I didn’t watch the GOP reality show Presidential debates on Thursday night — as it happened, I needed to handle something at the office, which pretty much dragged on all night. (Oh, the things I do to rack up billable hours each month.) But, in sorting through the after-action reports, I did notice one thing in particular that may have been forgotten in the aftermath of the subsequent Trump meltdown: former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was hit hard by one of the moderators in the debate for an association he had with a certain philanthropic organization . . .
KELLY:…Governor Bush, let’s start with you. Many Republicans have been outraged recently by a series of videos on Planned Parenthood. You now say that you support ending federal funding for this organization.
However, until late 2014, right before you started your campaign, you sat on the board of a Bloomberg charity that quite publicly gave tens of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood while you were a director.
How could you not know about these well publicized donations, and if you did know, how could you help a charity so openly committed to abortion rights?
BUSH: I joined the Bloomberg Foundation because of Mike Bloomberg’s shared commitment for meaningful education reform. That’s why I was on it. We never had a debate about the budget. It was presented and we approved it. Not item by item.
Here’s my record: As governor of the state of Florida, I defunded Planned Parenthood. I created a culture of life in our state….
(Quotation from transcript posted at Time.com.)
My purpose here is not to bash Mr. Bush’s association with Planned Parenthood–that issue isn’t my main concern and, as I’ve indicated in the past, my general views on it are not cut-and-dried. But I am very concerned that a major candidate from the GOP — the party that will at least give lip service to the idea of the right to keep and bear arms — is extensively involved with Michael Bloomberg on any issue. Especially when that candidate is the traditional “establishment’s” favorite candidate, to the extent the “establishment” matters anymore.
Michael Bloomberg has dedicated a considerable portion of his personal fortune to fighting against our constitutionally-protected civil right to keep and bear arms, through front organizations like the awkwardly-named Everytown for Gun Safety, and his anti-gun yellow journalism outlet, The Trace. Jumping on board with Bloomberg isn’t like teaming up with some pragmatic left-wing politician like Chuck Schumer to make common cause on some issue du jour.
Instead, this is throwing in with a man who is determined to fight against our civil rights. Someone who believes that he has “earned [his] place in heaven” thanks to his efforts to bankroll the civilian disarmament movement. To the extent this person has an ideology, it’s one of a plutocracy in which the wealthy and powerful can, and by right ought to, dictate morality and lifestyle choices to the rest of us, the benighted, unwashed masses. Association with this sort of person must be unacceptable to politicians who claim to defend the Bill of Rights.
So, Mr. Bush: stow your stammered excuses about Planned Parenthood. Tell me instead about the nature of your relationship with Michael Bloomberg. What part of his ideology do you share? What sort of deals have you cut with him? And what assurance do we have that you won’t see fit to cut a deal with this enemy of civil rights should you be elected?
My contact info is over on the right. Ask for Johannes.
DISCLAIMER: The above is an opinion piece; it is not legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship in any sense. If you need legal advice in any matter, you are strongly urged to hire and consult your own counsel. This post is entirely my own, and does not represent the positions, opinions, or strategies of my firm or clients.
I don’t want to take a stand on abortions, except maybe retroactive abortions.
But I’ve had enough of the bush family for one lifetime.
I agree with you on the bush family. On abortion, I am pro choice, I chose life. 🙂
10 reasons I became pro-choice:
1). Although I am personally opposed to the practice, I do not want to impose my moral values upon others. So if someone else wants to hunt lions, then who am I to judge? My motto is: If you don’t like lion killing, then don’t kill one.
2). It’s clear that laws against lion hunting won’t stop lion hunting. It will only make lion hunting dangerous for the hunters because banning lion hunting will drive hunters into back jungles to seek unsafe hunting. We do not want to return to “back alley” hunting.
3). Anti-choicers sit atop their moral pedestals and dictate that others shouldn’t have safe and affordable access to lion hunting, proving they only care about lions and not the hunters.
4). What’s the harm? Lions are only blobs of tissue, cells, muscles, and skin. It’s just like killing a cockroach.
5). Lion hunting should be “safe, legal, and rare.” But in those cases when a lion is killed, just think of all the good things that come from its death. Just think of all the research that could be done with the lion’s harvested organs. Anti-choicers only care about lions, not the countless people who could benefit from the stem-cell research done on the harvested lion’s organs.
6). Most people who are against lion hunting are not hunters, and therefore, should have no say in this debate. If you’ve never been faced with a fierce lion before, you have no right to an opinion in this matter.
7). Allowing hunters safe and affordable access to lions liberates and empowers the hunters. For far too long they have been oppressed and I will not sit quietly while hunterphobes try turning the clock on hunting rights back a hundred years.
8). Tax dollars should be used to fund poor lion hunters so they have the same access to lion hunting as the rich.
9). Lion hunting is simply the playing out of the survival of the fittest. Darwin would be proud. Who are we to interfere?
10). Unless anti-choicers are willing to adopt every lion in the world, then they have no right to tell others that they can’t hunt them.
Amen brother… or sister. Very well stated. I am in total agreement with you, especially on the issue you strove so hard to obfuscate.
Babies ain’t lions, and most pregnant mommies got so by their own choice to have unprotected sex or to not use birth control.
My son’s birth was through C-section, yet full legal protection didn’t kick in until he was “born.” Yet hi-def 3D ultrasounds made it incredibly clear that he was a human being. Anyone trying to abort or kill him while still inside mommy stood an unusually high risk of eating a 1/2 dozen .40 cal rounds. Now that he’s born, anyone trying to trying to kill or kidnap him faces the same risk (except I CC 9mm, .357 and .45 also).
He was my son inside mommy, and he’s my son outside mommy. I never called him a “fetus.” First, he was my child, and then my son. Yet abortion junkies want to call babies a fetus to dehumanize it. Who else do we know who flies fast and loose (furious, even) with terms and definitions?
The anti-gunners.
So truthfully unborn babies are human beings. Born or unborn is an arbitrary state based upon the timing of nature or a pediatric surgeon.
You could ask my stepfather, a tenured anatomy professor, and he’d tell you the same thing.
Of course there’d be a black market for abortion, so it will always be with us. That doesn’t mean we can’t call it what it is. But I’m just writing this as a guy who wasn’t totally “planned” by my parents. Even at 39 years of age, I wouldn’t want to be crushed to death inside my mother 40 years ago. I guess it’s too much for some that folks would choose to live if they have the chance.
Completely agree. Just trying to show the absurdity of some who change their values when it comes to a lion. Apology given if I offended in any way.
Using their arguments against them.
I completely agree. My main arguments have always been that
a) why should I and everyone else in the country be financially responsible for your responsibility free sex life? Moral considerations aside, your “medical condition” is one hundred percent preventable. Maybe you (meaning abortion supporters) should just go screw yourselves. Literally. The problem would be solved.
B) The pro choice position hinges on the unborn not being human, whereas the pro life position hinges on them being human. If the pro choice folks are right, then restrictions and defunding amount to an inconvenient impediment to people’s lifestyles, but then their lives are their responsibility. If the pro life folks are right, than public funding of abortion, and the legal sanction of the practice, amounts to state supported mass murder of infants for profit and convenience. Barring any way to prove the validity of the theory put forth by either side, the logical decision would be to err on the side of the lesser moral hazard, and disallow what would amount to mass murder. Of course, that is my argument as someone who is in fact Pro life, so I am of course biased. Still, the fact remains that these people who bitch endlessly about “my body my choice” and “rights”, fail to understand that from our perspective, those of us who disagree are going through our days consenting to a situation in which we are forced to contribute financially and allow to occur the large scale slaughter if innocents just because a bunch of irresponsible people want to bone without long term consequences. And yet they still act like the ones being discriminated against. Pathetic, despicable, evil. I do not of course support violent reaction to this situation, because it would fail to accomplish anything but more death. However, I do find myself endlessly incredulous that these people are so self absorbed as to completely ignore reality and logical analysis of the situation.
+1,000
Nicely done.
The core of the issue, the absolute crux of it is whether a fetus equals a person or not, and as such whether ending that fetus equals murder. Everything else is just window dressing and a periphery argument. Let’s take your points and modify them as I see them;
“10 reasons I became pro-murder:
1). Although I am personally opposed to the practice, I do not want to impose my moral values upon others. So if someone else wants to murder people, then who am I to judge? My motto is: If you don’t like murder, then don’t murder.
2). It’s clear that laws against murder won’t stop murder. It will only make murder dangerous for the murderers because banning hunting people will drive hunters into back alleys to seek unsafe hunting. We do not want to return to “back alley” hunting.
3). Anti-murderers sit atop their moral pedestals and dictate that others shouldn’t have safe and affordable access to hunting people, proving they only care about victims and not the hunters.
4). What’s the harm? People are only blobs of tissue, cells, muscles, and skin. It’s just like killing a cockroach.
5). Murder should be “safe, legal, and rare.” But in those cases when a person is killed, just think of all the good things that come from their death. Just think of all the research that could be done with the person’s harvested organs. Anti-murderers only care about victims, not the countless people who could benefit from the stem-cell research done on the harvested victim’s organs.
6). Most people who are against murder are not murderers, and therefore, should have no say in this debate. If you’ve never been faced with a fierce toddler, you have no right to an opinion in this matter.
7). Allowing murderers safe and affordable access to people liberates and empowers the murderers. For far too long they have been oppressed and I will not sit quietly while murderphobes try turning the clock on hunting rights back a hundred years.
8). Tax dollars should be used to fund poor murderers so they have the same access to people hunting as the rich.
9). People hunting is simply the playing out of the survival of the fittest. Darwin would be proud. Who are we to interfere?
10). Unless anti-murderers are willing to adopt every toddler in the world, then they have no right to tell others that they can’t hunt them.”
Understand my side now? There are plenty of philosophical and humanistic reasons to be pro-life. Christopher Hitchens was pro-life. A fetus is a member of homo sapiens with a unique DNA. That’s simply a scientific fact. All of the discussion about “personhood” is simply metaphysical arbitrary BS, and the definition of a “person” only exists, IMO, to deny that definition to socially inconvenient and maligned members of our species.
I am in favor of a constitutional amendment banning immediate family members from holding the presidency. In a nation of 320 million or so, for which only 44 people have ever held the office, I think it is possible to find someone else.
No More Bushes. No more Clintons.
The BF contributes MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to the Joyce Foundation which is vehemently anti-gun. Following these scum suckers is like following the Mafia. Multiple orgs, shell companies, anon donors, etc. Who said “follow the money? ”
For Bushie to claim ignorance makes me sick to my stomach. This is why folks are so tired of these lying RINO POS.
The Bushes are no fan to gun rights, period.
H.W. Bush gave us the 1989 AW ban still in affect giving us the 922r nonsense and keeping many good firearms from being imported.
Bush II gave us the barrel ban preventing us from getting quality machine gun barrels because they were used on machineguns once so they must be evil and banned!!! (Also to try to curb homebuilders and smaller companies competing with large, domestic manufacturers). He also said he would have signed the AWB extension but Congress kept it from coming up for a vote.
I can only wonder what more executive fiats he will sign like his father and brother if he does become president. No president since Reagan has gone a term without screwing with imports in one form or another. In fact why keep playing games just ban EVERYTHING imported and be over with it I am sick of dying by 1000 cuts when we all know what the endgame is.
They know they have to use incrementalism. If they did a flat out ban of all firearms with complete confiscation today we would have a war tomorrow. If they pulled the stuff they pull these days back in the 1800’s… Oh well I guess there was someone jumping the gun on their plans and no I’m not talking about black slaves. I’m talking about state’s rights but hey most of this country thinks the civil war was completely about slavery so who am I to correct. The war for independence was just over tea right?
Sorry I got a little off topic but to review… This week’s word of the day is “incrementalism”.
The Civil War was over two states rights, the right to own slaves and the right to expand slavery.
The Bushies, however, think *anyone* below their station should be slaves, so they’re all-in on gun grabbing.
I was talking strictly IMPORTS!!
Our firearm imports have been continually screwed with since Reagan with every president banning them in some form or another. Obama did his fair share of import banning with our M1 Garands and Carbines, 5.45 7n6 surplus ammo, KC AK’s, and Steyr AUG pistol conversion kits but people still say “no harm done with him with guns” when it has, just not to guns people care about because it was not theirs or American.
I know all about incrementalism and that it is happening but I am sick of the IMPORT INCREMENTALISM OF BANNING IMPORTS!! They never repeal them so why not just ban everything imported-firearm wise and be done with it since that is what is going to eventually happen.
Herbert Walker was the third biggest gun ban POTUS of the 20th Century behind only Banes and Slick Willy and slightly ahead of Peanut. That said, old Jeb “Peppy” Bush always signed pro-2A and selfdefense bills into law when he was Gov. That said, he was a disaster on education.
I don’t care what mealy-mouthed explanation he has for his dealings with Little Mike. We dealt with Bush 41 and Bush 43, There won’t be a Bush 45.
Not in 2016 at least.
I certainly hope not. And I sure as hell don’t want a Clinton retread either.
I missed the big “debate” the other night, too; I was deep in a Microslop Solitaire game.
We have no friends whatsoever among the mainstream political hacks; they’d sell us out, or their mothers and children, in a heartbeat.
Anyone who still takes any of this seriously? Only if you don’t mind taking increasingly valuable and fewer moments out of your life to continue validating and enabling the vast chicanery that is perpetuated in this country with us as the gullible rubes, like unto the gaping, slack-jawed bumpkins leering at the carnival’s Tattooed Lady and the Amazing Sword Swallower…
the carnival’s Tattooed Lady and the Amazing Sword Swallower”
Are you referring to Miley Cyrus?
Could be Miley, Paris Hilton, the Kard-ass-ian Klan, Bruce Jenner in a grrl’s thong and skimpy top, or which rapper has now dumped Empress Cankles for the Brooklyn commie who had his honeymoon in Moscow and loved it there.
Politicians stick to their “guns” when the race is local. Whether anti or pro 2A, at a local level a pol will generally not flip flop on convictions. When holding national aspirations, the ubiquitous “common sense ” nudges those on either extreme towards the center, more often than not. After the election, when office is achieved~ if by left, an attack on guns is only a matter of time. If the right wins, promises on gun rights are forgotten, until needed during next election cycle.
It would be nice to get definitive statements from each of the candidates as to what they believe the 2A means and in what ways they support it.
I can point to two examples. First, here’s Ted Cruz, when answering a question about why he voted against Manchin-Toomey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzLHcoJPB5g
Second, here’s Carly Fiorina, addressing the NRA convention:
Look at the lib’s faces. She has the amazing nack of being able to shut them up. I’m lucky this election cycle will be the 2nd time I’ll vote for her. She lost to Ba Ba Boxer the first time for Ca. Senate. She’s my choice for POTUS.
Jeb is lying. I’ve presented budgets to many boards over the years, both publicly traded accompanies and privately held, as well as some nonprofit orgs. Nobody’s getting down to the individual stapler purchase level, of course, but you can be certain that something like tens of millions of dollars for Planned Parenthood would merit more than a momentary glance at a line item. I’ve had directors of companies with a billion dollars in annual sales question the number of forklifts budgeted for some obscure division.
Jeb’s ducking the question by claiming, honestly or not, ignorance and incompetence as a board member. Think about that for a minute.
This is a guy who’s already declared that he must manage his image better in order to appeal to conservative primary voters. That just means he needs to fake it until he makes it: lying, denying and dissembling every step of the way. No deal. Cruz-Fiorina 2016.
That’s the dream ticket right there. They’re right on the issues and and they’re the two smartest people in any room.
Nope. Fiorina-Cruz 2016. That is the dream ticket.
I don’t like career politicians, so it’s a prerequisite that a president have had a real career first, outside of politics.
However, government is a very particular industry of its own. I like my presidential candidates to have had some industry experience, preferably in elected office.
Carly’s great, but she’s never served in government before. At the top of the ticket, I’m looking for someone who knows enough of the ins and outs of government not to be hoodwinked by the system, but not so much experience that they’ve become part of the system themselves.
I’m getting tired of reading about Planned Parenthood here.
ditto.
And if JB is the GOP nominee, and it’s Voting Day in November, whatcha gonna do? Help the Dems come to power, or the GOP?
I’m in CA, so we pretty much don’t have any say at all in the primary, it’s all settled by the time we get to vote. Similarly, I don’t have to pay attention to any of this nonsense.
But, that’s what it comes down to. Again. Still. Bluster and bloviate and soapbox all you want. But that’s what it comes down to.
Whatcha gonna do? When push comes to shove. When you’re standing there alone, lever/ballot punch/e-voting thing in your hand.
I could see Bush as VP under President Cruz. I suppose that would make Cruz the Bushmaster.
Does that mean Reagan was Bushmaster I and Cruz, would be Bushmaster II?
Bush? Do we really want that headache all over again? 12 years of Bush has been enough, just like 8 years of Clinton was. If it dares to even come close to a choice between Bush and Clinton the country is going to burn with populist rage. Enough with the family dynasties in the White House.
The Democrat’s socialist wing are as pissed off at Obamie as we are. Look at how Bernie Sanders is doing.
Bernie, ironically, has better gun rights cred than Clinton, but I’m not sure if that means much when the Democratic machine is totally down with the grabbing.
i have an impolitic solution. Government defunds Planned Parenthood. Bloomberg defunds Moms, Everytown, and all other anti-2A organizations, giving the same amount of money to Planned Parenthood. Pro-abortion people win 80%. They get to keep Planned Parenthood funded. Anti-abortion people win 80%. The Feds no longer fund it. Pro-2A people win 100%. Anti-2A people lose. Johannes, you are the attorney. Can you broker this deal? Please take as big a fee from Bloomberg as you can get!
Yeah, after I heard his affiliation with Bloomberg I’d heard pretty much everything I needed to know about Jeb Bush. If Jeb is the nominee then the Donald will run third party, and I’ll vote for the latter. It will be President Hillary, but same gun-control result. I won’t vote for a candidate who is just as likely to take my 2A rights.
What is Trump’s position on 2A, now and historically? What about Fiorina’s. They’re both neck-deep in elitist grabber circles and live in elitist, grabber enclaves. How about the others? Which ones are made-men in the cabal and would sign our rights away at the first convenient distraction? We need an article on all the historical positions of all candidates as soon as reasonably possible.
“Whadaya want from me? It’s not like I read the budget before signing, or anything…”
What a weapons-grade douche. And this guy is supposed to be the most competent leader in the party? Forget Hill, let’s just elect Pelosi, already.
So……………..what can we do to get Carly moved up into the number 1 spot? Imagine those who would vote for Hillary just to see a female get elected actually having a choice.
I’ve tried to speak logically to folks about Bush, I saw the debate and recall. If there is one fact we must not allow to pass, and this is a direct affiliation to Bloomberg. Are we to believe Jeb has no idea what Mike stands for regarding the 2A? I don’t think so! And if he is this far out of touch, why would you consider such a disconnected person for president? He’s the wrong personality for what we need at this time in history anyway. We need a boss/leader figure. The US needs its image back. You won’t get it with Bush.
Bush 3-no thanks. He seems more clueless than W-which is scary. Still way better than the hildebeast(who MAY be indicted)…and I wish I could trust the donald-but I don’t…
Yeb Bush is just another creepy cuckservative that will sell out America and her border sovereignty for his trollish Lemon Pledge wife.
“To the extent this person has an ideology, it’s one of a plutocracy in which the wealthy and powerful can, and by right ought to, dictate morality and lifestyle choices to the rest of us, the benighted, unwashed masses.”
THAT CLEARLY APPLIES TO BUSH (any) & BLOOMBERG.
The people who REALLY run things in DC have few disagreements about armed civilians.
Johannes, seems like a key point in your article is to what extent should those of us that support 2A work with the enemy? Once Bush, Bloomberg, and Planned Parenthood are removed, that appears to be the central aspect.
Am NOT suggesting compromise or relaxation of opposition to any 2A encroachment, but cooperating in areas where we have a mutual interest doesn’t strike me as necessarily harmful. Example: advocating research into the food chain of guns used in crime. Robert Farago identified only 1 ancient study that has not been independently verified AFAIK.
What type of engagement, if any, do you find acceptable?
Liberalism is the problem, guns are the cure. This blog is about guns (and only tangentially about ‘gun rights’) You don’t find us arguing with Conservatives to keep our guns. You don’t also find us complaining that Conservative policies and values have f-d up anything (when viewed long term).
You don’t find any true Conservatives in any candidates currently running. The Republican Party’s Conservative Icon Ronald Reagan was only marginally conservative (barely conservative enough) our ‘progressives’ and ‘progressive movement’ is not new but it is a moving-off / moving-away-from Conservatism, and that has ALWAYS culminated in ruin and violence.
Reagan was not a conservative.
Any Republican who is governor of a liberal enclave state, can never, ever, never-ever be conservative by design.
Schwarzenegger, Reagan, Crisp Crispy, I mean Chris Christie, maybe, they are Republican in a broad sense, but not conservative by any means.