Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details
True the Vote, a leading voters' rights organization, has filed suit in federal court against the Internal Revenue Service following disclosures that the IRS has been targeting the tea party and other conservative groups for scrutiny.
The suit filed in Washington on Tuesday asks the court to grant True the Vote its long-awaited tax exempt status, and seeks damages "for the unlawful actions by the IRS in the processing of its application for exempt status," the organization said in a press release. ActRight Legal Foundation, a 501(c)3 fundamental rights and public interest law firm, represents True the Vote in the lawsuit.
"We've been waiting for three years to receive a decision from the IRS about our tax exempt status," True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said in the release.
"After answering hundreds of questions and producing thousands of documents, we're done waiting. The IRS does not have the power to pocket veto our application. Federal law empowers groups like True the Vote to force a decision in court — which is precisely what we aim to do."
Cleta Mitchell, counsel to True the Vote and of counsel to ActRight Legal Foundation, stated: "We are not going to allow the IRS to claim, as it has been doing in the past week, that the targeting of conservative groups is over and 'everything has been fixed.' It is not yet fixed and this litigation is a vital step both to resolve True the Vote's status and to learn exactly what happened inside the IRS."
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on May 14, Mitchell — who represents six groups that claim they were targeted — said she has tangible proof that high-ranking IRS officials in Washington were fully aware of the agency's campaign to target conservative groups for heightened scrutiny.
Mitchell said she was told by a Cincinnati IRS agent that applications by two of her conservative clients were being processed by — and would ultimately be approved or denied in — Washington.
She also said she doesn't believe the president or the White House was uninvolved in the IRS activities, as the administration has claimed.
The True the Vote release states that one count of the lawsuit seeks "recognition of True the Vote as a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization pursuant to 26 USC § 7428."
A second count seeks "damages and injunctive relief from the IRS and IRS employees and agents, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violation of True the Vote's constitutional rights by virtue of the actions of the government in unlawfully targeting and delaying recognition of True the Vote's exempt status."
A third count asks for injunctive relief against the IRS and IRS employees for their "unlawful intrusions" into True the Vote activities by requiring the filing of "voluminous materials with the IRS, then unlawfully inspecting and potentially disseminating the information."
Dr. John Eastman, Chairman of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and of Counsel to ActRight Legal Foundation, said: "This is just the first of several cases ActRight Legal Foundation plans to file against the IRS and those within the agency who have violated the constitutional rights of these citizens' organizations.
"ActRight Legal Foundation has established an IRS Litigation Fund to support the suits against the IRS. We are asking for assistance from concerned citizens nationwide to help pay the costs of bringing these cases, which will help us learn the truth about what the IRS has been doing to conservative, non-partisan organizations and patriotic American citizens."
How do you think Sarah Palin would do if she did the TV talk show that Mark Burnett would like to produce? We have mixed feelings.
On the positive side, it would put her into a position to show the world that she is not the ditz that the Democrats tried to portray her as. She is a bright, intelligent and plain speaking woman who would probably do a great job in a talk show. With success in this venue, it would increase her political clout.
On the negative side, if it did not work, it would cripple her politically and would probably remove her from having the pulpit that she now has.
She has a big decision to make but in the meantime, what do you think?
Conservative Tom
Sarah Palin Says 'No' to Mark Burnett for TV Talk Show
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been offered a major syndicated TV talk show by reality show producer Mark Burnett but turned down the deal, Newsmax has learned.
One of country’s sought after speakers on the political circuit, Burnett believed he could turn Palin into the next Oprah, offering to produce a daytime TV talk show hosted by the conservative icon herself.
But so far, Palin has said no — though the deal is not completely dead, say insiders.
The sticking points have been over location and money, people familiar with the deal say. Burnett has insisted that Palin do the show from either New York or Los Angeles, which would require her to move for a significant portion of the year from her residence in Alaska where she lives with husband Todd.
Palin has a distaste for cultural elites in the Big Apple and LA, one person familiar with the discussions said.
Another top Hollywood studio executive tells Newsmax that Palin was ultimately willing to move to either city, but “she passed over money.”
“I don’t think she closed the door,” he added.
Asked to comment about the offer, Palin told Newsmax via email: "Todd and I have always loved working with Mark Burnett, and our family is always up for adventure, so never say never."
Burnett’s office declined to comment on the matter.
The terms of Burnett’s deal have not been disclosed, but typically a new host would receive a fraction of advertising and syndication fees.
British-born producer Burnett, called "the king of reality TV," launched "Survivor" back in 2000 and "The Apprentice" with Donald Trump in 2004.
In addition to "Survivor," he currently has three other reality shows on the air, "Celebrity Apprentice" with Trump, "The Voice," and "Shark Tank."
He also produced, along with his wife, actress Roma Downey, the wildly successful miniseries "The Bible," which aired on the History channel in March.
Palin previously hosted the TLC cable TV show "Sarah Palin's Alaska" in 2010-11, which was produced by Burnett's production company.
Huckabee: Benghazi Cover-Up Could Lead to Obama Impeachment
Friday, 10 May 2013 02:36 PM
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter
Share:
More . . .
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee tells Newsmax that the Obama administration is guilty of disseminating "deliberate misinformation" regarding the Benghazi attack and continues to "stonewall" efforts to uncover the facts behind the tragedy.
The 2008 Republican presidential candidate also reiterates his earlier prediction that the Benghazi affair could lead to President Barack Obama's impeachment.
And he declares that the House "should do any and everything" to stop further implementation of Obamacare.
Huckabee is now the host of "The Mike Huckabee Show," broadcast on more than 200 radio stations, and a Fox News contributor. His latest book is "Dear Chandler, Dear Scarlett: A Grandfather’s Thoughts on Faith, Family and the Things That Matter Most."
On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner demanded that Obama and administration officials turn over emails pertaining to the Benghazi controversy. In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Friday, Huckabee was asked if the administration will be forced to be more forthcoming about what happened.
"They're going to have to," he says.
"They have been stonewalling since September of last year and they no longer can say, 'Look, we don’t want to turn this into an election-year issue,' because the election's long over.
"But it doesn’t mean that the interest in what happened in Benghazi is over. In fact, it's just beginning to really heat up and even members of the mainstream press who have done everything possible to ignore this story are having to pay attention, because as new information comes out and as the hearings really validated this week, there was deliberate misinformation that was given out by the White House and by the State Department as to what happened that night.
"We have a right to know, why did four people get killed, and we also have a right to know, why didn’t they tell us the truth about what happened that night?"
Story continues below video.
Earlier this week on his radio show, Huckabee predicted that the Benghazi "cover-up" will drive Obama from office.
He tells Newsmax: "Let me begin by saying that it's not my wish or hope. Some people presume that I sit around just licking my chops over the idea that the president would either resign or be impeached, but that is not at all something that I relish because I don’t think it's good for the country.
"It's good for the country for the president to step forward, tell the truth, lay everything on the table, and not only tell us what did happen, but tell us why they didn’t tell us this before.
"But if the White House continues to stonewall and this information ekes out little by little because reporters and members of Congress have to uncover it rather than it being opened up by the administration, then it could [lead to impeachment].
"I'm not saying it necessarily will lead to an impeachment, and without the Senate changing it probably wouldn’t lead to a conviction. But it could be that his term is over, not so much that he resigns or is impeached, but that he becomes just a completely inept president with no power, because once you lose credibility, you lose the power to govern.
"Rather than being a lame duck, he could well be a dead duck sitting in office, basically biding his time and not able to move anything forward."
Huckabee agrees with the more than 130 House Republicans who want to impanel a select committee to investigate Benghazi.
"There's a limitation on what these standing committees are going to be able to delve into," he says.
"Also, a select committee gives it a focus and a level of attention that, frankly, it does deserve, and I hope it happens.
"But the other thing that I hope happens is that the esteemed members of the Fourth Estate, those who are supposed to be the watchdogs of government, and I'm speaking of our national press, will begin to take their job seriously and not be apologists for the president, but begin to ask the serious questions objectively.
"True reporters and journalists are supposed to go after the truth wherever it takes them, or they lose all of their credibility."
Huckabee opines that the Benghazi affair "could have a big impact" on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's chances of gaining the White House in 2016, "not just in the general election but in the primary."
Huckabee also says he hopes the House and Senate will be able to reach an agreement on immigration reform this year.
"One of the concerns that I think we're seeing is whether or not they're going to put the securing of the border in front of any type of path to legalization. That's going to be very important, especially in the House," he says.
"People don’t want this issue to linger on. They don’t want people to live in the shadows. They don’t want to be punitive to people who come here.
"But we need to know who's coming, why they're coming, can they support themselves, do they have a communicable disease? Knowing that is an important part of immigration reform."
But Huckabee disagrees with those who say that if immigration reform doesn't pass, it will hurt Republicans at the polls.
"If the immigration legislation doesn’t pass and the reason it doesn’t pass is because Democrats insisted on open borders without any accountability, without any responsible pathway for people to catch up to the law, then I don’t think the American public or Hispanic voters who have come here legally, or are descendants of people who have come here legally, are going to hold that against [Republicans]."
The House votes again on repealing Obamacare next week, although a full repeal is nearly impossible considering that Democrats control the White House and Senate.
Asked if the House should simply use its budget controls and defund Obamacare, Huckabee responds: "They should do any and everything they can to try to stop this from getting so far implemented that we can't undo ourselves from what even Democrats like Max Baucus, who sponsored the bill, are now calling a train wreck.
"House Republicans have an opportunity to be heroes and to say this was legislation that shouldn’t have been passed. We may not be able to completely repeal it but we're going to stop this until we can get a president and a Senate in place that will stop the bleeding that is going to happen to the American economy, and to jobs, if this goes forward."
We plan to be at the Lincoln Day Dinner when Trump speaks. We appreciate what he has been saying about the Obama Administration and know that he is a very successful man in his own right (regardless of how you feel about his "Apprentice" show!)
He definitely would make the campaign interesting and it would be nice for him to "fire" the President, Hillary and Biden! Could he work in an environment where he is not the boss or would it frustrate him so much that he would become ineffective? Jessee Ventura was good until he tried to get things done and the political machine just hamstrung him at every turn. The same could be true for Trump.
We know it will be an interesting speech and we are ordering our tickets today.
Donald Trump is scheduled to deliver a major address at the largest Republican gathering in Michigan, raising the question: Is Trump planning to run for president in 2016?
Trump will be the keynote speaker at the 124th Annual Oakland County Lincoln Day Dinner in Novi, Mich., just outside of Detroit, on May 21.
Observers are wondering why the billionaire mogul has agreed to travel to Michigan for the event. Some say Trump still has a taste for the presidency after talking about a run last year.
During the 2012 campaign, Trump never officially threw his hat into the GOP ring, yet at one point he led all potential candidates in the polls.
He played a major role in helping Mitt Romney gain the Republican nomination in Michigan and Ohio, where he did robo calls and radio ads promoting Romney’s candidacy.
There is no word from Trump so far as to his plans for the 2016 campaign, but a source close to Trump said he “is definitely not closing the door” on the idea of a bid.
The dinner in the Farming Hills area of suburban Michigan will also feature major Republican officials in the state, including Gov. Rick Snyder, Attorney general Bill Schuette, and Secretary of State Ruth Johnson.
But it is Trump who is creating the most buzz.
“As soon as we announced that Donald Trump was going to be our keynote speaker, the ticket sales went through the roof,” said Lincoln Day Chair David A. Trott.
“We are conservatively expecting that more than 2,000 people will attend the event, which is the oldest and largest Lincoln Day Dinner in the nation.”
As we watch the North Korean boy dictator stretch his war threat muscles, many have wondered about him, his abilities, his support by the military, and most importantly, how far will he push this situation. The answer we keep hearing is, we don't know. That makes this situation very dangerous. When one does not know his "enemy", mistakes can easily happen. Disasters can occur. Will we see this in North Korea? Your guess is as good as everyone else's. Conservative Tom
Leading defense and national security expert Dr. James Carafano tells Newsmax that the Obama administration has spent four years ignoring North Korea and we now run the risk of an “accidental escalation” of tensions in the region.
He also warns that North Korea does in fact have the technical capability of attacking the west coast of the United States.
Story continues below.
Dr. Carafano is the Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. He is a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army and has taught at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. His books include “Private Sector, Public Wars: Contractors in Combat - Afghanistan, Iraq, and Future Conflicts.”
North Korea has now moved missiles onto launchers and there has been talk that they could technically strike the west coast of the U.S. Asked if that is accurate, Carafano tells Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview: “Absolutely. They haven’t done it but we know they have the technical capability that allows them to do that and they don’t have to reach that far.
“They can reach Guam, which is a major U.S. military base, and we certainly know they can reach Japan, which is an ally and has bases. More importantly: I was in the Army for 25 years, I was stationed in Korea. Much of the South Korean population and the capital is in easy range of North Korean artillery, let alone North Korean missiles.”
North Korea moved those missiles with full knowledge that the United States would observe the actions because “we have satellite imagery overhead covering the entire country” and “they know we’re watching.” But as for what these developments mean, Carafano admits: “I can absolutely tell you with 100 percent confidence that I have no idea what this means. We’ve seen the North Koreans bluster and do nothing, we’ve seen them bluster and do something. We’ve seen them say nothing and do something.
“So we’ve seen every possible combination and we really don’t have good intelligence on how the decision-making inside North Korea works, so we’re all just guessing as to what might possibly happen.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Thursday night that President Barack Obama was “pretty correct” in his response to North Korea. Carafano agrees.
“It’s absolutely right that we send a very strong message to North Korea that we would protect ourselves and our allies. So deploying the B-2 bomber was absolutely the right thing to do. The F-22 aircraft allows us to get anywhere in North Korean air space. Missile defense systems, missile direct radars, these are all exactly the right things to do to demonstrate that we will defend ourselves.
“I find a great irony here. These are often the systems that progressives want to cut and say we don’t need and are relics of the Cold War, and yet what is the first thing we send out of the box to demonstrate that we’re really serious about defending ourselves? The very systems they don’t like.
“The other great irony here is the president’s getting ready to put out his defense budget and if you run that defense budget out 10 years, I doubt that we’ll be able to do these kinds of things 10 years from now to demonstrate our resolve.
“But the United States has done the right thing by demonstrating that they take these threats seriously. We’ve seen the North Koreans in the past do some pretty unforgivable things, including sinking a South Korean ship and artillery shelling South Korean territory.
“South Koreans have sent some pretty strong signals that they will respond. But again you don’t know what the North Koreans are going to do. You can’t’ discount that there might be some kind of accidental escalation. We’ve done all the right things to prevent a conflict from breaking out but there’s an old saying that in war, the enemy gets a vote.”
Asked if this could end up becoming an accidental war, Carafano responds: “If there was no such thing as accidental wars we wouldn’t have them but we actually have them quite frequently. So it would be irresponsible to say don’t worry, nothing’s going to happen, or to predict World War III. The responsible thing to do is to take North Korea seriously because they have the weapons to do serious damage.
“What really bothers me is that we’ve spent four years ignoring North Korea and letting our defense atrophy and underselling and underinvesting in things like missile defense. And now, all of a sudden, we jump up and say, gee, we really need these things.
“This is what we typically do. We take these massive peace dividends and then when an enemy rears his head, we sit there and say why weren’t we better prepared? Sometimes it’s a 9/11 but sometimes it’s a wakeup call like this.
“We don’t have to invade every country. We don’t have to be the world’s policemen. But if we don’t demonstrate the resolve to defend ourselves and have responsible defense budgets, someday the cupboard’s going to be bare when the bad guys come knocking.”
As for what role China might play in the crisis, Carafano tells Newsmax: “There’s a myth that the Chinese control North Korea or they can just tell the North Koreans what to do. But the Chinese know they don’t and we know they don’t.
“China has influence over North Korea but they cannot drive North Korean behavior. They have a limited capacity to defuse this crisis and it’s dumb and stupid for the United States to go kind of begging China to help us because the Chinese can’t really do much for us.”
Commenting on the U.S. foreign policy pivot away from the Middle East and onto Asia, Carafano says: “The declaration of the Asian pivot was stupid. It was just stupid. The United States needs to be able to defend all of its vital interests and we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
“We have big interests in the Middle East that are under threat. We have to protect them. And we have interests in Asia that we have to protect. And where does Asia get its energy from? It gets it from the Middle East. So Asia’s pivoting to the Middle East because they’re worried about that.
“We can’t ignore that, as we can’t ignore our responsibilities in partnering with Europeans. And we have responsibilities in the Western Hemisphere. This notion that somehow we can leave things undefended is great because it allows you to gut the defense budget, but the reality is when you compromise your interests like that, you make war more, not less likely.”
It might be obvious to many, but what Jeb Bush says is so true. We cannot continue to give away money and not expect the country to maintain its strength. It is like having a small bleed in your stomach. It doesn't cause you pain but over time, it becomes a problem when you become anemic, sluggish and depleted of strength. We have been giving money away since the Depression and serious bucks since the 1960's. How much longer can we continue down this road. Our belief is not long. What do you think? Conservative Tom
Jeb Bush: Entitlement System Will Collapse If We Don’t Act Now
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has written the cover story for the April edition of Newsmax magazine, offering an optimistic view of America’s future — and straight talk about its problems — with the resounding message: “Growth is the answer” to our nagging economic woes.
And the leading Republican sat down with Newsmax for a wide-ranging interview elaborating on a number of topics he discusses in his magazine feature, arguing that America can be great again if we open up the doors to economic opportunity.
Bush, who served two terms as Florida’s governor, has earned a nationwide reputation for reform proposals in the fields of education and immigration. He is founder and chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, author of the new book “The Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution” — co-written with constitutional law expert Clint Bolick — and is considered a strong contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016.
Bush’s Newsmax magazine piece stresses the need for economic growth to deal with the nation’s debt and deficit problems.
In his exclusive interview with Newsmax TV, he was asked if growth alone will solve those problems.
Story continues below.
“If we grew at 2 percent more per year than what’s projected, which is anywhere from 1 to 1.5 percent per year in real terms, we would create a Germany in terms of incremental economic output in the 10th year,” he says. “And that Germany would be taxed at the current rate at least to the tune of about $1 trillion.
“There is no tax plan that could come close to [that].
“The president, almost every time he has a chance to speak, talks about the need for high growth, but his policies do the exact opposite. His policies have created the most tepid recovery in modern American history.
“The dual effect of high growth creating higher income that’s taxed by government at all levels, combined with lessening demands placed on government that occurs during economic prosperity, is a worthy objective.
“Right now we have this discussion of austerity versus government spending, when in fact what we ought to be doing is [determining] how we can invest in the private sector, creating investment opportunities and job creating opportunities that create the kind of growth that lessens government’s involvement in all this. That’s what’s missing and the president has a duty to outline specific proposals that will create economic growth. Up until now I don’t think he’s done it.”
Bush suggests that Republicans could be talking too much about the debt and deficit instead of growth.
“It’s a principled position to say that we have to live within our means, and over time you can do that and we should do that. But the fastest way to get to that is in combination with high growth. It’s also a winning political message to embrace the dynamic nature of our economy. It’s much better than just saying, ‘world coming to end. Memo to follow.’
“We should be much more hopeful and optimistic about the future of our country. If you just see the trends in the life science area and telecommunications and information technology, we’re living in the most wondrous time ever in human history, and globally the United States is a leader. We should be excited about the future and creating strategies to ensure that we create long-term, sustained economic growth.”
Reform should start with energy, immigration policy, regulations, the tax code, and education, Bush states.
“They’re the set of policy objectives that we should embrace, not all of which are ideological either. The sad thing is the dysfunction in Washington right now limits the ability even when there’s enough consensus to move forward.”
During the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney was criticized for not putting specifics on the table, particularly regarding entitlement cuts and taxes. But Bush believes lawmakers and candidates can get specific without getting bogged down in minutiae.
“First of all you have to inform. You can’t just assume that everybody has the facts,” he maintains.
“Most of the cuts we’re talking about are cuts in the growth of spending, not actual cuts, and there are people in Washington that have [offered] specific proposals, Paul Ryan being perhaps the most obvious one. He was Mitt Romney’s running mate and a courageous and inspired choice, and they did defend those so-called cuts for a while, then they kind of reverted back to trying to make the election about the president, exclusively a referendum on his job performance.
“. . . The lesson of 2012 is be bold, be specific, persuade, don’t follow polls, don’t be driven by what people’s feelings are here and now because those opinions can shift if you make a compelling case.”
But Bush does agree that the entitlement system is “unsustainable” and “no one argues that we can keep doing what we’re doing. So either we have it collapse or we change it to protect it.”
Among the changes he suggests are “raising the retirement age to reflect the life expectancy increase that’s been dramatic, means testing some of the entitlement programs over time. We have to reform healthcare underneath the entitlement system as well so that the cost curve is dealt with, which means we should move toward catastrophic coverage as the form of insurance and reward healthy lifestyle decisions and focus on prevention to lessen cost by improving healthcare outcomes.”
Bush favors eliminating tax loopholes and reducing taxes to the lowest possible rates
“If you eliminate as many of the deductions as possible, you would create a boom of economic activity. You would lessen compliance costs. Right now, whether it’s a small business guy or a private person, people pay an arm and a leg for just the simple compliance costs. Now, you have to pay a lot of money because our code’s way too complex. My personal belief is the simpler the code, the better it is.”
Asked if he would be willing to give up the mortgage interest deduction if tax rates are lowered, Bush responds: “I would. To me, the better way of doing this would be to say, all of the tax code expires” and must be rebuilt from the ground up.
“That would be a better approach because people could see the benefits of a simpler code and the empowering nature of that. People could keep more of their own money, make decisions for themselves, and not effectively get in line to get their version of some tax expenditure or tax credit. [We would] lower the rates significantly and create a burst of economic activity for our country.”
In his Newsmax magazine article, Bush never once mentions President Obama or the Democrats.
He tells Newsmax TV that other Republicans could be too focused on talking about what the opposition is doing instead of what they have to offer.
“We’ve gotten a little far removed from where we once were not that long ago, which is the party of reform, the party of new thinking, the party of ideas, the party that embraces the future.
“There’s a reason why in my recent speeches and the Newsmax article that I didn’t mention the president. The president’s record on economic policy is a failed one, but we’re not going to win the day unless we have a compelling alternative and that’s where the focus needs to be.
“In Washington, particularly, the loyal opposition has a job to be the opposition. But you can’t stop there. You have to oppose in a principled, civil way but you also have to offer alternatives.
“There are a lot of reasons why the election turned out the way it did. All I know for sure is that I wish Mitt Romney was president right now because he’d be a practical person trying to forge common-sense solutions to these big, dysfunctional challenges we face.”
On education, Bush writes in his magazine cover story about the need to increase the choices that are available to parents and students.
To do that, he tells Newsmax we need to “change laws. We have 50 states that are the governance model or the catalyst for how governance operates. We have 13,000 government-run monopolies, heavily unionized. And in that kind of setting, it should not be a surprise that the economic interests of the adults is really a dominant part of education life in America today.
“We have a third of our kids that don’t make it through the system, even though we spend more per student than any country in the world. And a lot of students could be doing college-level work by the time they’ve graduated from high school but in effect they’re held back because we’ve got this adult-centered homogenized learning model.
“What the Foundation for Excellence in Education is trying to do is to help policymakers in our 50 states open up their laws to allow more innovation to take place.
“We’re putting too much emphasis on the college experience. The country’s moving towards fewer standards that require critical thinking skills both for going to college as well as for being able to get a job in some technical skill or career-oriented avocation. So the skills necessary for both paths need to be higher.”
Bush in his magazine article cites the need to strengthen family values as a way to boost our economy.
“It’s really important to recognize that family life in America has changed pretty dramatically,” he tells Newsmax TV.
“For the first time in American history there are fewer married women than unmarried women in the age cohort that’s measured. We’ve had dramatic increases in out-of-wedlock birth rates. Every study that I’ve seen suggests that if a young woman doesn’t have a child before she’s married and she can defer marriage [until] she’s 25 and can graduate from high school, the chance of her living in poverty is dramatically reduced, and similarly with men.
“If we get that right then we can have a chance of creating economy prosperity over the long haul. If we don’t get it right, it really does change who we are as a nation and it creates enormous strains.“
Bush also says there is an “inverse relationship” between liberty and the size and scope of government, and agrees with Sen. Rand Paul that the Republican Party needs to embrace more libertarian ideas.
He also talks at length about the immigration policies espoused in his controversial new book.
And he ends his Newsmax interview on an optimistic note, stating that “I just have total confidence that a dynamic world will yield benefits that we can’t even imagine.
“If you believe like I do that the world is abundant with possibilities, then we need to make sure we build capacity so that everybody is successful or can be successful in the pursuit of their dreams — not the dreams of someone from government, but their own dreams.”
