama succeeds.

There is, however, one bit of irony. After a week of liberals bellyaching about the United States “torturing” terrorists, we have kowtowed to the terrorists of North Korea and bailed out the Cuban regime — a regime that jails gays, Christians, and dissidents and engages in physical torture and routine killing of any who dare oppose them.

In other words, the leftist outrage is exposed as more about hating the United States than hating human rights abuses.
Read State

Jeb Bush, praised by liberals, already drawing flak from the GOP

By Howard Kurtz
Image Shaw

Jeb is the man to beat, the savvy ex-governor, the game-changer with Hispanic voters, the choice of big donors, the common sense voice on immigration and education, the establishment candidate with the best chance of recapturing the White House for the Republicans. 

Unfortunately for Bush, it’s mostly liberals who are saying these things. The reaction on the right has been far more mixed, often ranging from hesitation to hostility.

That is the media environment into which the former Florida governor has plunged, where the deepest skepticism toward a third President Bush comes from his own party. If there were many conservatives giddy with excitement over the prospect of a Jeb run, they escaped my notice.

A very different reaction, to be sure, than George W. Bush faced when he threw his Stetson in the ring in 1999. But this is not George W.’s or George H.W.’s Republican Party.

Keep in mind that true-believer pundits often heap abuse on the establishment candidate. Many conservatives openly disdained Mitt Romney during the 2012 primaries, even though they eventually fell into line. Many rebelled against John McCain in the 2008 primaries for his more moderate stances and for daring to work with Democrats.

Now it’s Jeb’s turn.

The mainstream media played up, even touted, Bush’s prospects, as in this Washington Post piece:
“Jeb Bush’s announcement Tuesday that he is actively exploring a 2016 presidential run scrambles the large Republican field, thrusting him to the front of the pack and locking up a huge swath of longtime party fundraisers being wooed by other candidates.”

But while National Review took a wait-and-see stance, one of its writers, Charles Cooke, called Bush “the wrong man, at the wrong time — and in the wrong country, too…
“If Jeb Bush does manage to make it all the way to the top, we will be in uncharted dynastic territory — territory that, frankly, should begin to worry us.
Read More@foxnews

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Ecuador Family Wins Enter U.S. Favors After Donations to Democrats Obama, Clinton



By Francis Robles

The Obama administration overturned a ban preventing a wealthy, politically connected Ecuadorean woman from entering the United States after her family gave tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns, according to finance records and government officials.

The woman, Estefanía Isaías, had been barred from coming to the United States after being caught fraudulently obtaining visas for her maids. 
 But the ban was lifted at the request of the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so that Ms. Isaías could work for an Obama fund-raiser with close ties to the administration.
It was one of several favorable decisions the Obama administration made in recent years involving the Isaías family, which the government of Ecuador accuses of buying protection from Washington and living comfortably in Miami off the profits of a looted bank in Ecuador.

The family, which has been investigated by federal law enforcement agencies on suspicion of money laundering and immigration fraud, has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to American political campaigns in recent years. During that time, it has repeatedly received favorable treatment from the highest levels of the American government, including from New Jersey’s senior senator and the State Department.

The Obama administration has allowed the family’s patriarchs, Roberto and William Isaías, to remain in the United States, refusing to extradite them to Ecuador. The two brothers were sentenced in absentia in 2012 to eight years in prison, accused of running their bank into the ground and then presenting false balance sheets to profit from bailout funds. In a highly politicized case, Ecuador says the fraud cost the country $400 million.

The family’s affairs have rankled Ecuador and strained relations with the United States at a time when the two nations are also at odds over another international fugitive: Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, who has taken refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

Read More@NYTimes

Hill Republicans not lining up behind Jeb Bush


By Burgess Everett

Republicans in Congress have plenty of nice things to say about Jeb Bush. But influential lawmakers aren’t about to jump on the Bush presidential bandwagon just yet — or bow out of possibly running against him.

GOP Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas all suggested that Bush’s announcement Tuesday that he will “actively” explore a presidential run would not affect their calculations as they eye 2016.

Cruz went so far as to pan any relatively moderate Republican nominee that smacks of Mitt Romney, John McCain or Bob Dole.

Paul said he remains on track to decide on a White House run in the early spring, and a spokesman for Rubio said Bush could be a “formidable candidate” but that the Florida senator’s presidential aspirations won’t be swayed by “who else might be running.”

It’s also clear that Bush has major work to do to win over Republican senators hailing from early primary and caucus states. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said it had been at least four years since he’d talked to Bush and that the former Florida governor had made no moves to win him over.

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina said he’d met with Bush several times in the recent years but not in a one-on-one situation.
“It will be very interesting to see how he is received immediately. And that will be, I think, a strong indication of where he goes from here,” said Scott, who’s planning to set up a South Carolina forum for GOP candidates during primary season.

New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte had a pretty succinct message for the presidential hopeful: Get to the Granite State, ASAP.
“He really hasn’t been to New Hampshire yet. I don’t care who you are, you’ve got to do the hard work in New Hampshire,” Ayotte said. 
“With the Bush name, he’ll have name recognition. But again I think everyone will get an open vetting in New Hampshire and it’ll make a difference how hard the candidates work in terms of meeting the activists.”

McConnell Declines to Explain 'No' Vote Against Cruz's Point Of Order On Executive Amnesty

By Caroline May


Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) won't explain why he voted against Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) constitutional point of order on President Obama’s executive amnesty, telling reporters the vote is old news.
“I’m not going to go back and rehash the events of the last few days. You all have all written about them, you know exactly what happened over the weekend. We are where we are and I’m hoping we’ll wrap it up today or tomorrow,” McConnell said. 
Sens. Cruz and Mike Lee’s (R-UT) effort to get a vote on executive amnesty resulted in a rare weekend Senate session and a lot of grumbling from their own Republican colleagues, who said that the maneuvering allowed outgoing Majority Leader Harry Reid to advance more Obama nominees.

Cruz’s point of order was ultimately defeated 22-74 with 20 Republicans, including Sen. McConnell, voting against the challenge to Obama’s executive actions on immigration. 

In addition to refusing to offer more insights about his vote, McConnell Tuesday did not address the criticism leveled against Cruz and Lee. 
“I’d rather just look forward,” he said. “We’re all familiar, I think, all of you are quite familiar with the events of the last few days and I really don't have anything to add.”
The incoming majority leader noted that the first thing on the Senate’s agenda next year will be the Keystone Pipeline and addressed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s announcement that he is “actively” exploring the possibility of running for president. 
“I always tell all of the candidates for president that the best day they’ll have will be the day before they announce. There isn't anything harder than running for president unless its being in combat, being shot at with real bullets. So I wish them all well,” McConnell said, adding that he is optimistic about the GOP’s chances in 2016
Breitbart

HERE’S HOW THE TEA PARTY DESTROYS THE ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS IN 2016

The definition of political stupidity is voting for RINO Republicans over and over again and expecting them to become conservatives.

Republicans across America are all in a tizzy because Boehner and McConnell rolled over and passed the $1.1 CRomnibus, throwing in the towel on Obamacare and Executive Order Amnesty even before they assumed power in the Senate.

As if there was ever any doubt this is exactly what would happen!
When have Republicans in DC ever failed to disappoint? It’s what they do! They talk like tough conservatives at primary and election time back home but roll over as soon as they’re back in the safe,warm embrace of their RINO Establishment leaders in Washington.
We watch it every election cycle yet we continue to vote for Establishment wussypants Republicans because they’re not Democrats. 
But are Washington Establishment Republicans really not Democrats?

They support the very same legislation and expansive government as “their good friends on the other side of the aisle.” Sure, they’ll vote against the Dims when it’s assured their vote will only by symbolic.

And when a true statesman like Ted Cruz filibusters or makes them vote on the hard votes, the Republicans complain about and disparage Cruz more than the Democrats! They love the show votes but vote in lockstep with Democrats on every other bill.

Now the Republican Establishment wants to make El Jeb Bush their nominee in 2016.
Other than cankles, is there any difference between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton?
 George W Bush calls Hillary his “sister-in-law” and Bill his “brother from another mother.” Personally, I’d disown both families. 
Yet moronic Republicans run Facebook postings of George W with captions that read “Miss Me Yet?” Well, HELL NO I don’t miss you, W! Because just like your father and brother, you’re a big government moderate that greatly expanded government and the national debt, not including getting us into two super expensive, unwinnable wars! Why do Republicans like the massively flawed W? 

Because he’s not Obama. But didn’t Bush also greatly increase the scope and cost of government with Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind? His fiscal malfeasance paved the way for Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama. And the RINO elite want another Bush!
Read More@angrywhitedude

Jeb Bush: The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce’s Waterboy

By Michelle Malkin
Image Shaw

Allow me to unite America’s left, right and center in just three words: No, Jeb, No!

Former GOP Florida governor Jeb Bush made the obvious official this week when he announced on Facebook that he’s “actively exploring” a 2016 White House run. Of course, he’s running. That’s what inveterate politicians do.

Well, I hate to break it to Jeb Inc. There’s no popular groundswell for Bush Part III. None, zip, nada. Independents, progressives and conservatives are all weary of the entrenched bipartisan dynasties that rule Washington and ruin America. Only in the hallowed bubble of D.C. and New York City elites does a Jeb Bush presidential bid make any sense.

Jeb’s indulgent (and ultimately doomed) enterprise has three privileged constituencies: Big Business, Big Government and Big Media. This iron triumvirate explains how the failed campaigns of so-called “pragmatic,” “thoughtful” and “moooooderate” liberal Republican candidates such as John McCain, Jon Huntsman and Bob Dole ever got off the ground. The “Reasonable Republican,” anointed and enabled by the statist Big Three, serves as a useful tool for bashing conservatives and marginalizing conservatism.

For Republicans who argue that Jeb is the most “electable” choice, I ask: What planet are you on? After two disastrous terms of Barack Obama’s Hope and Change Theater, the last thing the Republican Party needs is an establishment poster child for Washington business as usual. I mean, really? A third Bush who’s been working for his dad, his dad’s friends or the government since 1980?

A Beltway-ensconced scion so chummy with the Clinton family that he awarded close family friend — and potential 2016 nemesis — Hillary a “Liberty Medal” last year as chairman of the National Constitution Center?

That’s the GOP donor bigwigs’ “fresh idea” for “American Renewal?” To blunt criticism from the grassroots base on the right, Jeb’s cheerleaders at the Wall Street Journal cite his “conservative” gubernatorial record of cutting taxes and privatizing jobs. So we’re supposed to swoon when a GOP governor acts like he’s supposed to act on standard, bread-and-butter GOP issues? Whoop-de-doo.
Read More@rightwingnews

House Conservatives Have the Power and Should Depose Speaker John Boehner

By Erick Erickson
Image Shaw

The “cromnibus” bill is soon to become law. The majority of House and Senate Republicans conspired with President Obama to fund his executive amnesty. Where do conservatives go from here?

Yes, we need to pick up the flag and force Republicans in February to actually fight as they are now promising when funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires, but there is an even more important intervening event that must draw our undivided attention.
The vote on whether Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)N/A will be Speaker will occur in January, and 30 conservative House members can deny him re-election. 
It will be an actual public vote—not a behind-the-scenes, paper ballot vote. Although many would have you believe otherwise, Boehner has not yet been elected Speaker for the new term. House Republicans elected him as their nominee for Speaker in November, but the full House of Representatives needs to vote on his nomination in January.

House conservatives must summon the courage to oppose Boehner’s nomination on the floor in January. It is a moral imperative.
You cannot consistently complain about Leadership’s many failures—and the treachery involved with a Speaker fresh off a successful wave election conspiring with President Obama to fund amnesty and enjoy a celebratory phone call in the aftermath—and then vote for him to continue in this role. 
To paraphrase Albert Einstein, that is the definition of insanity, and it is enabled by a vote for Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)Heritage ActionScorecardRep. John BoehnerN/AHouse Republican

Read more@red state

Jeb’s killer flaw — the name, not the ideology


Shaw Jeb Bush seems to be the chosen candidate of the GOP establishment and the Dem
establishment.

By John Podhoretz
 
Jeb Bush is running for president. The brother of Bush 43 and son of Bush 41 said as much yesterday on Facebook.

If you think you know something about Jeb Bush solely based on his name and connections, truth is, you don’t. What he has in common with the two Georges is blood, a last name, time in Kennebunkport and membership in the Republican Party.

Otherwise, they are startlingly different, all three.

George H.W. Bush was the man who became president because he ran beside Ronald Reagan and spent his years in the White House as an ideologically inconstant Republican.

George W. Bush was the man who became president because he forswore his own father’s inconstancy and followed Reagan’s big-picture conservative example instead.
By contrast, Jeb Bush is a gregarious and enthusiastic policy wonk (and a Catholic convert). His unusually intellectual governorship (from 1998-2006) was, first and last, dedicated to introducing conservative reform ideas on education, health care and budgeting.
He created tough state standards for Florida’s horrific schools, and pushed through the nation’s first full-fledged school-choice program.

He changed the way Florida’s state universities admitted students and basically killed off its ineffective and unjust quota system.

More than a decade before Chris Christie canceled the construction of a Hudson River tunnel that he feared would break the New Jersey budget — the dramatic move that made Christie a star in conservative circles — Bush killed a multi-billion-dollar high-speed-rail boondoggle on his second day in office.

Jeb Bush was, in his time, easily the most fluid and fluent speaker on what would later come to be known as the “conservative reform agenda.”

He knew the policies he was advocating inside and out, and could explain them effectively and push them forward even more effectively.

For this reason, he was generally considered both the best and the most effective conservative governor in the country when his second term ended in 2006. He was not just respected among conservatives, he was beloved.

But it’s about to be 2015, and conservatives now view Jeb Bush with suspicion and distaste.
Some of this is pure ignorance. Many only know him by name and they assume he is an amalgam of father and brother, both of whom activist conservatives (who once loved W.) now view with hostility.

But it’s also due to a sea change in the conservative ranks. Bush was once a darling for his tough and serious approach on education.
Read More@nypost

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

BREAKING: Federal judge finds Obama amnesty is unconstitutional

By Steven Dinan

JudgeArthur J. Schwab, sitting in the western district of Pennsylvania, said presidents do have powers to use discretion in deciding how to enforce the law, but said Mr. Obama’s new policy goes well beyond that, setting up a full system for granting legal protections to broad groups of individuals. He said Mr. Obama writing laws — a power that’s reserved for Congress, not the president.
“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote.
The judge also said the policy allows illegal immigrants “to obtain substantive rights.”
The memo came as part of a deportation case before the judge, and Judge Schwabs order does not invalidate the president’s policies. But it serves as a warning shot as other direct challenges to the new amnesty begin to make their way through the courts.
Read More@WTimes