End Day Report

Thursday, November 20, 2014

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer

Obama Slaps Down The American People

President Obama, ignoring the verdict on his policies by voters earlier this month, is bulldozing through the Constitution by issuing an immigration amnesty today. His cynical calculation is that he can profit from this raw power-grab in two ways. First, he rouses his liberal base and earns points with Latinos. Second, he drives a wedge between outraged grassroots conservatives and a cautious GOP establishment. I wonder if that establishment has noticed that Obama’s approval rating is down to 37 percent, and that only about 35 percent support him acting unilaterally on immigration.

Some Republican leaders are pushing back against Obama’s power-grab. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that if Obama makes this move he will be “acting as a monarch.” He also labeled Obama’s actions “lawless” and “unconstitutional.” Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) called Obama “emperor of the United States” and said that Obama’s plan will allow illegal immigrants to “take jobs directly from struggling Americans in every occupation.” Retiring and normally soft-spoken Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) issued this warning: “The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president you could see instances of anarchy you could see violence.” (Coburn made it clear he hoped that would NOT happen.) Republican Senator John Cornyn (TX) said Obama’s actions would be “unconstitutional and illegal.”

Sheriffs from across the country also weighed in, with some charging that Obama’s amnesty will be the “destruction of our democracy” and leave a “gaping hole” for terrorists. Meanwhile at the White House tonight Obama will dine with congressional leaders–Democrats only.

What Now?

Finding a solution to Obama’s aggressive attack on the Constitution will not be easy. The new Congress doesn’t meet until January. In the meantime, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) won’t allow a vote in the Senate on anything that hurts Obama. By January public outrage may have dissipated. Nonetheless, there must be action. Senator Cruz supports the idea of blocking the confirmation of all Obama appointees over the next two years. Others are pushing a strong resolution of disapproval making it clear that Obama’s actions are unconstitutional. It would be voted on in the House and Senate in January, followed by a formal censure vote of Obama if he still doesn’t rescind his unlawful act. I think a lawsuit should be filed and every effort should be taken to get it before the Supreme Court.

Lessons From The Jerusalem Synagogue Slaughter

Tom Rose, my co-host on the Bauer and Rose radio show, and I recently wrote a piece for Breitbart.com responding to the horrific attack on Jewish worshippers in Jerusalem earlier this week. I invite you to read the piece, which is republished below.

Horrific events like Tuesday’s savage terrorist attack on Jewish worshippers gathered in their neighborhood Jerusalem synagogue for morning prayers are sadly almost to be expected from a Palestinian society utterly consumed in the warped incitement and demonic celebration of violent blood lust.

Outbursts of such mindless and murderous savagery are the evil but perfectly logical results of the blood curdling incitement, omnipresent throughout state-controlled Palestinian media. News of the massacre was met in Palestinian cities and towns not with denunciations, but with congratulations and celebration.

As difficult as it is to watch an entire society swallowed up by an unimaginable hatred, it is even harder to fathom how the West, and in particular the United States government, remains so adamant in their refusal to learn any lasting or correct lessons about the true aims and openly expressed goals of terror groups like Hamas and US funded Palestinian Authority.

While U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was quick to issue one of his finest defenses of Israel as America’s top diplomat as he condemned Tuesday’s Palestinian terrorist atrocity just a few hours later, it was all but negated by President Obama’s stunningly void remarks in which on his morally bankrupt bromides about “cycles of violence,” calls for “mutual restraint,” and how most Palestinians want peace.

Of the many things that can be accurately said of the Palestinian people, that the majority of Palestinians want peace with Israel is obviously not one of them. Polls regularly showalmost 90% of Palestinians openly support the murder of Israelis and Jews.

The three most obvious lessons that people not deluded by politically correct fantasies regarding the nature and source of the war against Israel would learn are:

1. The much heralded “two-state solution” — never a realistic option to begin with — is even less so now. Two states cannot live side by side in “peace and security” when the very purpose of one of the states is the violent destruction of the other.

2. Calling upon the US taxpayer to fund the corrupt, terrorist-enabling Palestinian Authority is a moral outrage of the first order. PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s so-called “condemnation” of Tuesday’s terrorist attack was nothing more than a tactical exercise to insure the PA retains its Western funding so it can intensify its war against Israel. The US must stop funding the PA until and unless it embarks on a serious and verifiable campaign to reverse the incitement of its people against Jews and Israel.

3. The single greatest catalyst for international chaos and global terrorism is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear threshold state is the single most important task of the civilized world.

The world needs its leaders to acknowledge what is plain for anyone to see. The Palestinian Authority does not exist in order to create the world’s 22nd Arab Muslim state; its purpose, together with Hamas, is to destroy the world’s only Jewish state. Terrorists are not and must never be partners for peace. Terrorists are the enemies of peace and must be treated as such.


End Of Day Report

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer

Obama’s Amnesty Gamble

Washington is abuzz today with reports that President Obama will formally announce his executive amnesty tomorrow and promote it at an event Friday in Las Vegas. How appropriate since he is playing roulette with the rule of law.

As we wait for this firestorm to erupt, let me knock down the latest attempt by Obama to hijack Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

The White House is spinning some revisionist history by suggesting that Ronald Reagan did the exact same thing Obama is threatening to do. The gist of Obama’s argument is, “See I’ve got that power because Reagan did it too.”

No, Reagan did not do it and, no, Obama does not have that power. In fact, Obama has repeatedly acknowledged that he lacks such power. For example, while referring to immigration reform in 2011, Obama said:

“I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. . . . But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

That’s the critical difference between what Reagan did and what Obama is proposing to do now. Reagan wasn’t acting on his own. He was acting as head of the executive branch to enforce legislation passed by Congress in 1986.

In contrast, Obama is acting in the absence of legislation — thereby changing the laws on his own — in defiance of Congress and the American people.

While I am angry at Obama’s distortion of Reagan’s record, I can’t help but comment on what it says about the place of Reagan in our national life.

The left hated Reagan when he was in office. But it grudgingly pays homage to him every time it tries to cover itself by claiming the mantle of the most beloved president in modern history.

Ferguson Is Not Selma

If tensions weren’t high enough already, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) threw gasoline on the fire yesterday calling for nationwide protests if the Ferguson grand jury refuses to indict Officer Darren Wilson. Whatever happened to respect for the rule of law and our judicial system in this country?

But Lewis went even further, comparing the events in Ferguson, Missouri, to the famed civil rights march in 1965 across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The non-violent protest for voting rights became known as “Bloody Sunday” when marchers were attacked and beaten by police. Lewis said:

“When we were beaten on that bridge in Selma, people couldn’t take it, for they saw it, they heard about it, they read about it, and it lit a sense of righteous indignation. When we see a miscarriage of justice in Ferguson, they’re going to have the same reaction they had towards Selma.”

What happened on that Selma bridge in 1965 was disgusting. The police brutality seared the conscience of white and black Americans. The congressman was beaten for a noble cause. I regret that I was not there marching with him. (I was only 19 years-old.)

The racism and bigotry so obvious in Selma was a violation of our Constitution and a clear indictment that America was not fulfilling the founding principle of our nation — that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain rights.

But with all due respect to Rep. Lewis, there is no equivalence between Ferguson and Selma. Michael Brown robbed a convenience store and reportedly assaulted a police officer. What right was he martyred for? The right to rob stores? The right to assault police officers?

The confrontation that took place in Ferguson, Missouri, has nothing to do with other incidents where police use deadly force. Each of these cases involves split second decisions where someone’s life is at risk. They should be individually investigated.

Undoubtedly some incidents are criminal and the police are prosecuted. In other cases, they are not and courts find that the police are acting in the best interests of society. And, yes, I do give the men and women on the thin blue line, risking their lives every day, the benefit of the doubt.

The great problem facing black Americans is not out of control police. There is no doubt that too many black children are afraid to walk to school because of thugs and drug dealers. Too many grow up in broken homes without fathers. Too many inner city teachers can’t pass basic competency exams. The gang and hip hop culture is sending all the wrong messages about life, love and virtue to minority children.

The John Lewis who bravely walked across that bridge in Selma would show much more courage today speaking out against those things — taking on the teachers unions and rap artists, indicting minority men who break their promises to the women they impregnate and the children they create. But that wouldn’t be a good liberal thing to do, would it? It is so much easier to stoke the fires of racial discord.

Good Job, Barack!

Sometimes folks ask me, “Gary, can’t you say one good thing about Obama?” Well, I’ll give him a tip of the hat today.

Remember that deal he signed in China last week to stop global warming? Who knew it would work so fast! The National Weather Service reports that all 50 states — even Hawaii — have hit the freezing mark this week. More than 1,300 record lows were broken.

Forty years ago, the climate change alarmists were worried about a new ice age. Now they are up in arms about global warming. Yes, the climate does change over time, and they may have been right 40 years ago. Ironically, solar activity — or the lack of it — suggests we could be headed for a new mini-ice age. Brrr!!!


As I wrote yesterday, it’s clear now that we were misled about the policies in Obamacare and it’s it equally clear that Democrats are lying about Dr. Jonathan Gruber’s role in helping them hide the truth. Watch this video. Unbelievably, some liberal apologists in the media are still struggling to understand what all the fuss is about.

But CNN’s Jake Tapper deserves credit for realizing the news value of Gruber’s deceptions. Watch this video explaining how Obamacare’s tax scheme will eventually eliminate all employer provided healthcare plans.

Yes, that was the plan and, as you will see, Obama lied about that too.

End Of Day Report

Monday, November 17, 2014

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer

Obama’s Delusions

The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) issued another grotesque beheading video over the weekend. Peter Kassig, a former Army Ranger, became the fifth Westerner beheaded by ISIL.

The Islamic State jihadist in the video mocks President Obama and warns, “With Allah’s permission we will break this final and last crusade . . . and the Islamic State will soon . . . begin to slaughter your people on your streets.” Obviously that has happened already with beheadings and attempted beheadings in Moore, Oklahoma and New York City.

In response to the video, President Obama said today, “ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith. . .”

Really? So beheadings would be more consistent with other faiths like Christianity and Judaism? I double checked my Bible for the part where Christ directs his disciples to smite the infidel about the head and neck but just couldn’t seem to find it.

Why does Obama insist on this self-delusion? He’s not fooling anyone. The jihadists are acting in Allah’s name. They call themselves “Islamic.” Identify the enemy for what they are — radical Islamists!

The Cancer Within Islam

After the video became public distressed commentators asked, “How many more times this will happen?” It will happen until ISIS and other radicals like Hamas, Hezbollah and Boko Haram are defeated.

Of course, the beheadings are intended to spread terror. Analysts agree that they are an effective recruiting tool bringing thousands of other young Muslim men to their cause. This factor does not get the attention it deserves.

Can anyone imagine anything similar happening in a different religious context? Would a radical Buddhist group brutally murdering innocent people gain adherents? Would a radical Christian group thrive and attract young Christians to its banner if it started beheading people?

It seems highly unlikely because there is nothing in Christian teaching that encourages such sick violence. But clearly the method of murder — the smiting of the infidel about the head and neck — strikes a chord within the body of Islam.

While official intelligence reports estimate that ISIS has approximately 30,000 fighters, a senior Kurdish leader says that recent coordinated attacks across Iraq and Syria strongly suggest the number is at least 200,000 — seven times the official estimate. Clearly, ISIS is having considerable success recruiting more jihadists — and it’s not Methodists or Baptists who are swelling its ranks.

Ebola Claims Another Doctor

Earlier this month, Dr. Martin Salia, a surgeon who worked in Sierra Leone, somehow contracted Ebola. Over the weekend, he was flown to the specialized biocontainment facility in Nebraska. The hospital announced this morning that he had passed away.

This is tragic news. As a Christian, Dr. Salia believed working in medicine was not just a job, but God’s will for his life. As one associate said of Dr. Salia, “That he stayed committed to missionary hospitals tells you everything you need to know about who he is and his faith.” We offer our prayers and condolences to his widow, Isatu, and their two children, who live in Maryland.

Unfortunately, Dr. Salia’s case raises many questions. It is not known how he contracted Ebola. This is not the first time that an infected nurse or doctor couldn’t pinpoint the exact cause of infection.

Worse, Dr. Salia was tested for Ebola but the results came back negative. Friends and co-workers celebrated the news and, according to the Washington Post, “threw their arms around him. They shook his hand. They patted him on the back. They removed their protective gear and cried.”

As his condition worsened, Dr. Salia thought he had malaria, but the treatments did nothing. A second Ebola test on November 10th returned positive.

We’ve heard of false positives, but the dangers of false negatives are very real with Ebola. As a Center for Disease Control official in Sierra Leone said, early tests are often wrong because “there aren’t enough copies of the virus in the blood for the test to pick up.” Such false negatives could contribute to a false sense of security, leading to additional Ebola exposures.

This suggests that the medical community, including the CDC, is still struggling to thoroughly comprehend Ebola, which is why prudence demands we follow tried and true procedures rather than bow to the demands of political correctness.

Election Signaled Time To Cooperate With Obama?

Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) may be a great lawyer, but he doesn’t get the big picture. He showed what he thought about the Republican Party platform last year when he completely abandoned his defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman after his homosexual son confronted him. His surrender did not stop there.

Since then, in virtually every public interview I have seen, Portman has parroted big media, big business and elite opinion rather than offering bold, Reaganesque conservative ideas.

He did it again on CNBC this morning when asked about the impending immigration battle. The senator expressed disappointment that the president was going to act unilaterally, not because Obama was abusing his power, but because in Portman’s opinion the clear message from the election was that the public wanted Obama and Congress to work together.

Please, senator! What on earth leads you to the conclusion that the voters who gave your party control of the Senate did so because they want you to cooperate with the president? The message of this election was a repudiation of Obama’s left-wing extremism; they elected Republicans to fight back! If the voters truly wanted to end gridlock in Washington, they would have elected more Democrats.

Why is it so hard for Republicans like Portman to say, “The clear message from the American people was that President Obama is out of control and they elected Republicans to rein in his extremism”?

Portman assured CNBC that if Obama would just back off of his executive order on amnesty, he and other Republicans would be able to make a deal with him.

But rather than cooperating with Obama’s conspiracy of illegality — people illegally sneaking into the country and Obama illegally pardoning them — conservatives want Republicans to fight back by defending the rule of law and the economic well-being of working class Americans struggling in Obama’s economy.

End Of Day Report

Thursday, November 13, 2014

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer

The Next 26 Months

Barack Obama is still president for the next 26 months. Starting in January, he’ll have to contend with a Republican House and Senate on matters of domestic policy and spending. But when it comes to foreign policy, the Constitution grants the president tremendous authority.

Expect America’s standing in the world to continue to decline as our enemies exploit Obama’s remaining time in office. It is already happening.

  • While the media were ballyhooing Obama’s “three meetings with Putin” in China, Putin was sending tanks into Ukraine and positioning long-range bombers in the Gulf of Mexico. (By the way, those “meetings” were just brief conversations in between summit sessions totaling about 20 minutes.)
  • Last week, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, answering critics of Israel’s actions in Gaza, said, “I actually do think that Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties.” The general noted that the U.S. even sent a delegation to Israel three months ago to learn about limiting civilian casualties from the IDF.
    Dempsey was slapped down immediately when a reporter pressed State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki about the Obama Administration’s previous condemnations of Israeli military conduct. Psaki retorted, “It remains the broad view of the entire Administration that [Israel] could have done more and they should have taken more — all feasible precautions to prevent civilian casualties.”

  • Three U.S. sailors were assaulted by radical Islamists in Istanbul, Turkey — a supposed NATO ally. The attack was videotaped for propaganda purposes, and CBS accommodated the jihadists by playing it. That video is a disturbing example of what has happened to America’s prestige and standing in the world.

    The GOP’s Amnesty Divide

    The split between the big business wing of the Republican Party and the populist grassroots was on full display in the Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial yesterday. The Journal began by noting that Obama’s threatened executive order would damage the cause of immigration reform and his legacy.

    But then the paper’s editorial board showed why the Republican Party has such a problem. Rather than condemning Obama, the Journal excoriated the “GOP’s yahoo wing” and basically told the “Steve King-Jeff Sessions blow-a-gasket caucus” to sit down and shut up.

    “The smart play,” the editors tell us, “is to stay cool and keep working on the piecemeal reform. . . . If Mr. Obama follows his familiar partisan script, Republicans have a chance to stand up for the rule of law . . . by passing immigration reform the constitutional way.” In other words, just give Obama what he wants.

    The problem is not just Obama’s outrageous tactics, but also the content of the so-called “reform.” Americans are not clamoring for more immigration or any type of amnesty. First and foremost, they want our borders secured.

    The rule of law demands that we actually enforce our laws against illegal immigration and stop saddling taxpayers with additional burdens.

    Rather than attacking conservatives like Steve King and Jeff Sessions, the Wall Street Journal should be joining them in full-throated opposition to such an abuse of power. It should be encouraging members of Congress to use every tool at their disposal to stop this lawlessness. Instead, it is acquiescing to Obama’s demands by encouraging a slow motion surrender.

    GOP Vows To Fight

    So far, Republican leaders appear to be holding their ground. During an interview with Breitbart.com yesterday, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said, “Number one, we ought to stop it at all costs and not allow the president to do it, at all costs.”

    During a meeting today with House Republicans, Speaker John Boehner reiterated his opposition to any executive amnesty. According to Politico Boehner said, “I told the president last week directly: ‘If you proceed with executive amnesty, not only can you forget about getting immigration reform enacted during your presidency, you can also expect it to jeopardize other issues as well. . . .if he proceeds, we are going to fight it.”

    Stay tuned.

  • End Of Day Report

    Wednesday, November 12, 2014

    To: Friends & Supporters

    From: Gary L. Bauer

    Obama’s Priorities

    It was announced today to much fanfare that President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping have reached an agreement to dramatically reduce carbon emissions. Really? Carbon emissions?

    That speaks volumes about Obama’s misplaced priorities. By the way, while Obama’s worried about global warming, another polar vortex is hitting the country, bringing record cold temperatures and snow to several states.

    The president goes to China at a time when the Chinese are waging a massive cyber-warfare campaign against us and our leading companies. We learned just this week that the Post Office was hacked and Chinese state agencies top the list of suspects.

    It was only a year ago that China’s communist media outlets were bragging about plans for a nuclear strike that could kill 12 million Americans. Moreover, China’s military leadership has concluded that it is capable of “bloodlessly deterring U.S. intervention” should it move against Taiwan.

    To prove the point, the Chinese unveiled a new stealth fighter this week, which they built by stealing our technology. The test flight — with America’s president in the country — was a clear example of China flexing its military muscles.

    Yet in the midst of all these national security threats, Obama elevates carbon emissions and climate change to the top of his list.

    Emissions & Economic Growth

    This deal has tremendous potential ramifications for our future prosperity. According to CNN, “the United States would cut . . . carbon emissions by 26-28% before the year 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030.” In other words, we cut our emissions for ten years, while China does next to nothing for 15 years.

    The Washington Post adds, “Whether Obama’s target can be set now and achieved technologically . . . remains unknown.” There is one way it can be achieved.

    U.S. carbon emissions were cut from 2007 to 2012. Why? The Great Recession.

    Climate researcher Pierre Friedlingstein of the University of Exeter told USA Today, “There is a close link between the world’s gross domestic product and emissions of carbon dioxide. The emissions decrease . . . was directly related to the economic crisis.”

    In 2011, one British newspaper published a story on reduced carbon emissions with this headline: “Significant Reduction In UK Emissions Attributed To Recession.” Princeton Professor Eric Larson wrote in 2012, “Recent declines in carbon emissions are the result of a combination of factors. . . .The recession, however, appears to be the most significant factor in the decline.”

    Do you get it, friends? The fastest way to reduce carbon emissions is to severely limit economic growth.

    Republican leaders were quick to respond to today’s announcement. Speaker Boehner blasted the agreement as “yet another sign that the president intends to double down on his job-crushing policies.”

    Senator Mitch McConnell said, “This unrealistic plan . . . would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs. The president said his policies were on the ballot, and the American people spoke up against them. It’s time for more listening, and less job-destroying red tape.”

    Liberal Arrogance

    Five years ago, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber was the left’s go-to man on healthcare reform. In fact, he’s often credited with being the “architect of Obamacare.” Now Democrats just wish Gruber would go away. He’s said too much.

    Late last week the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging the legality of Obamacare’s taxpayer-funded insurance subsidy scheme. In violation of the plain language of the law, the Obama Administration has been issuing subsidies to everyone in the federal healthcare exchange. But the law clearly states that subsidies would only be available individuals in state-based exchanges.

    Democrats dismissed this challenge, insisting that its legal reasoning was bizarre. But this summer video emerged of Dr. Gruber saying precisely what the critics were contending.

    Now another video has emerged of Dr. Gruber describing how the Democrats set out to deceive the American people. He says:

    “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. . . . if you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay [more] and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

    As Charles Krauthammer put it, “What we’re hearing now is the true voice of liberal arrogance. . . .They believe that the voters are stupid, as he said. And they believe that . . . they have to lead the masses to the promised land and they can only do it by deception.”

    Good News

    Republican Dan Sullivan has won the Alaska Senate race, giving Republicans a net gain of 8 Senate seats. Hopefully, we will pick up a ninth seat after the December 6th Louisiana runoff election.

    Leading up to the November 4th elections, Democrats insisted that they would hold onto the Senate because no matter how unpopular Barack Obama was, the GOP was even more unpopular. Republicans, going all the way back to 2006, were a “damaged brand.”

    There is certainly some truth in that. I have often argued that part of the GOP’s problem was that many disaffected conservatives were disgusted with the GOP’s lack of fight and cronyism.

    A new Gallup poll finds that the roles have reversed. Democrats have crashed to a record low of 36% favorability with the public, while 42% of Americans have a favorable view of the GOP. Of course, everybody loves a winner. But Republicans should be celebrating the victories of conservatives like Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton, Ben Sasse and Scott Walker.

    These conservative winners did not cave on amnesty, the sanctity of life or normal marriage. Yet in spite of all the spin about how the GOP was dead unless it abandoned values issues and embraced amnesty, the moribund Republican Party suddenly appears alive.

    There’s more good news. Barack Obama said this election was a referendum on his policies. Well, according to Gallup, 53% of Americans would prefer that congressional Republicans “have more influence over the direction the country takes,” compared to just 36% who would prefer Obama chart the course.

    Republicans take note: Don’t worry about the media, stop being defensive. Prevent defense doesn’t work. If you are in the public policy debate, you must lead. Boldly make the case for your values every day. That is what Ronald Reagan did so well.

    End Of Day Report

    Friday, November 7, 2014

    To: Friends & Supporters

    From: Gary L. Bauer

    Court Gets Marriage Right

    A federal appeals court has finally gotten it right on marriage!

    Yesterday the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that states have the right to preserve the meaning of normal marriage and that thousands of years of tradition and basic biology should not be tossed aside lightly.

    Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s opinion should be required reading in the Oval Office and every law school across the country. He comes down squarely on the side of the people and, most notably, against the notion of judicial activism. Sutton’s opinion exposes how the left has perverted our justice system.

  • Rejecting Judicial Activism. Sutton refused to engage in judicial activism and clearly understood that it was not his role to impose his morals on the people:
    “Marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world. . . .

    “Process and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the most reliable, liberty-assuring guarantees of our system of government, requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution contemplates for making such a fundamental change to such a fundamental social institution.

    “Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority . . . to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.”

  • Respecting Precedent. Sutton acknowledged what virtually every other federal court has so far chosen to ignore — that there is precedent binding on the federal courts against same-sex marriage. Forty-two years ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal challenging the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling in Baker v. Nelson upholding the normal meaning of marriage. Sutton wrote, “we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the [Supreme] Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves.”

    What about the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision overturning part of the Defense of Marriage Act? Judge Sutton correctly notes that Windsor “never mentions Baker, much less overrules it. . . . Windsor invalidated a federal law that refused to respect state laws permitting gay marriage, while Baker upheld the right of the people of a State to define marriage as they see it.”

    Sutton suggests that Windsor actually reinforces Baker by saying that the federal government was out of bounds for trying to limit the state’s ability to define marriage — even if that included same-sex couples.

  • Rejecting Irrational Arguments. Pointing to the Supreme Court’s ruling against bans on interracial marriages, some liberal judges have declared that traditional marriage laws are “irrational.” Of that specious argument, Sutton wrote:
    “A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States. . . . It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative [of marriage law].”

    Basic biology is not irrational — one man + one woman = marriage. (Suddenly liberals are looking like anti-science zealots!)

    Sutton also warns that by declaring the biological definition of marriage irrational, we are opening the door to polygamy. “If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage.” The left, as Sutton notes, has no legal or logical answer for how marriage, once expanded, could also be limited to just two people. Polygamy must follow same-sex marriage.

    With this decision upholding traditional marriage laws, we now have a conflict between appellate courts that can only be resolved by the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that the four liberals on the high court would impose same-sex marriage on every state in the union.

    But Sutton’s reasoning is impeccable. We can only hope and pray that his argument in favor of states’ rights might persuade Justice Anthony Kennedy to allow the democratic process to prevail – to let the people decide. While I believe the prospect of 50 different definitions of marriage is unwise, the best outcome we’re likely to get at this point is a decision permitting every state to define marriage for itself.

    Obama, ISIS and Iran’s Nukes

    Two disturbing reports have emerged in recent days regarding Obama’s handling of the most pressing national security concerns facing America and the world: ISIS and Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

    With a November 24th deadline looming for a deal, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama had made additional concessions to Iran, allowing the mullah’s to expand their operational centrifuges by 50%.

    Then word came yesterday that Obama wrote a secret letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, in October reportedly linking efforts to fight ISIS to Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Obama stressed to Mr. Khamenei that any cooperation on Islamic State was largely contingent on Iran reaching a comprehensive agreement . . . on the future of Tehran’s nuclear program by a Nov. 24 diplomatic deadline.”

    In other words, Obama is so desperate to cut a deal with Iran, it appears as though he is offering to save its ally in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, from ISIS. Not surprisingly, the White House tried to keep this letter secret from our Israeli allies and the Saudis. Once again, Obama is undermining old alliances, while reaching out to our enemies.

    This doesn’t make any sense. ISIS and Iran’s nukes are totally unrelated, or at least they should be. There is no deal Iran can make that we can trust.

    When news of this letter hit Capitol Hill, Republicans were furious. Speaker John Boehner said, “I don’t trust the Iranians, I don’t think we need to bring them into this.”

    Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham released a statement blasting Obama’s “outrageous” offer of cooperation, saying, “The consequences of this ill-conceived bargain would destroy the Syrians’ last, best chance to live in freedom from the brutal Assad regime.”

  • End Of Day Report

    Thursday, November 6, 2014

    To: Friends & Supporters

    From: Gary L. Bauer

    Obama: “I Hear You”. . . Not!

    The Washington Post continued its post-election coverage with a front page story today headlined, “Obama To Voters: I Hear You.” Well, that is what Obama said, but no one believes it — not even the Post’s liberal columnists.

    I don’t think Obama believes it ether. During his press conference yesterday, Obama made a bizarre statement that hasn’t gotten the attention I think it deserves.

    Obama said: “To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you.” Fine so far, and that’s all most of the media are focusing on, trying to make Obama sound conciliatory.

    But then he added: “To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you too.”

    What exactly does that mean?

    Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who used to get a thrill up his leg listening to Obama, had trouble with such conceit. Matthew’s said:

    “What I heard him do right now was, ‘I was right. We had the wrong electorate last night. I’d prefer a different electorate. I’d like the two-thirds of the people who didn’t vote to go vote.’ Well they didn’t vote. They didn’t show up.”

    Unlike Bill Clinton, Obama shows no signs of yielding or compromising to meet Republicans half way. And you don’t have to take my word for it.

    After describing how the 2014 elections were “an even more stinging defeat” for Democrats, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne says of Obama, “A dismissive shrug is inappropriate.”

    The Post’s Dana Milbank called the elections “a political earthquake.” But the voters’ message, Milbank writes, “went in one presidential ear and out the other.”

    Barack Gives America The Bird

    Any hope one might have had that Obama was in fact listening to the voters was dashed yesterday when he doubled down on an executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.

    Obama knows just how unpopular amnesty is. Remember, earlier in the year Obama vowed that if the Democrats’ comprehensive immigration reform bill failed to pass Congress, he would act on his own by the end of the summer.

    Then reality smacked him in the face. The public was outraged. A September Rasmussen poll found that 62% of likely voters opposed such action. Democrats were in full panic mode, pleading with him to drop the issue. Listening to the voters then, Obama backed down — sort of. Over Labor Day weekend, Obama announced that he was delaying the amnesty until after the elections.

    One commentator said that if Democrats lost the Senate, the White House didn’t want to see headlines blaming Obama’s amnesty as the reason. But the delay didn’t fool the voters and they punished Democrats for Obama’s serial abuse of power.

    So when he doubles down on amnesty, who is Obama listening to? The 26% who support it, I suppose.

    Now that Republicans won big Tuesday, we keep hearing that conservatives must compromise. No! No! No! They were elected to stop Obama’s radical agenda, not accommodate it. Obama is the one who should be compromising. Even liberal reporters get that.

    NBC’s Chuck Todd said that Tuesday’s results should “put an end” to Obama’s amnesty. Amnesty now would be “politically provocative,” Todd said, adding, “The president is going to know that if he does this, he is starting a political war in Washington.”

    CNN’s Candy Crowley said, “We don’t know what he’s going to do executive order-wise on immigration, but if he makes a major move along the lines of what we’ve been hearing . . . that would be like just popping a grenade and throwing it in the middle of the Senate floor.”

    The National Journal’s Ron Fournier tweeted, “After this repudiation, acting on #immigration by fiat would be the political equivalent of literally flipping the country the bird.”

    Memo To The GOP

    Dionne, Milbank, Matthews, Todd, Crowley and Fournier — they’re all right — Obama is not listening to the voters. In view of that, here’s my advice to the GOP: Don’t get into an argument with yourselves about the degree to which you will compromise or cooperate with Obama.

    The president has two huge decisions to contemplate in the days ahead. First, will he follow through on his threat to legislate a massive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants? If he does, in clear violation of the separation of powers, no Republican should be looking for ways to cooperate with such arrogance.

    Second, will Obama sign a bad treaty with Iran? (The answer is yes.) Having signed a bad treaty, will Obama, as the New York Times wrote, “do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it”? If he does, conservatives would be right to be outraged and fight him every step of the way.

    That is, after all, why conservatives won Tuesday night, and not Obama’s left-wing allies. The American people elected conservatives to fight his radical agenda.

    Speaker John Boehner, Leader McConnell, Mr. Rove and our friends at the Chamber of Commerce: When conservatives do fight back against Obama, please resist the temptation to attack them for refusing to compromise.

    If this president ignores the voters and continues to abuse his power, the Republican Party has just one obligation — stop him. That is, after all, what Chairman Reince Priebus promised you would do.

    Otherwise Tuesday will be the high-water mark of the GOP and its very existence will be called into question.

    Jihad In Jerusalem

    Israel may be experiencing the beginnings of a third intifada or Palestinian uprising. Yesterday, another Palestinian jihadist used his car as a weapon of terror — plowing into pedestrians in Jerusalem and killing a police officer. The driver was shot and killed. This was the second such attack in two weeks, but there have been numerous attacks and violent protests for months now.

    The White House is silent, as is the State Department. The new Congress in January must step up and stand with Israel by stopping Obama’s constant undermining of our key ally.