A Republic no more by the Bear

When the delegates were departing the Constitutional Convention, a woman stopped Benjamin Franklin outside Independence Hall and asked Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Our Republic form of government is where the people elect Representatives to do their biddings in Congress that represents the wishes of the people in their district. But as time has evolved this concept has turned into a two class system, one for the political establishment and the other for the lower class serfs and pheasants and now we are seeing a multi class system to protect unelected high level bureaucrats.

When Obama said this he set the bar far and above any reasonable semblance of power in a representative government.

… “I punish my enemies and reward my friends.”…

These are the actions that only a dictator would do, let alone that he had the nerve to express them to the public in general. This is a man who thinks he is above the law, this is man who has violated the Rule of Law (The Constitution) Curtis Copeland, a retired Congressional Research Service staffer, examined how many rules issued since 2012 were not reported to Congress and the GAO. He found that out of about 4,000 rules, more than 1,800 were not properly reported.

And when he talked about rewarding his friends, he didn’t mean “Let them eat cake.”

Exhibit # 1: Lois Lerner was the director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service not only did she violate her Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent; she influenced a Presidential Election by holding up Tea Parties applications.

And what punishment did she receive, she got a six figure retirement package from the IRS; and to add insult to injury the Obama none-Justice Dept. of Justice has refused to prosecute her.

Exhibit # 2: The gunning running scandal aka “Fast and Furious” was a tactic of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and a border agent was shot and killed, and many others on the Mexican side also suffered death by these weapons.

Fast and furious guns

As a result of a dispute over the release of Justice Department documents related to the scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012. Earlier that month, President Barack Obama had invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency over the same documents. Holder has never been held accountable for his actions and never will be because he is under the protection of our supreme leader.

Exhibit # 3:Senator Robert Menendez, a high ranking Democrat has been charged a 68-page bribery indictment. Whether he is guilty or not we will leave that to a court to decide.

Although this indictment is about bribery, it is not what is behind this. It is a signal to all Democrats that if you deify the supreme leader like Menendez has, who has been outspoken against Obama’s deal with Iran, you too can be indicted and by time you defend yourself in court, your political career will be over. This pure unadulterated intimidation coming from the White House.

These are three basic examples of how abuse of power by a sitting President can destroy a Republic and once it is gone it will be replaced by a dictatorship.

Do not expect Congress to stand up to the atrocities being committed by this President. They have constantly given into his wishes because they don’t have a stomach for a fight, and never will because they want to keep their positions in government.

So what’s it going to take? You will find the answer in the Constitution.

The Constitution CLEARLY states that WHEN or IF a Government becomes corrupted (or is taken over) to the point that it FAILS to protect the rights of the people…. we not only have the RIGHT, but we have the OBLIGATION, to CAST OFF this government and form a new one.

THIS is EXACTLY why we have the right to own and bear arms and NOT have that right INFRINGED upon.

“This government of the people, by the people and for the people, belongs to the people. If at some time the people grow weary of the government, they can exercise their constitutional right to amend it or their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” – Lincoln

Jeb Bush’s Despicable Surrender to Barack Obama and Progressive Insanity! By John W. Lillpop

To an isolated minority of Republicans still on the fence with respect to Jeb Bush’s credentials to represent conservatives in the 2016 presidential election, any remaining doubts were emphatically trashed by Bush’s gutless, total surrender to Barack Obama in New Hampshire over these past days.

The latest airing of the Jeb Bush anti-conservative heresy took place at the“Politics and Pie” forum in Concord, New Hampshire, where Republican candidates were gathered in a town-hall type of setting to discuss issues of the day and their relative qualifications to address those issues.

It was at the “Politics and Pie” event, see reference 1, that Bush:

1)Encouraged Senate Republicans to confirm Barack Obama’s choice of Loretta Lynch to serve as Attorney General, and 2)Repeated his racist assertion that Hispanics in America illegally should not be required to adhere to existing immigration laws, but should rather be rewarded for violating the law with Executive Amnesty.

Clearly, Jeb Bush has shown conclusively that he is a disciple of Barack Obama, a role that should immediately disqualify any candidate from consideration for high elective office.

Combined with his pitiful family name, Jeb Bush should call it quits and formally join the Democrat Party….perhaps as a far-left alternate to Hillary?

American Jewry’s Moment of Decision by Caroline Glick

This week in two meetings with prominent American Jews, President Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet. Either the Jews of America will rise to the challenge or they will allow Obama to marginalize them.

It is their choice, and now is the time for them to decide.

In the first meeting, Obama met with centrist Jewish leaders from major Jewish organizations like the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC. Major donors to these groups, like to almost every other major Jewish organization in America, are largely Democrats.

According to The Washington Post, the purpose of the meeting was “to defuse antagonism toward [Obama] and to convince [Jewish leaders] that he shares their concerns about the safety of Israel and the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.”

That is, the main goal of the meeting was to silence Jewish criticism of Obama’s deal with Iran.

So far, Obama seems to have accomplished that goal.

Although, according to a source who spoke to The Algemeiner, the atmosphere at the meeting was “ungiving, very stern and tense.” Since the meeting took place, none of the leaders who participated has openly criticized Obama’s policies regarding Iran. Their silence comes despite the fact that, according to the participants who spoke with The Algemeiner, Obama did not allay the concerns they expressed regarding the dangers his nuclear deal with Iran constitute for Israel.

The second meeting of the day was a far friendlier affair. According to The Algemeiner, participants included supporters of the anti-Israel organization J Street, including Alexandra Stanton, Lou Susman, and Victor Kovner. Other outspoken leftist Jews, including Haim Saban and former AIPAC presidents Amy Friedkin and Howard Friedman, also attended.

As The Algemeiner reported, participants in this meeting were much less concerned about Obama’s deal with Iran. At least one participant, described as more “centrist” than other participants gushed at the president, saying, “You are doing the right thing [with Iran]. We are behind you 100 percent.”

Participants in the second meeting also were excited at the prospect of Obama making good on his threat to act against Israel at the UN Security Council. Indeed, they lobbied him to abandon Israel at the international forum. A participant told The Algemeiner that one of his colleagues told Obama, “If you decide to go against Israel at the UN, let us know first and we’ll do the legwork for you, in the [Jewish] community…so you’re not going to come in cold.”

The purpose then of Obama’s second meeting with American Jews was not to silence dissent, but to mobilize his supporters to weaken community opposition to his hostile policies toward Israel, both in regard to Iran and in regard to the Palestinians.

And here, too, the meeting was largely successful.

An indication of the success of Obama’s efforts to rally his Jewish supporters in favor of his anti-Israel policies came on Wednesday, when the Jewish arm of the Democratic Party, the National Jewish Democratic Council, issued a stunning press release. In it, the NJDC condemned Sen. Marco Rubio for supporting Israel. On Monday, Rubio announced that he is running for president.

Rubio’s pro-Israel crime involved his plan get the Senate to condition approval of Obama’s nuclear deal with the ayatollahs on Iran’s recognizing Israel’s right to exist. According to the NJDC, Rubio’s plan, “has no purpose other than to politicize the US-Israel relationship at a time when the Jewish state needs our steadfast support. It is shameful that Sen. Rubio would further politicize this issue to advance his own political goals.”

If the NJDC is truly steadfast in its support for Israel, it is hard to understand what its members are so upset about.

As far as Israelis are concerned, Rubio’s plan is aligned with the widest political consensus imaginable.

The Israeli Left, led by Labor Party leader Yitzhak Herzog, supports Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that sanctions against Iran should be dropped only after Iran recognizes Israel’s right to exist.

As to America, it is hard to understand how anyone in the American mainstream could oppose conditioning Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons on its abandonment of its aim to destroy Israel.

Obama himself has always insisted that protecting Israel’s security is a paramount goal of his presidency.

Both in his meetings with Jewish leaders and in his interview earlier this month with The New York Times’s Tom Friedman, Obama claims to have been deeply hurt by accusations that he doesn’t care about Israel’s security and said that he would consider it a personal failure if Israel were weaker when he leaves office.

Yet, by refusing to condition a nuclear deal that as Obama himself acknowledges will reduce Iran’s breakout time for military nuclear capabilities to zero on Iran’s eschewal of the goal of Israel’s destruction, the NJDC, like Obama himself, is not protecting Israel or supporting it. Like Obama, the NJDC is indirectly legitimizing Iran’s goal of destroying Israel.

By attacking Rubio for promoting a position that is intuitively reasonable, and in line with a very low common-denominator of support for Israel, the NJDC revealed that, from its perspective, the only way for Republicans not to “politicize” support for Israel is by joining Democrats in opposing Israel.

A new poll released this week by Bloomberg reinforces the growing sense that Israel has become a partisan issue. Today more and more Democrats view support for Israel as a Republican position. Whereas two thirds of Republicans support Israel even if its positions are at odds with those of the administration, three quarters of Democrats support the administration against Israel. Polls in recent years indicate that Republican support for Israel is nearly unanimous, while less than half of Democrats support the Jewish state.

It appears that Obama’s charm offensive among American Jews over the past two weeks on the one hand, and the NJDC’s statement that empties the term “pro-Israel” of all meaning on the other, are aimed at removing the issue of Israel from the political debate at least until Obama achieves his goal of signing a nuclear deal with Iran by June 30.

This makes sense, because as Obama apparently sees things, there are two forces that can scuttle his deal, and they are intimately linked – major Jewish donors, and Hillary Clinton.

On Wednesday the White House reversed its previous position and announced that it would support a Senate bill to require Obama to bring his deal with Iran before the Senate for approval.

Obama’s reversal was not a major concession.

The Senate bill ignored the constitutional provision requiring two thirds of senators to approve international treaties. Under the current Senate bill, two thirds of senators will have to oppose Obama’s radical deal with Iran in order to scuttle it.

All that Obama now requires to secure his deal is to maintain the support of 34 Democratic senators.

And the only one who can endanger that support is Clinton.

As the NJDC showed, Obama has successfully brought about a situation where, for Democrats, supporting Israel means opposing Obama and supporting Republicans. If substantive arguments haven’t sufficed to convince them to fall in line, the Justice Department’s highly questionable decision to indict Sen. Robert Menendez – Obama’s most outspoken Democratic foreign policy critic – on shaky corruption charges just as his confrontation with the Senate over his Iran policy was coming to a head, no doubt has forced at least some Democrats to toe his line.

By mobilizing his Jewish supporters to silence opposition to his policies among American Jews, while making it difficult for more mainstream Jewish leaders to openly criticize him, Obama hopes to neutralize the issue of his hostility toward Israel among Jewish Democrats.

To date, Hillary, who was herself a full partner in Obama’s moves to marginalize Israel supporters during her stint as secretary of state, has said as little as possible about his foreign policy. As a result, she has given no reason for Democratic senators to consider parting ways with the president on Iran.

So far, Clinton’s only move to put distance between herself and her anti-Israel former boss was to allow Malcolm Hoenlein from the Conference of Presidents to issue a statement late last month in his name claiming that Clinton told him that she thinks the US and Israel should bury the hatchet. Clinton, for her part, neither confirmed nor denied Hoenlein’s statement.

Almost simultaneous with Clinton’s announcement Sunday that she is running for president, came a statement from her campaign that she seeks to raise the whopping sum of $2.5 billion in order to secure her election.

There is no way that Clinton can hope to raise that sum without securing the support of major Jewish donors. While some major Jewish donors do not care about whether or not the US supports Israel, as an unnamed Jewish Clinton supporter told JTA this week, Clinton will also need to win the support of donors who do support Israel.

In the source’s words, “Some of the most prominent Jewish Democratic donors are very concerned about the relationship the president has had with Netanyahu and the Iran deal.”

If these Jewish donors band together and condition their support for Clinton on her issuing a clear statement opposing Obama’s deal with Iran and opposing any plan to abandon US support for Israel at the UN Security Council, they will accomplish three vital things.

First, they will loosen Obama’s control over otherwise pro-Israel Democratic senators and other pro-Israel groups in the Democratic Party, including the NJDC. In so doing they will reopen the possibility that Congress will scuttle Obama’s deal with the mullahs.

Second, they will take a major step toward rebuilding Democratic support for Israel that Obama has worked so hard to diminish.

Finally, they will reestablish their political significance in American politics. By supporting Obama, even as he has abandoned the US alliance with Israel, Jewish Democrats have lost their political leverage and power. That power is contingent upon their refusal to abandon Israel.

During the next two months, Obama will be focused on closing his deal with Iran, and Clinton will be avidly seeking to lock up the Democratic nomination for president by building an impregnable fortress of campaign funds. If the American Jewish community uses this critical period to leverage Clinton’s financial requirements to convince her to oppose Obama’s deal that paves the way for a nuclear armed Iran, then they will reassert their relevance in American politics and they will restore support for Israel to its pre-Obama position as a bipartisan position.

If they fail to do so, then Obama’s bid to transform Israel into a partisan issue will succeed. If a Republican wins the White House in 2016, he will face an anti-Israel Democratic opposition. And if Clinton wins the White House, she will have no reason to support Israel.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post

The Deconstruction of Marriage by Daniel Greenfield


The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn’t come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.

Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the
deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.

The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.

The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country– it produces its next generation.

The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.

Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.

There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.

The left hasn’t gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.

You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.

Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.

The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.

Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.

Read more at Sultan Knish

Living in an Era of Decline By Alan Caruba

Obama vs economic freedom

Most of know whether we are living in good times or bad. Some of us warn of decline when we see it coming. Some choose to ignore it by distracting themselves. The latter assume they cannot change events, but in a democracy where you get to vote for who represents you, we are all participants in one fashion or other, whether we vote or not.

If Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2016, historians and those who have lived through the first twenty years of this new century will see this score of years as one that began with much hope and descended rapidly into an expanding Islamic war on the world, seen most dramatically on 9/11 and followed by a financial disaster in 2008 that was widely predicted as the government pressured banks to make bad mortgage loans. It is doing that again.

Dramatically, too, in 2008 Americans—constantly told how racist we are—voted for the nation’s first black President, Barack Hussein Obama, even though little was known of him. Significantly, too, the voters rejected Hillary Clinton, thought to be the “inevitable” choice as the first woman President. Neither race, nor sex, is a predicate for being the leader of the free world. Experience, knowledge, and moral integrity is.

There is something tragic when a political party is able to offer only the past as their idea of the future. President Obama is already widely seen to have been a failure, presiding for six years while the nation’s debt soared to $18 trillion and millions remain unemployed. His foreign policies were administered by Hillary Clinton in his first term and her idea of what to do with nations that are our enemies is to “emphasize” with them and even “respect” our differences with them.

The most recent examples have been the negotiations with an Iran determined to have nuclear weapons and opening the door to diplomatic recognition of Cuba, a Communist dictatorship ninety miles from Florida.

What has been cited is a definition of national decline. As we close in on the 2016 elections, we are also at risk of having begun the new century from a position of leadership and strength we may not be able to achieve again due to our debt and the failure of a vision for a better future. While we have been living through these years, we have also understandably been paying greater attention to our own individual lives.

As a member of the senior generation, I and my cohorts have watched America decline from the most powerful nation on Earth, a leader for freedom, a stalwart opponent of the Soviet Union and Communism, to one led by a pathetic apologist who never passes on an opportunity to criticize America and emphasize its failure to live up to its ideals. We’re not perfect, but we still provide justice and opportunity as no other nation on Earth.

The generations behind us such as the “boomers” who arrived after World War II, enjoyed much of the best America has had to offer, but in the 1960s tended toward the growth of the drug culture and unwittingly experienced the decline in education standards that has left later generations devoid of knowledge about our founding principles and early struggles. More than twice their parents and grandparents engaged in wars far from home to thwart totalitarian regimes.

In the 1970s America saw the growth of the environmental movement which, by the late 1980s, was regaling everyone with doomsday predictions about a “global warming” that never occurred. What did occur was a government agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, that is threatening to cause a massive loss of the electrical and other sources of energy on which the nation—you and I—depend. Electricity may seem magical, but it requires years and years of planning and construction to ensure it is available when we flip the light switch. The EPA is quite literally an enemy comparable to one with an invading army.

So all of us, young and old, have arrived at the tail end of the first twenty years of the new century in a very different America than took on the challenge of the twentieth century and turned it into one of innovation and achievement.

That is critical to the choices Americans must make because the 2016 elections can either take us backward to past times—the 1990s—or forward to face the great challenges of our present and future times. We had financial success along the way, but we also had a massive financial failure in 2008 that originated earlier thanks to progressive ideas about home ownership. In 2001 we responded to the worst homeland attack since Pearl Harbor in the 1940s, fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not grasping the full scope of the Islamic threat.

The progressive ideas of the current administration that the presumptive candidate of the Democratic Party will emphasize will allege inequities and inequalities between the Middle Class and those they call the “one percent” of the wealthy. Despite the fact that the wealthy are the source of millions in campaign funds, they will publicly scorn them as “Wall Street” and the “Big Banks.” This is very much in keeping with the Progressive demonization of “Big Oil”. “Big Coal” and other alleged enemies of the nation.

These major elements of our economy are all in fact enemies of unemployment, providing thousands of jobs with good pay, and enemies of decline, providing the energy America needs to exist and grow.

The most disquieting aspect of the months ahead will be the role of the mainstream media that, with a few exceptions, will be the megaphone for failed progressive ideas, policies and programs. They will suffer a forgetfulness of the many scandals that have led to Hillary Clinton’s present bid to be the next President.

We are living in an era of decline that must be rejected and turned around with the “old fashioned” virtues of a marketplace economy free of a tax code no one can comprehend, environmental policies that slow and kill development, a federal government grown too large to do anything well—remember the introduction of ObamaCare and the fact that it has driven up insurance costs, not reduced them?

All of us of voting age have a heavy responsibility to know and understand the times in which we live and to make wise choices or know we shall be living in an era of failure for the nation we love.

© Alan Caruba, 2015