Sunday, July 26, 2015

Do We Need a Militia?

The Armed Forces and the Militia
Part 1 of 2
Since I first started to write columns for NewsWithViews in 2005 about the need to revitalize “the Militia of the several States”—a full decade ago—that subject has received scant support, sympathy, or even mention from the run of self-styled conservatives, patriots, constitutionalists, and (most depressing of all) champions of the Second Amendment who have made themselves prominent on the Internet. Instead, if they say anything at all about the matter, they tend to parrot the line put out by a certain notorious “‘poverty’ law center”, that anyone who mentions the word “militia” (except to disparage the concept) is some sort of “extremist” or other crackpot whose goal is “to overthrow the federal government”. Or they take the position that the only “militia” in which Americans can have confidence are “militia” with no connections to “government” at all—and that somehow the Constitution provides for such “militia”. Or they contend that Americans’ right to defend themselves with arms against private criminals and tyrants in public office has nothing to do with any “militia”, but is exclusively an “individual” right with no “collective” purpose or manifestation. Apparently, as far as these people are concerned, that the original Constitution incorporates “the Militia of the several States” as permanent, integral components of the federal system of government—and that the Second Amendment conjoins “[a] well regulated Militia” with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in the very same sentence, and even declares that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”—are facts without significance (or facts the significance of which has somehow escaped them).
These are not the only examples of the astoundingly tortuous mental gymnastics in which such people indulge, for what reasons Heaven alone can fathom. For, on the one hand, many of them predict with approval that Americans may soon have, and will want, to depend upon leaders in the Armed Forces who will thrust themselves into positions of political authority in order to save this country in the event of a nationwide crisis. Yet, on the other hand, not a few of these very same prophets repeatedly warn Americans that “the federal government” is plotting to deploy the Armed Forces to impose “martial law” throughout this country, under color of either a real calamity or a “false-flag” deception. Apparently, in these people’s imaginations, at one and the same time the Armed Forces are not just capable of, but also intent upon, both a coup d’état to enforce the Constitution and a coup d’état to eviscerate the Constitution. (Note that in the term “Armed Forces” I include both the regular Army of the United States and the National Guard—because, although people often assume that the National Guard is some sort of “militia”, it actually is not any kind of “militia” at all, but instead consists of the “Troops, or Ships of War” which the States may “keep * * * in time of Peace” “with[ ] the Consent of Congress”, pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution.)
I presume, however, that the upper echelons of America’s Armed Forces are not yet composed predominantly of aspiring Bonapartists, Peronists, and other assorted uniformed usurpers and traitors who itch to seize control of this country under whatever pretext of faux patriotism or pressure of some manufactured crisis can supply them with a plausible excuse for the imposition of “martial law”. Rather, until the necessary experiment falsifies the hypothesis, I believe that the true patriots within the Armed Forces should, could, and (with the proper encouragement and education) would go a long way towards saving this country by doing exactly what that “‘poverty’ law center” and its partisans, dupes, and useful idiots of both the political “Left” and “Right” so deprecate. Through successfully promoting revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”, the Armed Forces would help to prevent the assassination of the Constitution, by foreclosing the deadly threat of “martial law”, not just now but once and for all. (As I have written a lengthy book, entitled By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”, on this subject I shall not elaborate on it here.) Not only that, the Armed Forces would help to provide the institutions Americans desperately need in order (among other things) to secure honest elections, to introduce an economically sound and constitutional alternative currency within the several States, to put teeth into “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, and to make meaningful the assertion of the Tenth Amendment that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, both today and for the foreseeable future. (As I have written an even more lengthy book, entitled The Sword and Sovereignty, on this subject I shall not elaborate on it here, either.)
But how should this be done? Quite simply. Every time questions of “homeland security” arise in Congress and the States’ legislatures, spokesmen for the Armed Forces who are called as expert witnesses should make it a point to testify in favor of revitalizing “the Militia of the several States” as the missing, critical, and indispensable element in any coherent, comprehensive, and constitutional plan for “homeland security”. Not just referring to revitalization, not just recommending it, not just urging it—but demanding it in no uncertain terms. Explaining that no fully constitutional Militia now exist in any State in this Union. And emphasizing that something needs to be done as soon as possible to correct this situation—because, without revitalization of the Militia, this country very soon will find itself in exceedingly dire trouble with which the Armed Forces are almost entirely unqualified, as well as quite ill prepared, to deal.
That is what spokesmen for the Armed Forces should be telling legislators at every opportunity. If they did, their audiences would have to pay serious attention to what was being said. The big “mainstream media” could not get away with refusing to report the story. Average Americans would take notice. And even the mass of self-described conservatives, patriots, constitutionalists, and champions of the Second Amendment could no longer disregard or dismiss the matter!
Exactly why, though, should the Armed Forces take it upon themselves—indeed, perhaps go out on a political limb—to promote revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”? For two reasons: principle and practicality.
I. Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” is a matter of imperative moral, political, and legal principle. Perhaps the most familiar of the mottos people associate with the Armed Forces is “Duty, Honor, Country”. But what is the very first and most important duty all members of the Armed Forces—and especially the higher ranks in the Officer Corps—owe to their country? Why, to do their best to understand, to protect, to defend, and to promote America’s foundational laws: namely, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Consider first the Declaration. Intent upon “let[ting] Facts be submitted to a candid world”, the Declaration set out a litany of abuses related to King George III’s deployment of “Standing Armies” and their imposition of “martial law” against the American Colonies:
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our legislatures.—He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.—He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:—For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:— * * * For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:—For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences * * * .—[and] He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging war against us.
These, the Declaration asserted, constituted “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”.
Moreover, the Declaration did not reflect American patriots’ mere disapproval, or disparagement, or even disgust with those abuses, but instead evidenced their downright denunciation of such wrongdoing. Those “repeated injuries and usurpations” constituted no less than violations of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, so serious that they justified “the good People” of the Colonies in absolving themselves “from all Allegiance to the British Crown” and in severing “all political connection between them[selves] and the State of Great Britain”.
Self-evidently, in the light of this history, no member of America’s Armed Forces who takes seriously the motto “Duty, Honor, Country” should desire to give anyone the impression—or worse, grounds for suspicion—or worst of all, an actual basis in “Facts [to] be submitted to a candid world”—that he would ever advocate, participate in, or aspire to take a commanding rôle with respect to the sort of abuses in condemnation of which the Declaration excoriated George III. Nonetheless, the present-day para-militarization of State and Local police forces, the provision to those forces of military equipment by the Department of Defense, and the close coöperation being effected between the Armed Forces and State and Local “law-enforcement agencies” in various domestic “anti-terrorism” exercises all supply “Facts” from which “a candid world” could reasonably draw the conclusion that someone is preparing the Armed Forces to implement something akin to “martial law” somewhere within this country under some circumstances in the foreseeable future—as well as conditioning common Americans to accept this turn of events as somehow justifiable as well as inevitable. The obvious danger is that, once the precedent for such a deployment has been set anywhere within the United States, rogue public officials can concoct one ersatz “crisis” or another in order to rationalize further deployments of the Armed Forces just about everywhere, until “martial law” (in effect if not in name) becomes commonplace.
Unless Americans will have lost their wits entirely, though, they will eventually recognize these events as parts of what the Declaration of Independence described as “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object[, which] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”—and the stage will then be set for desperate patriots once again to assert “their right” and “their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”. Yet that, one may rest assured, will be a consummation devoutly to be avoided, if at all possible. Certainly the Armed Forces should not want to be the immediate cause of such a calamity—indeed, to be the moving parties, as the Armed Forces are the only establishments that can actually attempt to impose “martial law” within America. Fortunately for them, they can always put that praiseworthy desire into effect. For they are the only parties capable of absolutely guaranteeing that “martial law” will never be imposed, because if they do not impose it no one else can.
Also See:
Part 2 of 2
To be sure, one must take seriously the objection that extraordinary situations may arise “in the Course of human events” when and where only some “martial” institution can adequately execute the “law”, and that this possibility must somehow justify some form of “martial law” administered by America’s Armed Forces, notwithstanding the Declaration of Independence’s unqualified animadversions on “martial law” administered by Britain’s “Standing Armies”. Obviously, though, the great statesmen who subscribed to the Declaration, along with the other enlightened patriots of that time, were not unaware of this seeming paradox—or of how to resolve it.
The solution to the apparent problem of “martial law” is found, in pellucid terms, in the Constitution. No spurious distinction between America’s Armed Forces of today and Britain’s “Standing Armies” of yesteryear need be attempted. For “martial law” administered by Americans can no more claim a place within the Constitution than “martial law” as administered by the British found favor in the Declaration. That is, as a matter of constitutional law, “martial law” in that sense can find no place at all.
As the Preamble to the Constitution attests, “WE THE PEOPLE * * * ordain[ed] and establish[ed] th[e] Constitution”. However, WE THE PEOPLE enjoyed the legal authority to do so only because the Declaration of Independence “solemnly publish[ed] and declare[d], That the[ ] United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; * * * and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do”. But “may of right do” in accordance with what standards of “right”? Obviously, the standards established by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” which, as the Declaration explained, alone “entitle[d]” Americans “to assume among the powers of the earth, [a] separate and equal station”. Those “Laws” establish that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers”—and only “just powers”—“from the consent of the governed”. Even the People themselves cannot consent to be governed by any “Form of Government” purportedly vested with “[un]just powers”. (Which, of course, is why the Preamble lists “establish[ing] Justice”, not “imposing Injustice”, as one of the Constitution’s six goals.)
Plainly enough, America’s Founders did not consider “martial law” such as George III attempted to fasten upon them to be a “just power” under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, or they would not have catalogued and condemned it in the Declaration of Independence as part of “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny” on the King’s part. Therefore, imposing “martial law” of that ilk on America’s citizenry cannot be included within the “Acts and Things” which the Declaration asserted that “Independent States may of right do”. As an unjust power, it could not have been delegated to any “Form of Government” by “the consent of the governed” in the late 1700s—neither by WE THE PEOPLE to their State governments in the several States’ constitutions, nor by WE THE PEOPLE to the government of the Union in the Constitution of the United States. And because a power to impose “martial law” could not have been delegated to any “Form of Government” in America then, no “Form of Government” in America can claim to exercise such a power now. “Martial law” is as morally, politically, and legally impossible under the Constitution today as it was impossible under the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
Nonetheless, the Constitution does provide for certain “martial” institutions to which it assigns the authority, responsibility, and capability “to execute the Laws of the Union” “when called into the actual Service of the United States”: namely, “the Militia of the several States”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16; and art. II, § 2, cl. 1. It delegates no such authority or responsibility to the Armed Forces, though. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 12 through 14; and art. II, § 2, cl. 1. So, if “martial law” is defined in general terms as the execution of the “Laws of the Union” (or of the several States each within her own jurisdiction) by a “martial” institution, then the only institutions constitutionally entitled, and required, to engage in such execution are “the Militia of the several States”, either “when called into the actual Service of the United States” or otherwise in the performance of duties mandated to them by their own States.
By delegating to the Militia—and to the Militia alone—the right, power, and duty to execute the laws, the Constitution solves the apparent paradox of “martial law” mentioned above. For, although the Militia are governmental institutions of the States, and permanent components of the federal system, they are not “standing armies”. Perhaps nothing makes this dichotomy clearer than Article 13 of Virginia’s original Declaration of Rights in 1776: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty”. Similarly, the Second Amendment declares “well regulated Militia” to be “necessary to the security of a free State”. So the “law” executed by the Militia, even in a “martial” fashion were the circumstances to warrant it, would always be executed by THE PEOPLE themselves for the ultimate purpose of securing their own freedom.
The problem which confronts America today is that, if constitutional “martial law” were ever needed in response to some major nationwide crisis, constitutional “martial law” could not be had. For the constitutional “Militia of the several States”, for all intents and purposes, do not exist—and therefore cannot be “called into the actual Service of the United States” in order “to execute the Laws of the Union”, or called forth to fulfill the analogous duty for their States. Some Americans have voluntarily enrolled in the National Guard, which a statute deceptively denominates as “the organized militia”, when actually it is no “militia” at all—whereas all other Americans who are eligible for service in the Militia have been consigned by that same statute to what it calls “the unorganized militia”. See 10 U.S.C. § 311. Relevant statutes of the States follow the same pattern. As the name implies, “the unorganized militia” is precisely that: unorganized, unarmed, undisciplined, untrained, and ungoverned. Contrast U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16. But, as American legal history proves beyond any possible doubt, an “unorganized militia” is as much of a contradiction in terms as a “square circle”—and therefore is a constitutional impossibility. (See my book The Sword and Sovereignty.)
What obviously needs to be done in order to forefend the danger of “martial law” of the sort denounced by the Declaration of Independence, as well as to provide for the possibility that a “martial” execution of the laws allowable under the Declaration and the Constitution may become necessary in this country the not-too-distant future, is for the “martial” institutions which rogue public officials expect will impose “martial law” on common Americans—that is, the Armed Forces—to state publicly, categorically, and repeatedly that: (i) the imposition of “martial law” in any form is not and cannot be the constitutional mission of the Armed Forces; and (ii) execution of “the Laws of the Union” and of the several States in a “martial” fashion under exigent circumstances is the constitutional prerogative of “the Militia of the several States”, and only the Militia. Inasmuch as no one is better positioned at the present time to make this clear to legislators and the general public than are the Armed Forces themselves, it is their duty to do so.
II. Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” is a matter of practical necessity. Unfortunately, even with a constitutional principle in one hand, today one still needs an Abraham Lincoln Federal Reserve Note in the other hand to be able to buy a small espresso in a fashionable coffee shop. That is, constitutional principles command very little purchasing power in the contemporary “real world” of egotism, materialism, and hedonism, which allow only two notes on their discordant scale: namely, “” and “dough...dough...dough”. So even the Armed Forces will need some very practical incentives to promote revitalization of the Militia. Some of the most important of these, however, are not difficult to identify.
a. Just as an authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” forms no part of the Armed Forces’ express constitutional mandate, so too does it fall outside, and would be expected to hinder the fulfillment, of their vital practical mission to deter aggressors in foreign venues and to defeat them if deterrence fails and Congress must “declare War”. (Surely it is no accident that Congress’s power to do so, set out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, is immediately followed by its powers “[t]o raise and support Armies” and “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy” in Clauses 12 and 13.) Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” will enable the Armed Forces to devote their undivided attention to their constitutionally proper rôle, relieved of the possible burden of being diverted into domestic difficulties through deployments that smack of “martial law”. The Militia would “secure the home front” by maintaining law and order domestically in its proper form: namely, what the Second Amendment denotes as “a free State”.
b. In the event of an unavoidable nationwide domestic crisis, such as the collapse of the monetary and banking systems, revitalization of the Militia would be requisite, for the obvious reason that the Armed Forces could never deploy enough “boots on the ground” to reëstablish and then maintain law and order in every locality where significant social unrest arose and civil disobedience broke out. Part of the explicit constitutional authority of the Militia is to “suppress Insurrections”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15. And enrollments in revitalized Militia would outnumber by far the total possible enlistments in the Armed Forces. Even if the Armed Forces could mobilize forces arguably sufficient in raw numbers to quell violent disturbances throughout the entire country, those forces would face innumerable, often novel, and predicably insuperable difficulties in dealing with other untold problems peculiar to the thousands of unfamiliar Localities they would be called upon to police. Revitalized Militia, in contrast, would be composed entirely of Local citizens—raised, organized, specially trained, and always deployed at the Local level—and imbued with intimate knowledge of and sympathy for their Localities and the people who lived there, which would enable them to deal intelligently and effectively with all of the disparate situations which arose in different areas of the country.
c. A collapse of the monetary and banking systems is not the only conceivable nationwide or regional catastrophe which might threaten this country in the near future. Consideration must also be given to pandemics, famines, natural disasters, and massive industrial failures or accidents, to name but a few. The Armed Forces are not prepared, and therefore cannot be expected—let alone ordered—to deal with all of the complex challenges each and every one of these events could bring forth. Indeed, the Armed Forces can never be prepared for such duty, because they have few, if any, places in their tables of organization for people with the various kinds of highly technical knowledge and specialized experience which would be vital to draw upon in the event of such crises. In contrast, being composed of just about every adult American not enrolled in the Armed Forces, “the Militia of the several States” would not just as a matter of fact have access to, but also as a matter of law could call upon and dispose of, almost the entirety of national talent in every relevant field—with many, if not the vast majority, of these people already resident in, and therefore familiar with, precisely those areas in which the crises would most seriously manifest themselves.
d. Even in the event of an actual invasion of the United States, the Armed Forces would need support from the Militia. That support would be forthcoming, because one of the explicit constitutional responsibilities of the Militia is to “repel Invasions”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15. Moreover, that support would likely be necessary. For any initially successful invasion would involve hordes of enemy troops which would have to be fought with every tactic available, from direct counterattack at the invasion sites to guerrilla and partisan warfare throughout every part of the country into which the invaders penetrated—which types of warfare would require full and unstinting participation by the Militia.
To expect such a “Red Dawn” scenario always to be confined to movie theaters is naïve in an era in which America’s borders apparently cannot be made secure against even an invasion of illegal aliens composed almost exclusively of unarmed men, women, and children. (And, by revitalization of the Militia, even these now-porous borders could finally be sealed, without deployment of the Armed Forces.)
A final note of concern and caution. In the present state of political, economic, and social uncertainty and unrest throughout America, the Armed Forces will surely forfeit the confidence of every thinking citizen if, instead of supporting revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”, they attempt to impose “martial law” anywhere within this country when some major crisis breaks out (for which eventuality many observers believe they are training right now). For, by such behavior, they will prove “to a candid world”:(i) that they are politically unreliable “Standing Armies” with scant concern for the Constitution; and, worse yet, (ii) that they are willing to aid and abet America’s dysfunctional and disloyal political-cum-economic Establishment in “affect[ing] to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” throughout this land—even if that turns out to be part and parcel of the Establishment’s “design to reduce the[ People] under absolute Despotism”. Confidence so lost can never be regained. Once the Armed Forces have alienated themselves from the people, the full consequences of their breach of trust may be unpredictable. But they surely will be prove to be undesirable in the extreme
© 2015 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes.
His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" ... and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms...
He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.

E-Mail: Not available

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

About That Cup of Coffee!

A Review of Caffeine Blues  
A Book by Stephen Cherniske
(Reviewer is anonymous) 
(Edited/abridged by 
Okay, I know this article  won't be popular. Most of us are so addicted to caffeine that we don't want to know about it. I am writing this because when "Caffeine Blues" came out I just knew I had to read it. 
Several years ago I realized  that coffee was much worse than we had been told, because I noticed that I got an arthritic pain  in my wrist within ten to twenty minutes of a cappuccino!
This book didn't just tell me how bad coffee was - it told me how GOOD I would feel once I was totally caffeine free for two months. For example, I no longer have the drained feeling that I sometimes used to get in the mornings.
Written by Stephen Cherniske,  a Clinical Nutritionist, "Caffeine Blues" is incredibly easy to read, and convincing.  I realized that caffeine does NOT give us energy. In fact, it is a major CAUSE of LACK of energy. 
As Cherniske waded through the tons of information on caffeine, he began to see that consciously or unconsciously nearly every researcher starts from the assumption that caffeine is okay. Why? Probably because they themselves depend on caffeine.
Caffeine is in coffee, black tea, green tea, oolong tea (wu-yi tea), 'decaffeinated' coffee and tea, chocolate, colas, chuppa-chups, many sodas, some drugs, most 'energy' drinks and guarana.
A 6 oz cup of:
• Percolated coffee has about 120 mg of caffeine
• Black tea has about 70 mg of caffeine
• Green tea about 35 mg of caffeine
• Leading colas 45 mg of caffeine
• Mountain dew 54 mg of caffeine
• Brewed decaf has 5 mg of caffeine
• Milk chocolate has 6 mg per ounce
• Baking chocolate has 35 mg per ounce.
Caffeine is produced by more than eighty species of plants. The reason may well be survival. As it turns out, caffeine is  used by plants as a pesticide.
Caffeine is considered harmless simply because it is so widely used.  Dr William Dement in his book "The Promise of Sleep" said that if caffeine was introduced today, it would not be allowed.
There is a brochure available in hospitals and other medical related areas: "What you should know about caffeine" published by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) in Washington DC. After many phone calls Cherniske finally got a list of 'supporters' of the IFIC. It included Pepsi, Coca-Cola, M&M, Nutrasweet, Nestle and Hershey - all of whom have caffeine in their drinks and foods. 
'Partners' of the IFIC included groups such as the National Association of Pediatric Nurses and the Children's Advertising Review Unit of the Council of Better Business Bureau Inc. This brochure says that "Caffeine is normally excreted within several hours after consumption". In fact, only 1% is excreted. The remaining 99% has to be detoxified by the liver. It can take up to 12 hours to detoxify a single cup of coffee.
Many studies regarding coffee and hypertension were flawed, because the test subjects came off coffee for only one or two weeks. It takes many more weeks than this for stress hormone levels of the body to return to normal.
The 'half-life' of a drug is the time it takes the body to remove one half of the dose. Caffeine is a drug. The half-life of a single dose of caffeine ranges from three to TWELVE hours.
Caffeine puts your body into stress. A single 250 milligram dose of caffeine (the equivalent of about 2.5 six ounce cups of coffee) has been shown to increase levels of the stress hormone epinephrine (adrenaline) by over 200%.
Caffeine triggers a classic fight-or-flight reaction designed for events that happened only occasionally (such as a lion chasing you). Now, we put our body in fight-or-flight mode every day with caffeine!!! As a result, sugar and fat get dumped unused in the bloodstream. The sugar creates more stress. The fat clogs the arteries. The digestive system slows or shuts down.
Not only is caffeine addictive, it also encourages addictions to substances like nicotine.
Caffeine does not give you energy. It stimulates your nervous system and adrenals. That's not energy, that's stress. The 'energy' that you think you get from caffeine is really just a loan from the adrenals and liver, and the interest you have to pay is very high.
Stress is a major factor in disorders such as anxiety, insomnia, depression, ulcers, rheumatoid arthritis, headache, hypoglycemia, asthma, herpes, hypertension and heart disease. And yet hospitals provide coffee and tea, which put your body into stress!!!
Caffeine consumption leads to DHEA deficiency .DHEA is our vitality hormone. Decreased levels of DHEA is a cause of aging.   Caffeine is an AGING DRUG!
Caffeine is implicated in ulcers and irritable bowel syndrome: GABA is produced in the intestinal tract, where it calms anxiety and stress. Caffeine disrupts the normal metabolism of GABA.
Caffeine disrupts sleep. Deep sleep is CRITICAL to good health. When there's caffeine in your bloodstream, you are unlikely to experience any deep sleep at all!
Caffeine AT ANY TIME of the day can cause sleep problems, especially if you are under stress.
Malnutrition is one of the most well-defined effects of habitual caffeine intake.
A single cup of coffee can reduce iron absorption from a meal by as much as 75%.
People do not develop a tolerance to the anxiety-producing effects of caffeine. Rather, people simply become accustomed to the feelings of stress, irritability and aggressiveness produced by the drug.
Caffeine contributes to depression in well-defined ways. This is particularly due to the withdrawal effect, which can cause headache, depression and fatigue, even in light users (p. 111).
Cherniske reported that 90% of people who came to him who suffered from depression and gave up caffeine completely for 2 months reported that their depression went away!
Students the world over use caffeine not only to stay awake, but also they believe the drug will improve their performance on exams. Solid research, however, illustrates that as little as 100 milligrams of caffeine (one cup of coffee, two cups of cola) can cause a significant DECREASE in recall and reasoning.
Moderate coffee drinkers with high cholesterol had more than seven times the risk of heart attack, while heavy coffee drinkers had  eighteen times  the risk of non-coffee drinkers! 
Caffeine depletes your supplies of thiamin and other B vitamins, calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron and zinc. Caffeine increases calcium loss and risk of osteoporosis.
Take the Challenge!  Most people have no idea what life would be like without the background of caffeine and stress hormones coursing through their veins.
Related -  (From Greg) I wanted to add this information for your readers to take a look at in regards to what is in a lot of coffee that is roasted. There is new research on the bad effects on the lungs from a chemical called Diacetyl. Please post the following website links about this chemical.
and the original article that I read on this chemical:
Dr. Sears - Coffee Destroys Your Brain
Unrelated -  World's Most Expensive Coffee made from Ferret Droppings  
In Defence of Coffee by James:
As a faithful follower of your blog/articles, I was surprised to see the article favorably reviewing Stephen Cherniske's book "Caffeine Blues". Even with your caveat "may not affect you negatively but I am posting this review in case it does", it's far too biased against coffee. Particularly since the book was published in 1998, some 14 years ago and prior to about 50 of the studies currently being cited by numerous alternative and mainstream health advocates. Stephen Cherniske is probably not a crackpot, but he didn't have this information available when he wrote the book.
Everyone of us is of course biochemically unique and I certainly don't subscribe to the "if it's good for me it's good for you" school of nutrition or medicine. It is hard to ignore the numerous studies indicating health benefits from coffee. You may be familiar with Dr Mercola a MD who practices alternative medicine has been strongly against coffee for over a decade, but due to mounting evidence has changed his tune. He has one of the best articles summarizing the current state of research.
Additionally you will want to check out Green Med Info (they are kind of like a Pub Med database for natural medicine and nutrition) they presently have 58 studies showing positive health benefits of coffee.
The Life Extension Foundation also has an article summarizing many of the studies showing health benefits of coffee.
And lets not forget Wikipedia. They have a page highlighting both the good & bad effects of drinking coffee.
With the exception of Wikipedia none of these sources can be considered mainstream media or in the pockets of the big pharma or agri-business (i.e. part of the NWO conspiracy) yet they are all convinced by the numerous studies showing health benefits to drinking coffee.
This study is a little weak, but still suggestive:
Note that none of these studies are dealing with cream & sugar, flavorings, etc in the coffee.
In my opinion that is where much of the harm from "coffee" comes from.
Summarizing the health benefits of coffee:
 * Protective effect against type 2 diabetes
 * May significantly cut your risk of Parkinson's disease
 * Helps protect you from Alzheimer's disease
 * Lower risk of lethal prostate cancer.
 * Coffee drinkers are less likely to suffer symptomatic gallstone disease
Liver Cancer, less severe liver fibrosis, lower levels of fat in your liver, and lower rates of hepatitis-C disease progression.
 * May be associated with decreased risk of kidney cancer
 * Coffee consumption may lower colon cancer risk among women
 * Moderate coffee drinking reduces your chances of being hospitalized for heart rhythm problems.
 * 25 percent lower risk of stroke than women who drank coffee.
 P.S. I'm not a coffee addict, and in fact I had at one time (back in the 80's) quit it entirely for several years, and I typically have 1 cup a day. -
I wanted to add this information for your readers to take a look at in regards to what is in a lot of coffee that is roasted.
17 Harmful Effects of Caffeine

The harmful effects of caffeine are sometimes harder to find information on than all of the reported positives.
Here are a few of the studies that concluded that caffeine could be potentially dangerous to one’s health.

Research Showing Harmful Effects of Caffeine

  1. More than 4 cups of coffee linked to early death. A Mayo Clinic partnered study found that men who drank more than four 8 fl.oz. cups of coffee had a 21% increase in all-cause mortality. However, those that reported that they consumed excessive amounts of caffeine were also likely to smoke and have poor fitness. Dr. Nancy Snyderman from NBC said there were a few discrepancies with the study, but stresses that moderation is still key. See Her Interview Here.
  2. Caffeine consumption may raise blood pressure. Especially in those already suffering from hypertension and those who don’t normally consume caffeine. People with hypertension were given 250 mg of caffeine (about 2 coffees) and the data revealed that their blood pressure was elevated for about 2-3 hours after the caffeine. Src. A second study performed by The Mayo Clinic found similar results from a 160 mg dose. All participants experienced a marked rise in blood pressure and it was the most pronounced in those that didn’t normally consume caffeine. Src.
  3. Caffeine linked to gout attacks. This study showed that people who binge on caffeinated beverages increase their risk for a gout flare-up. Src.
  4. Caffeine could cause incontinence. A study out of the University of Alabama showed that women who consume a lot of caffeine are 70% more likely to develop incontinence. Src.
  5. Caffeine may cause insomnia. Caffeine in a person’s system at bedtime can mimic the symptoms of insomnia. Src.
  6. Caffeine can cause indigestion. People who consume caffeinated beverages often report an upset stomach or indigestion. This mainly occurs when the beverages are consumed on an empty stomach. Src.
  7. Caffeine can cause headaches. While occasional doses of caffeine can relieve headache symptoms, the overuse of caffeine can cause headaches and lead to migraines. Src.
  8. Caffeine could reduce fertility in women. A study from The University of Nevada School of Medicine showed that caffeine can reduce a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant by about 27%. Src.
  9. Caffeine may not be healthy for type 2 diabetics. A study conducted by the American Diabetes Association showed that caffeine impaired glucose metabolism in those with type 2 diabetes. Src.
  10. Caffeine Overdose. While overdose is rare, it can lead to many adverse symptoms including death, especially in those with underlying medical conditions. Some have a lower tolerance for caffeine than others. Src.
  11. Caffeine Allergies. Some people have over-sensitivity to the caffeine molecule, which causes allergic-like reactions in the body such as hives and pain. Although not a true allergy, many report very negative symptoms after consuming even the smallest amounts. Src.
  12. Caffeine causes more forceful heart contractions. A recent study showed that immediately after energy drink consumption the heart produced more forceful contractions. It is unclear if this has any long-term health implications except for those with known health conditions. Src.
  13. Worse Menopause Symptoms. A recent study published in The Journal of The North American Menopause Society showed that menopausal women who consumed caffeine had a greater degree of vasomotor symptoms. Src.
  14. Caffeine consumption can lead to increased anxiety, depression and the need for anxiety medication. Src and Src.
  15. Caffeine increases the amount of sugary beverages consumed by people, which contributes to obesity and diabetes. Src.
  16. Caffeine inhibits collagen production in skin. This effect is dose dependant but really heavy caffeine consumers should be aware. The Study.
  17. Caffeine interferes with ossification and could also lead to greater risk of bone fractures. This is dose dependent, but heavy caffeine consumers should take note. Study 1 (pdf) Study 2 .

Other Claims Against Caffeine

You may have heard or read about other negative health effects from caffeine consumption, but as of now, there just isn’t enough evidence to fully endorse those as legitimate health concerns.
Some of those negatives include:
  • Adrenal fatigue
  • Irregular heartbeat
  • Hallucinations
  • Accelerates bone loss. Src.
  • Tremors
Caffeine is a drug and can affect people differently just like any other substance. It’s important that consumers understand how caffeine interacts with their bodies in regards to their personal health histories.
The food and beverage industry spends millions, if not billions, of dollars world-wide to fund studies and promote caffeinated products as safe or even healthy.
Fortunately, caffeine is one of the most researched substances on the planet and there does exist some unbiased data in which to glean some reliable information from.
While much of the research published does allude to the safety and even potential benefits of caffeine (in moderation), there are a handful of research studies that highlight the potential harmful effects of caffeine.
The risks of suffering from any of the harmful effects of caffeine are diminished by being aware of how much is personally being consumed daily.
It is also important to be aware of any pre-existing medical conditions that may contribute to caffeine’s negative effects.
Regular Coffee Consumption Could Keep Alzheimer's At Bay, Report Says

There's good news and bad news, coffee drinkers.
A new report says the liquid gold an estimated three in five Americans drinks every day could be helpful in curbing the risk for Alzheimer's disease -- but only on a short-term basis. The analysis of coffee-related Alzheimer's research was presented by the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, a non-profit that studies the health effects of coffee, at the Alzheimer Europe conference.
"Cognitive decline is a feature of aging, and although some changes can be expected in all of us, there is some evidence that diet and lifestyle may be related to cognition," Alzheimer Europe's vice chairperson Iva Holmerova said in a statement. "In fact epidemiological studies suggest that certain lifestyle factors and nutritional elements, including the consumption of coffee and caffeine, may help to slow age-related cognitive decline seen in the older generation."
ISIC researchers point to the caffeine and polyphenol content in coffee as the protective factors. Caffeine, they say, prevents the buildup of the protein that creates plaques and tangles in the brain, which researchers believe is one of the key causes for the memory-robbing disease. Caffeine, along with polyphenols, chemical compounds that have an antioxidant effect on the body, both reduce inflammation, which some researchers believe is the key to age-related decline.
ISIC says that while there are both short-term and long-term studies following the effects of coffee consumption on Alzheimer's risk, there are few that look at both. That's why they commissioned an assessment of a study involving around 5,000 middle-aged participants, monitoring consumption between 1989 and 1991. The follow-up period lasted from 1997 to 2011.
People who drank high amounts of coffee, defined as more than three cups, were less likely to develop dementia in a four-year follow-up, but the seeming protective effect of coffee diminished after this time. In fact, after the initial four-year follow-up period, the effect was "reversed," creating a harmful correlation between high coffee consumption and dementia incidence.
Researchers say that the short-term benefits could be due to a reverse causal effect. They suggest that the short-term benefits could be caused by delayed onset of symptoms, meaning a delayed diagnosis. But, as with all research, the study has limitations. The coffee consumption was self-reported and brewing methods were not taken into consideration.
Other coffee-related research has also found similar results. A 2012 study pointed out that while coffee can't eradicate your risk for Alzheimer's, drinking about three cups a day can slow or stop the transition from mild cognitive impairment into full-blown dementia. However, coffee can lead to problems such as higher blood pressure.
As with any good thing, just a reminder that moderation is key.
Is it dangerous to drink coffee during pregnancy?
A high intake of coffee can
lead to smaller babies or even a longer pregnancy. And it's not just coffee you should watch
Monday 25 February 2013



Saturday, July 11, 2015

Will Jeb Bush be the Next President?

Jeb Bush: People Need to Work Longer Hours
By Candace Smith via Good Morning America
July 8, 2015
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Wednesday that in order to grow the economy "people need to work longer hours" -- a comment that the Bush campaign argues was a reference to underemployed part-time workers but which Democrats are already using to attack him.
During an interview that was live-streamed on the app Periscope, Bush made the comments to New Hampshire’s The Union Leader answering a question about his plans for tax reform.
"My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."
Already the Democratic National Committee has pounced, releasing a statement that calls his remarks "easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we’ve heard so far this cycle," adding that Bush would not fight for the middle class as president.
In a statement, a Bush aide clarified that he was referring to the underemployed and part-time workers: "Under President Obama, we have the lowest workforce participation rate since 1977, and too many Americans are falling behind. Only Washington Democrats could be out-of-touch enough to criticize giving more Americans the ability to work, earn a paycheck, and make ends meet."
Bush commented on this issue speaking before the Detroit Economic Council back in February.
"For several years now, they have been recklessly degrading the value of work, the incentive to work, and the rewards of work. We have seen them cut the definition of a full-time job from 40 to 30 hours, slashing the ability of paycheck earners to make ends meet," he said. "We have seen them create welfare programs and tax rules that punish people with lost benefits and higher taxes for moving up those first few rungs of the economic ladder."
A 2014 Gallup poll found that already many Americans employed full-time report working, on average, 47 hours a week, while nearly 4 in 10 say they work at least 50 hours a week.
US workers toil more hours than workers in any other large, industrialized country, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
There are 6.5 million people in the country who, according to the Bureau of Labor, are working part time for economic reasons. This means they are involuntarily working part time because they can't find full time employment and presumably would work more if they could.
Some took Bush's comments as an opportunity to pounce.
The Clinton camp weighed in, with campaign chair John Podesta tweeting: Americans are working pretty hard already & don't need to work longer hours — they need to get paid more.
Rick Tyler, the national spokesman for Ted Cruz's campaign also issued a statement.
"It would seem to me that Gov Bush would want to avoid the kind of comments that led voters to believe that Governor Romney was out of touch with the economic struggles many Americans are facing," he said. "The problem is not that Americans aren't working hard enough. It is that the Washington cartel of career politicians, special interests and lobbyists have rigged the game against them."
Jeb Bush's Wealth Soared When He Left Governor's Office, Tax Returns Show
By Steve Eder
30 June 2015
Jeb Bush on Monday at Nephron Pharmaceutical Company in West Columbia, S.C. Tax returns he released on Tuesday show that he and his wife, Columba, had income of $7.3 million in 2013.Credit Sean Rayford/Getty Images
After he left office as governor of Florida, Jeb Bush’s net worth grew to at least $19 million from $1.3 million, a significant leap in wealth that reflects the power of his connections and the breadth of his entrepreneurial pursuits.
Mr. Bush and his wife, Columba, reported $28.5 million in adjusted gross income from 2007, the year he left office, through 2013, according to tax returns he released on Tuesday. Nearly $10 million came from his speaking engagements.
The Bushes’ income topped out at $7.3 million in 2013, the last of 33 years of returns he made public. The return showed that they paid $2.9 million in federal taxes on that income, for an effective tax rate of 40 percent.
Mr. Bush’s disclosure of voluminous financial records comes early in a presidential campaign that has elevated the issue of candidates’ wealth, and the way it may distance them from ordinary Americans in an era of economic uncertainty.
After he left state politics eight years ago, Mr. Bush made clear that he wanted to make money. The mystery was just how much he had made.
The Bush campaign reported that the couple’s total net worth is now between $19 million and $22 million.
The wealth of America’s political dynasties is emerging as a major theme of the 2016 campaign. And while the fortune amassed by Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton dwarfs what Mr. Bush collected, the records show that he similarly had little difficulty leveraging his prominent name to gain millions of dollars in the private sector.
Mr. Bush said his wealth has also allowed for significant charitable contributions. The couple reported $110,616 in donations on their 2013 return. In a statement on his website, Mr. Bush said they donated $739,000 to charity from 2007 to 2014.
"I’m proud of what Columba and I have contributed," he said.
The effective tax rate of 40 percent that Mr. Bush paid compares with the 13.9 percent rate that Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, reported paying in 2010, a figure that drew widespread criticism.
The release of the returns, 16 months before the general election, is intended to position Mr. Bush as particularly open to scrutiny compared with other candidates. It included filings for several years that had previously been disclosed during his campaigns for governor. The Bush campaign said he has requested extensions for filing his 2014 taxes and his financial disclosure report, which will include details of his assets and liabilities.
Deep in the 2013 filing, he reported $5.8 million in "consulting and speaking" income. Separately, Mr. Bush’s campaign provided details of his engagements showing that he delivered about 260 paid speeches from 2007 to the present, for which he earned a total of $9.95 million. He listed 10 speeches at the Poongsan Corporation, a South Korea-based copper manufacturer that has long ties to the Bush family. His most recent audiences included the National Automobile Dealers Association and the American Council of Life Insurers.
The campaign did not release details of the income from his consulting engagements.
In the early going of the 2016 campaign, the candidates’ financial and business affairs have drawn particular scrutiny. Their wealth can be seen as a double-edged sword, signifying both financial acumen but also socioeconomic distance from most voters at a time when income inequality is a pressing issue.
Among the field of candidates, Mrs. Clinton disclosed in May that she and her husband had made at least $30 million since the start of 2014, largely from giving paid speeches. Senator Marco Rubio reported that he cashed out a retirement account last year. And in June, as he announced his candidacy, Donald Trump held up a document showing his net worth to be around $8.7 billion.
Mr. Bush and his wife have paid a higher tax rate than many fellow millionaires because most of his earnings come in the form of wages and salaries, instead of investment income, which is often taxed at a lower rate.
"One thing is obvious," said Alan Viard, a resident scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute and a former staff economist in Congress, who took a cursory look at the returns. "Compared to many people in his income range, Jeb Bush clearly has less capital gains income, and therefore has a higher effective individual income tax rate."
For several years, Mr. Bush, 62, has used an office at the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, Fla., working closely with his son, Jeb Jr., while consulting, giving speeches and managing a private investment business.
One of his endeavors included serving as a paid director to the hospital company Tenet Healthcare, which backed President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The position invited questions for Mr. Bush, who as a candidate opposes the health care law.
Mr. Bush profited handsomely from his Tenet shares. According to the newly released tax returns, Mr. Bush acquired $441,203 worth of stock in Tenet Healthcare in May 2011. The stock doubled in value by the time he sold it in October 2013, earning him a profit of $462,013 in just 29 months.
Like other hospital stocks, Tenet rose sharply from October 2012 through March 2013, when President Obama’s re-election made it likely that the health care law would be carried out. The law was considered a boon for hospitals because it was expected to increase business and reduce the expense of caring for uninsured patients who could not pay their bills.
Mr. Bush resigned from the Tenet board in 2014 when he was preparing for his presidential campaign, and this year sold off his stakes in his two remaining businesses as he contemplated a run for the presidency. He sold his consultancy, Jeb Bush & Associates, to his son and business partner, Jeb Jr., while also shedding his interest in the Britton Hill entities, a group of private investment and advisory firms.
His other high-profile and controversial engagements have included working as a paid adviser to Lehman Brothers, an appointment that included seeking an investment in 2008 in the failing bank from Carlos Slim Helú, a Mexican billionaire. Mr. Bush also consulted for the building materials manufacturer InnoVida, which went bankrupt and whose founder pleaded guilty to fraud charges.
The tax forms also trace the period in the 1980s and 1990s when Mr. Bush, then a young entrepreneur, was building his own political base in South Florida. He told a reporter at the time, "I want to be very wealthy."
The returns showed that his average adjusted gross income was about $400,000 over the 18 years before he became governor.
Josh Barro and Patricia Cohen contributed reporting, and Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Jeb Warns Newsmax: Get Ready For 'Most Negative Campaign' Ever

By Paul Scicchitano and Kathleen Walter
Thursday, 19 Apr 2012
Americans are facing what will likely be the "most negative campaign in modern times" over the next six months, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush tells Newsmax, and Mitt Romney must brace himself for tough personal attacks from President Barack Obama
Bush, the former two-term governor of the Sunshine State, also said in an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview that he hopes Romney — as the presumptive GOP presidential nominee — will invite Florida’s charismatic first-term Sen. Marco Rubio to become his running mate. That may be the key to Republicans defeating Obama in November, he says
"There will be so much negativity and so many personal attacks against Gov. Romney. That’s already been telegraphed that that’s going to happen," Bush declared in an exclusive interview from his office near Miami.
"I think Mitt needs to stay above the fray a bit, and to offer a hopeful message that can lift people’s spirits up because after the end of this four or five months of really negative campaigning," Bush added. " I think people are going to be motivated by a more positive message.
Bush called Rubio "probably the best" candidate for vice president on a list that likely includes himself — the son of former President George H.W. Bush, and the brother of former President George W. Bush
"Well I can’t speak for Gov. Romney, and I can’t speak for Sen. Rubio, but if I was on both sides of that conversation I would ask — and I would hope that Marco would accept," Bush said. "There’s a lot of things in between that may not make that happen, but I am a great admirer of Mitt Romney’s and I’m a huge fan of Marco Rubio’s, and I think the combination would be extraordinary.
With respect to his own response to such a call from Romney, Bush acknowledged, "Well I’d consider it, but I doubt I’ll get a call, and I don’t know if it’s the right thing for me to do. I didn’t run for president for a similar kind of reason, so I’m all in to try to help him get elected.
Bush's short list of top-tier vice presidential candidates he thinks Mitt
Romney should consider includes Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
Asked about the prospect of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice getting the nod, Bush indicated that she too would be a solid choice, echoing the findings of a recent CNN poll.
"She certainly, again brings tremendous foreign policy experience, and she’s just an extraordinary person," he said. "So, as I said . . . this is a problem of abundance for Gov. Romney, which is a good thing.
Admittedly, Bush’s mother — former first lady Barbara Bush — may be pressuring her son to take his place on the national stage along with his father and brother, but he remains non-committal about that prospect — at least publicly so
"In 2016 my intent is to be supporting Mitt Romney’s re-election number one. Number two: Moms are moms," he cautioned. "Moms love their children hopefully and they’re supportive of their children, and she wants what’s best for me. I’m putting words in my mother’s mouth which will get me in serious trouble, but she’s a huge Romney supporter, and as she should be.
Asked about his private meetings with President Obama in the Oval Office with his father, George H.W. Bush, Bush said he was impressed by Obama and the fact he was "genuinely respectful" of his Dad
He cautioned Republicans and Democrats to avoid personal attacks
"I don't think we need to demonize the president," he said, noting he didn't like it when his brother George W. Bush was targeted for personal attacks during his presidency
He described the presidency as a "great job" in reference to the bond those who hold the office share with one another — regardless of ideological differences.
"It’s a job that would be incredible to be in. But there are things that only presidents and former presidents can appreciate, so I think there’s a level of mutual respect there.
For example, the elder Bush has grown close to former President Bill Clinton and maintains a healthy respect for Barack Obama on a personal level. "I think there’s kind of a president’s club," Bush observed. "There are not that many people that are alive that have served in that position and understand the pressures that exist, understand the human toll.
With Florida expected to once again figure prominently in the general election — "Florida!, Florida!, Florida!" as the late Tim Russert of NBC famously scribbled on a white board — Bush insists that it will be important for the GOP nominee to move past the border control issue when reaching out to the all-important Hispanic voters of his state and elsewhere in the nation.
"You get beyond that to talk about aspirational things," he said. "The newly arrived to our country don’t want a handout. They’re not looking to get in line. They’re not looking to get a free lunch.
He said that Hispanic voters want an opportunity to work hard and provide for their families. "They want to be able to dream — dreams that are big — and be able to pursue those dreams," said Bush. "That spirit is what we need in our country to lift the cloud of pessimism that exists and restore long-term economic growth. So connecting with that sense of aspiration, I think which is truly a conservative message in my mind — limited government, and an abundance of opportunities for people — is really what we stand for, is what the message ought to be about.
He believes that Romney’s prospects for victory are tied to the economy and that President Obama can no longer blame his brother for America’s woes.
"A lot will depend on how the economy’s doing and how job growth is taking place as we move through the summer into the Fall but we had a tepid recovery," he said. "We have huge debt, huge deficit. The president can blame all sorts of other people, but the fact is he’s been president now for going on four years and the results are not as good as anybody would like.
Moreover, he said, the effective unemployment rate is closer to 12 percent than the official 8.3 percent rate in government statistics. "It’s because people have given up hope trying to find a job. A lot of people have no chance of getting a job in their mind because the president hasn’t stimulated the private sector," according to Bush. "In fact, by his policies and his rhetoric, he’s created so much uncertainty, and so much doubt, that people that invest to create the jobs in our society are doing so reluctantly — or not at all.
As a former governor, Bush said he anticipates that a Romney administration would seek to build partnerships with the states on issues such as education.
"We should strive to move to a student-centered system where everything revolves around student learning, and less revolves around economic interests of the adults," Bush explained, noting that Romney served as governor of Massachusetts which has achieved high marks for student achievement. "I think this is where Gov. Romney stands, and I think it’s the right place to be.
In terms of Bush’s successor — Gov. Rick Scott — Bush said that Scott has taken a "business-like approach to government" consistent with his campaign message, while devoting less time to the public relations side of the job
"I think he’s more interested in service. And the politics of politics doesn’t seem to interest him," said Bush. "God bless him for that. I mean aren’t you tired of politicians that wake up each day kind of sticking their finger in the wind, and saying ‘ooh I better not do this?
Bush also said he supports efforts by Michael Reagan, the son of the late president Ronald Reagan, to replace California’s full-time legislature with part-time lawmakers, mirroring the system used in Florida and 40 other states
"I can’t imagine being governor of Florida with a full-time legislature. It would have driven me nuts personally," he said. "But more importantly, you know, if you have a full-time legislature, the void is filled — and it’s filled with, a lot of times, just nonsensical stuff.
With so much at stake in the general election, Bush stressed that it’s also important to have a Republican-controlled Senate
To that extent, he recently came out in support of Republican senatorial candidate Josh Mandel of Ohio. "Josh is the real deal. I mean he’s a very energetic, very conservative, very smart guy," said Bush.
Old Family Scandals May Haunt Jeb Presidential Run By Sharon Churcher

If Jeb Bush decides to run for president, GOP leaders are warning that he may face "hurtful" questions about past family scandals.
In 1999, while he was governor of Florida, his wife, Columba, was fined for declaring only $500 worth of goods to U.S. Customs on her return from Paris, where she actually made close to $20,000 in purchases.
Three years later, his daughter Noelle, was arrested at age 24 for alleged prescription fraud while trying to buy a tranquilizer, Xanax.
In 2005, his son, Jeb Jr., then 21, was arrested in Texas for public intoxication and resisting arrest.
Politico reported Wednesday that, as " the buzz picks up" about whether George W. Bush’s younger brother will run for the White House, donors are questioning whether he is prepared to face "new questions" about the old scandals.
"The issues have been brought up by the press and others in the past, and the family issues may well be brought out again," said Al Cardenas, chairman of the American Conservative Union, who headed the Florida GOP while Bush was governor. "If these matters are brought up, it would hurt him, not politically but personally. He has to make up his mind whether that’s a burden he wants to bear."
A former aide to former President George W. Bush, Tony Fratto, insisted that these "family concerns" will not deter Jeb Bush from considering a run.
"He dealt with them as governor and since then," Fratto said. "How a race impacts your family, whatever their conditions are, a lot of the same issues he may be considering are the same as lots of other [potential] candidates."
Fratto pointed out that if Bush were to run, his possible rivals would include the "heavily scrutinized" Hillary Clinton.
"You have two families here where it’s hard to come up with any more secrets about them," he said.
"In a way, it’s a luxury that they can go into a race without worrying about what kinds of things people might try to dig into their past and unearth....
"If Jeb runs, and if Hillary runs, neither is going to be shocked at that level of critical commentary, scrutiny and investigation into their pasts," Fratto said.
Jeb Bush’s concerns about his family’s privacy are thought, however, to have played a role in his decision to skip the 2012 presidential race.
"They thought he wouldn’t do it because of Columba …[that] has not changed," a GOP donor said.
Bloomberg News last year reported that Jeb often speaks movingly about Columba, whom he met while he was an exchange student in her native Mexico. He has said that their relationship remains fiery.
"Did I mention that my lover is my wife?" he quipped to an immigration policy group.
Jeb Bush missed red flags in Florida business scandal
Monday, March 30, 2015
Miami (CNN)There were plenty of red flags surrounding the company Jeb Bush was planning to join: lawsuits, bad headlines, even previously convicted drug dealers in top positions.
But somehow Bush seemed to miss them all in 2007 as he prepared to join InnoVida as a $15,000-a month-consultant -- a position that would lead to board membership and stock options.
Just months out of the Florida governor's mansion, the consulting gig with InnoVida would help Bush replenish his bank account after eight years in public service. It was also a chance for him to lend the credibility that comes with being the son of a former president and the brother of a sitting one to a home state start-up making what promised to be a revolutionary new building material.
But in reality, Bush was getting caught up with a smooth-talking CEO who would ultimately be sent to prison for more than a decade for running a $40 million investment fraud. Bush's ties to InnoVida and chief executive Claudio Osorio are resurfacing as the former governor considers a White House run.
A CNN investigation uncovered a paper trail revealing a pattern of financial malfeasance allegations against Osorio and troubling accusations against his top lieutenants, raising questions about why Bush would associate with businessmen who have such disconcerting histories. Bush's work at the troubled company is all the more notable considering he's built a political career touting his business acumen, boasting to voters in Iowa recently that he's actually "signed the front side of a paycheck."
"It's hard to imagine any due diligence investigation that would have missed lawsuit after lawsuit against Osorio alleging fraud, misrepresentation and ethics violations," said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, an ethics watchdog group that reviewed public records with CNN. "Even if they were doing due-diligence lite, they would have found the lawsuits. These lawsuits weren't hidden. They were in his home county.
Elite circles
Osorio traveled in elite circles. At political fundraisers and events at his multimillion-dollar Miami mansion, he chatted up the rich and famous, persuading them to invest millions in his company. He had the look of a successful entrepreneur, complete with a Colorado mountain house and a Maserati.
He even tried talking his way into the Oval Office, but had to settle for a 2009 meeting with President Barack Obama's personal assistant, according to court filings.
Osorio recruited Bush to the company because the political heavyweight would, as the Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint put it, "add an air of legitimacy to InnoVida."
Bush has never been accused of wrongdoing. He paid back more than half the $470,000 InnoVida paid him over his three years as a consultant and maintains Osorio deceived him and other board members.
"It is now obvious that Mr. Osorio deliberately misled a board of prominent business leaders about his company's dealings and that is why he is now in jail," Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell told CNN in an email.
Campbell has previously told reporters that Bush vetted the company before signing on as a consultant, visiting its factories in Miami and Dubai. And she told CNN that Bush hired a former federal law enforcement agent to conduct a background check on Osorio, which found "no red flags indicating criminal or financial wrongdoing."
It's a confounding explanation considering the allegations of shady dealings that had dogged Osorio and his associates for years.
Checkered pasts
Several top InnoVida officials have checkered pasts. One of the company's owners was convicted of cocaine trafficking in 1990. A decade earlier, a future board member was busted, accused of trying to board a flight from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, with a pound of cocaine in his underwear and another pound in his bag.
Before Bush started working at the company, at least three lawsuits were filed against Osorio that accused the businessman of financial wrongdoing and unethical behavior.
The most high-profile suit against Osorio was a 1999 class action he faced as chief executive of a Fortune 500 company called CHS Electronics. Shareholders sued Osorio, alleging securities fraud after the company collapsed.
In a foreshadowing of InnoVida's collapse, shareholders sued CHS and its executives, accusing them of misleading investors, artificially inflating CHS' stock price, overstating profits and income and fraudulently reducing expenses. The suit accused Osorio of personally manipulating the company's financial statements to show a profit, a practice referred to internally as "Claudio's magic."
Osorio and other CHS executives settled the suit for almost $12 million, but admitted no wrongdoing.
In another example, Osorio started a venture in 2002 to sell video game accessories. Two years later, his business partner sued Osorio, accusing him of lying about his intention to fund the venture and mismanaging it. A jury eventually ordered Osario to pay $2.2 million.
Perhaps the strangest allegations against Osorio came in a 2006 lawsuit. In that case, he reportedly made a deal with a company to sell computer terminals overseas. The lawsuit said the equipment was shipped but Osorio never paid up. The company even accused him of trying to steal computer terminals as they sat in port.
Beginning to unravel
As things began to unravel for Osorio, he filed for personal bankruptcy. Court papers filed after Bush left the company show "the Osorios were insolvent on April 25, 2007" -- more than six months before he would sign on as a consultant to InnoVida.
InnoVida's books mirrored Osario's troubled personal finances.
The criminal indictment against Osorio said "InnoVida was not financially sound and profitable, and did not generate sufficient profits between 2007 and 2011," which covered most of Bush's tenure on the board.
Osorio had more basic problems than aggrieved former business partners and angry shareholders -- he couldn't even pay the rent.
Nine months before Bush joined InnoVida, a judge evicted the company from its factory space, ordering the sheriff to clear everyone from the premises, according to court filings. The judge dismissed the case in June 2008, but gave the landlord the right to take InnoVida back to court if it fell behind on rent again.
Some of Osorio's closest associates left paper trails that traced back decades.
Craig Toll was InnoVida's chief financial officer, who would later go to prison for four years for his part in the company's scam. He was also the CFO at CHS Electronics, where he was accused by shareholders of signing false and misleading quarterly reports.
CHS shareholders leveled the same accusation against executive Antonio Boccalandro. After CHS collapsed, he and Osorio went on to form a holding company called Miami Worldwide Partners, which paid Bush for some of his InnoVida consulting work.
Before Engin Yesil invested more than $8 million in InnoVida and became a part owner, he sold cocaine. He was arrested, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison.
As a medical student in the 1980s, future InnoVida board member Harlan Waksal was busted in the Fort Lauderdale airport, accused of trying to smuggle 2 pounds of cocaine. Police said he jammed half of it in his underpants and put the remainder in his luggage. His conviction was eventually overturned after a court ruled he had been illegally searched.
Decades later, Waksal made national headlines when the company he co-founded, ImClone Systems, was rocked by an insider trading scandal that ensnared Waksal family friend and DIY queen Martha Stewart, sending her to federal prison.
Even with all the lawsuits, criminal records and scandals in public view, Bush still joined InnoVida.
Bush's work
It's not clear what exactly he did for the company as a consultant and how much oversight he provided as a board member. Campbell, the Bush spokeswoman, didn't respond to questions about his consulting work. When he agreed to pay back more than half his consulting fees, the settlement depended on a nondisparagement clause that kept the details secret.
Court papers show part of his consulting work included "sales and marketing" and that he negotiated a finder's fee for landing investors in Nigeria, Mexico, South Africa and Florida. Campbell said Bush never collected those fees.
Bush's paychecks came from two Osorio-controlled companies, InnoVida and Miami Worldwide Partners. The financial lines between the two were blurred, with Osorio using Miami Worldwide to transfer InnoVida money to his personal bank account. Miami Worldwide didn't file its taxes during Bush's tenure.
During much of Bush's tenure, Osorio transferred millions of dollars from InnoVida to Miami Worldwide at a time when InnoVida's companies were not paying their payroll taxes, liability insurance or rent. InnoVida's payroll taxes added up to more than $100,000, according to court filings.
Campbell said Bush was not aware of the companies' tax problems.
Meanwhile, Osorio continued to swindle investors during Bush's tenure.
He convinced a Tanzanian businessman to invest $2 million to build "floating homes," a project that sank. He persuaded NBA player Carlos Boozer to invest $1 million in InnoVida and use his friendship with Obama's assistant, Reggie Love, to score the White House meeting.
Scamming the government
Osorio even scammed the government. In 2010, InnoVida received about $3 million from OPIC, a government agency that helps American companies do business in developing countries. Instead of building a manufacturing plant and homes in Haiti after the earthquake, as InnoVida promised, Osario pulled another bait and switch and used the money to pay investors and himself.
As a board member, Bush did have at least a few questions for management. Not long after a company board meeting in 2009, he emailed Toll, InnoVida's chief financial officer.
"Your offer to send me the cash flow information on the company would be greatly appreciated," Bush wrote, adding that he'd like to also see the company's liability insurance.
Toll replied and attached an "unaudited cash flow statement" and told Bush he'd forward the insurance policy as soon as he got it.
Bush never got the audited financials and it appears he never received a copy of the insurance policy, possibly because the company may have never had insurance. Insurance paid for the almost $12 million settlement in the shareholders lawsuit against CHS Electronics, so it may have been difficult for Osorio and Toll to insure InnoVida.
Audited financial statements are routinely relied upon by investors, board members and others to assess a company's financial health, but Bush never received them.
More than once, Bush said the board needed to see audited financials, but the board never got them, Campbell said. Osorio's explanations for why they weren't forthcoming, "seemed plausible at the time," she said.
Bush was concerned with how slowly the company provided information to the board, Campbell said. When a board member raised additional concerns with Bush, the governor worked to address them in what ultimately culminated in a confrontation between board members and Osorio, she said. Three days after that September 2010 meeting, Bush cut ties with Osorio and InnoVida, citing concerns over how the company was run, according to court documents.
On the way out the door, Bush urged Osorio "to adopt more professional, transparent business practices, including obtaining audits by a national accounting firm," according to court papers.
The admonition came too late. A few years later, Osorio would be in prison.
Jeb Bush’s email troubles grow more serious
16 March 2015
The political world knew that the 2016 presidential race would take shape early this year, but few could have guessed that email access and email security would be one of the dominant issues in the nascent election cycle.
Hillary Clinton’s private email account during her tenure as Secretary of State has been the subject of enormous interest to the media and Republicans, with former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) helping lead the charge. "For security purposes, you need to be behind a firewall that recognizes the world for what it is, and it’s a dangerous world, and security would mean that you couldn’t have a private server," the Republican complained last week. "It’s a little baffling, to be honest with you, that didn’t come up in Secretary Clinton’s thought process."
It’s equally baffling that Bush had no idea how vulnerable he was on the issue he’s chosen to complain about.
Jeb Bush used his private e-mail account as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants, according to a review of publicly released records.
The e-mails include two series of exchanges involving details of Florida National Guard troop deployments after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the review by The Washington Post found.
The Washington Post’s report on the security risks surrounding Jeb Bush conducting official business on his private account coincided with a New York Times article, which noted that it took the former governor more than seven years "to comply fully with a Florida public records statute" on email disclosure.
The report quoted a non-partisan expert with the Florida-based First Amendment Foundation who said Bush’s disclosure policy was "a technical violation of the law." The governor was required to turn over records pertaining to official business "at the expiration of his or her term of office," and the Republican waited more than seven years to meet these obligations.
And while the revelations are themselves noteworthy, what seems especially problematic for Bush is the broader context in which these details appear.
If, for example, the Clinton story never existed, and we were just now learning about Bush’s emails, my suspicion is the revelations would be treated largely as an afterthought. To be sure, transparency and sunshine laws matter, but it’s hard to imagine the Beltway media creating a feeding frenzy, featuring breathless coverage of Jeb’s email "scandal." Even his Democratic detractors would probably prefer to focus their energies elsewhere.
But the Clinton email story does exist, and collectively, the political world decided this is an important national issue, crucial to evaluating the competence and credibility of a leading presidential contender. Bush himself encouraged this heightened scrutiny, talking publicly about how "baffling" Clinton’s actions were on the issue.
It’s against this backdrop that we’ve discovered that Bush "did exactly what Hillary did." After he and his team went through official emails, they decided "what were public-record emails and what wasn’t." The fact that he also ignored state law and created security risks only complicates matters further.
What we’re left with are legitimate concerns about Bush’s judgment. When he went on the offensive on the Clinton email story, did he not think his own, nearly identical problems would emerge? Or was this a case in which Team Jeb went on the attack without bothering to recognize their vulnerability?
Either way, Bush has worked assiduously to cultivate an image of a hyper-competent manager. If he wants this reputation to be taken seriously, the GOP candidate has a long way to go.