Marriage Should Mean One Plus One and No One Else

If you believe Trevor Burrus of the Cato Institute, then heterosexual marriage has been an artificial construction imposed by Christianity. The then recently-converted Constantine unleashed the apparatus of his decaying empire - reborn under Christ - to persecute what had been a natural part of human society. And in his April article at Cato’s site, he also gave a passing nod to drug prohibition, which will surely fall in the glorious march of Libertarianism, the kind that is taking natural liberty to it’s “logical extreme” through a process that is “wonderfully radical.” So if your child’s kindergarten teacher in a few years, if not right now, has to take time off from caring from your offspring to enter rehab, that is also part of this march towards true liberty.

The point being that one should be careful about what is a "victimless" crime, and what offends deeply held beliefs, and what is something more dangerous and corrosive. Gay marriage seems inevitable now, but was far from being seen as such not even 20 years ago. Whether the equal protection clause leads inevitably to forcing individual states to bend to the federal government's will can be debated, but the majority of legal opinion seems to be clearly on the side of this latest decision. Whether the founding fathers intended this, or understood that society's mores change and that the constitution must change with those changing mores is perhaps unanswerable. But attempting to answer this very question divided the Supreme Court in it's 5-4 decision on Friday. It divided the dissenters that is: within the four of them, including Roberts, there were 3 different dissenting opinions.

America has always had a fault line dividing civil liberties from religious belief, and to imagine America without either of these fundamental characteristics is impossible. But like the boundary between clashing tectonic plates, the fault line moves and shifts, upsetting the balance of previous times. Where that balance will be reestablished in terms of what a marriage legally means in America is hard to say. Critics of this latest decision - including members of SCOTUS who dissented - point to legalizing polygamy, and other bizarre configurations, as a possible outcome at some point in the future. While GOP candidates seem to want the issue of gay marriage off the table, they should consider how to construct a legal defense against this latest possibility. Polygamy brings up religious freedom and fundamentalist splinter groups in various states. It is an exception that should have been ended long ago. Let this SCOTUS decision truly be about caring, stable, and loving families with 2, that means one plus one and no one else, consenting adult members. And let us ensure that passing friendship or sexual adventure, or polygamy itself, does not further shake and bend the hearth and home that shelters, or should shelter, all of us in our tender years.

Posted by Keeley at June 29, 2015 6:02 PM
Comment #396139

Activist judges on the loose. Congress makes em, the court decides if its legal, or so it ustabe.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at June 29, 2015 9:37 PM
Comment #396149

I’ll bet there are a number of Saudi-Americans who are going to sue anyone who won’t let them alone with their harem of wives.

The sky’s the limit now. Anyone with a grievance can claim discrimination and their 14th amendment rights are being trampled on for one reason or another.

Under this ruling the man can demand having an influence over the life, or death, of his (HIS!) unborn child. A man’s influence upon his unborn child is non-existant. It’s a woman’s “right to choose”, not the man’s. The father is being discriminated against. Not any longer! The 9 gods have spoken!

Isn’t it funny how 5 people can make a decision and all of the sudden our rights are subjected to catagorization and levels of application?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 30, 2015 12:39 PM
Comment #396153

If you can’t define marriage as one man and one woman, you can’t define it as only one plus one.

Multiple partner and incestuous marriages are just as valid as same sex marriage and will soon be state sanctioned.

Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2015 1:22 PM
Comment #396154

If you can’t define marriage as one man and one woman, you can’t define it as only one plus one.

Multiple partner and incestuous marriages are just as valid as gay marriage and will soon be state sanctioned.

Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2015 1:23 PM
Comment #396156

Where is it written that marriage must even be between the same species?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 30, 2015 2:01 PM
Comment #396159

This “judicial tyranny” charge gets really old quickly when you are forced to argue that it is “judicial tyranny” when a Court will not override the legislative and executive branches of our government.

Dogs and cats living together, there oughta be a law!!

Calm down guys, take deep breaths. Has anything specifically changed for any of you since last Thursday and Friday’s decisions? I mean real examples of how your lives are now so different? Now don’t use made up supposedly could happen, might happen stuff, I would like real examples please.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 30, 2015 2:36 PM
Comment #396166

Speak, should we not consider the ‘what if’s’ for a law that had stood for some 2k years?

Any rational human bean would think it likely that the Mormons would give the SC shot at polygamy. If two same sex folks can hitch up legally then how could there possibly be any objection to polygamy? And, I know a lot of folks that love their dog/cat more than their spouse, and so on - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at June 30, 2015 3:03 PM
Comment #396197
I would like real examples please.

Two gay guys in a parade spit on a priest and nothing happened to them. That is in direct relation to the rulings.

Walking down Broadway and 22nd St just now, I ran into gay marriage parade. Two men walked by and spat on me. Oh well… I deserve worse.
— Fr. Jonathan Morris (@fatherjonathan) June 28, 2015
The two men who spat on me are probably very good man caught up in excitement and past resentment. Most in that parade would not do that.
— Fr. Jonathan Morris (@fatherjonathan) June 28, 2015

See how that works, Speak4all? Give someone a inch and they take a mile.

If the priest spit on the two gay guys there would be an arrest and the liberal media would be tormenting us with it for months.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 30, 2015 7:22 PM
Comment #396198

Speak has no depth of imagination and fails to hardly ever see the trees for the forest.

Unintended consequences don’t appear magically the day after some foolish and harmful legislation is enacted or a group of unelected supremes make a decision to either change the meaning of the word “State” to continue the obamacare debacle or to determine that the only way to give gays legal rights was to thrash marriage as practiced down through the millennia and poke the eye of the religious.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 30, 2015 7:41 PM
Comment #396199

Oh, come on. Gay people marrying will not affect your marriage one way or the other. It will neither benefit nor harm you, you will not gain or lose anything, and it makes two people happy.

As for traditional marriage, polygamy has been around a long time. The Bible is chock full of it. Women have traditionally been considered property. They couldn’t even vote until last century.

The Obamacare case should never have been brought before the Supreme Court. It had little merit. All it did was hand Obama a totally unnecessary victory. It resulted in a self-inflicted wound for the GOP, all thanks to some idiots from Heritage and the conservatives on the Court.

It’s been a great time for America and the Obama administration- the success of health care reform reaffirmed, the equal application of the law for the LGBT community, the best economy in modern times, and more. This will indeed be a fine 4th of July.

Posted by: phx8 at June 30, 2015 8:15 PM
Comment #396202

Has anyone ever seen two married geese that are both male, or both female. Geese mate for life. It would be abnormal to see two male geese mating.

They’re going to have to redefine the word abnormal now, aren’t they. It would be “offensive” to say two gay humans have an abnormal relationship. Do you think people will start getting arrested and sued and spit on for saying two guys are having an abnormal relationship?

It’s not normal, what else could it be?

Better redefine the word normal while they’re at it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 30, 2015 9:21 PM
Comment #396205

WW, very weak and not even a pertinent example. I asked for examples of how your life is now so different. Firstly the unsubstantiated story is strange. People have been spitting at others for a very long time, even before last Friday. Secondly how, if it is even true, did this affect you personally?

Now we should start living are lives by the standards of geese? Yikes, what a stretch. What is your opinion of the bonobos then?

RF, you are the ones claiming that something was magically changed in a matter of a day. I was just asking for examples of how your life changed but I guess you really don’t have any? I am really worried about you guys, there is over another year of this coming and I’m not sure you can take it. Try to form a support group maybe? A 12 step program to overcome your Obama Derangement Syndrome?

Posted by: Speak4all at July 1, 2015 9:43 AM
Comment #396214
Has anyone ever seen two married geese that are both male, or both female. Geese mate for life. It would be abnormal to see two male geese mating.

“Mallards form male-female pairs only until the female lays eggs, at which time the male leaves the female. Mallards have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds, in some cases, as high as 19% of all pairs in a population.”

“An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are of homosexual males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 1, 2015 12:19 PM
Comment #396216

“In geese you may find a very strong homosexual bond between two malegeese who behave like a [mating] pair even though they cannot copulate. They always forget that the other refuses to be mounted and they try again every spring.”

“In greylag geese, nearly a fifth of all long-term couples are composed of two males. They’re not alone: More than 130 bird species are known to engage in homosexual behavior at least occasionally”

Simple searches can usually find the answers to things instead of just assuming something and making inaccurate statements…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 1, 2015 12:24 PM
Comment #396219


You erroneously assume WW and his conservative cohort are here for constructive conversation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 1, 2015 1:24 PM
Comment #396235

Associated Press, Man from Montana applies for License to marry second wife. He was denied but he said he will sue and is siting the recent SCOTUS rule allowing Gay marriage.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 1, 2015 7:42 PM
Comment #396236


The Montanan’s suit is going nowhere because his case rests on a fallacious understanding of Obergefell v. Hodges. The 14th amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender (people should be able to marry James Obergefell regardless of one’s gender). It does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status (legislatures can prohibit a person who are already married to someone else from marrying James Obergefell),

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 1, 2015 8:11 PM
Comment #396238

Warren, The fun is just beginning, the SCOTUS just opened the perverbial can of worms. It’s not over by a long shot. Get a few HOT SHOT Lawyers and they’ll make the SCOTUS wish they ruled the other way.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 1, 2015 8:33 PM
Comment #396248

What will happen to you if the can of worms is opened? How will it personally affect you?

Posted by: phx8 at July 2, 2015 12:32 AM
Comment #396253

It wasn’t a man that was spit on during the gay pride parade. It was his church. That episode affects many, many people personally.

There are those who think this is a nose under the tent flap. They think the SC didn’t go far enough. They will push for the tax exempt status of churches to be denied if they don’t submit to the gay groupthink mentality. They will go out of their way to destroy anyone who they think will stand in their way.

Sure, it’s only a week since this happened. Very few are affected by this decision, personally. Except for a priest who was assaulted for being in the vicinity of gay people, there are very few casualties.

Just wait, though. Utah fought a war against the federal government and was conquored before they gave up polygamy. How far will gay people go to get their way now that their nose is under the tent.

I hope it’s their nose!

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 2, 2015 8:14 AM
Comment #396255

Well it would seem that some of our conservative commenters here want to refer to the SC decision on Friday as “a can of worms” or worse yet the end of civilized behavior. Why am I not surprised? There has been nothing but doom and gloom forecasts for the last 6 and a half years from this faction. Now I know it is just coincidental but that is about the time that President Obama was elected although I am almost certain that their predictions have never, I repeat never, really come to any fruition. There are no death panels, there are no re-education camps, there have been no gun confiscation programs, people aren’t marrying their pets, the world hasn’t evolved into chaos but that won’t stop them. Their ability to see the worst from anything around them is a good indication of the cynicism that has completely overtaken their good sense. Disappointed idealists make for very cynical citizens. That is their problem not mine.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2015 9:40 AM
Comment #396257

“… Jeb Bush confirmed Monday that he was astonished by how easily his stance on removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Capitol set him apart from the rest of the GOP field. “When I tweeted in support of taking down a widely recognized symbol of racism and white supremacy, I thought I’d fall pretty squarely in line with the other Republican candidates, but fortunately I was wrong,” said Bush after competitors in the GOP primary race either refused to voice an opinion to avoid offending voters or suggested that the decision should fall to the state’s lawmakers, establishing himself as the most sane member of the field “with pretty much zero effort.” “All I had to do was offer a basic sentiment about how they should take down a flag widely considered to represent slavery and horrific racial oppression, and boom—suddenly I’m the only enlightened one in the group.”
The Onion

Posted by: phx8 at July 2, 2015 10:38 AM
Comment #396264

PHX8, I could care less what 2 or more consenting adults do in their bedroom as long as they keep it that way. Once they bring their business out in the open that’s when the problems begin.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 2, 2015 2:05 PM
Comment #396265

A writer above asked this in relationship to the SC ruling on same gender marriage.

“How will it personally affect you?”

The assumption being that each and every SC ruling, and by extension, every congressional action and presidential decree affects everyone personally.

Dunce time for Bonzo.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 3:41 PM
Comment #396266

And then there is Speaks. His comments contain the usual buffoonish and hyperbolic sentiments. His analysis is, as usual, thin and malnourished.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 3:47 PM
Comment #396267

RF, well if you could express how it affects you personally it might make it easier to understand your objections. If however you just want to say that there might be or could be or has a chance of being a problem then we can understand that you are using conjecture to devise an objection to a SC ruling that you are railing against.

The hue and cry from some of the conservatives here led some of us to believe that they were being directly affected by the ruling and I was looking for clarification.

Now that I understand that you are making stuff up about your objections it is easier for me to dismiss your argument as simply that your personal preference is being assaulted. Noted, along with your silly comments regarding degrading remarks about your fellow commenters here.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2015 3:47 PM
Comment #396268

RF, and your usual affable nature is as non-existent as it has always been. Grow up, old man.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2015 3:49 PM
Comment #396269

“Fifty-seven percent of Americans continue to believe the Confederate flag is a symbol of Southern pride and not racism, according to a new CNN/ORC poll, but the opinions are divided sharply along racial lines.

The opinion on the flag remains about the same as it was 15 years ago, when 59 percent said they saw the flag as a sign of pride, the random poll of 1,017 Americans revealed, reports CNN.”

Read Latest Breaking News from

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 3:49 PM
Comment #396270

“…degrading remarks about your fellow commenters here.”
Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2015 3:47 PM

Sure, like calling me a bigot and racist?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 3:51 PM
Comment #396271

Can some liberal Kook tell me how they are personally and adversely affected by my owning a gun?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 3:52 PM
Comment #396272

RF, I am not and have never contended that you owning a gun personally affects me. It is when and if that gun gets into the hands of someone (perhaps even yourself) that is unstable enough to try to do something bad to another person with that gun. Still stung over the hateful bigot remark? Never said racist, that must be something you can take credit for yourself after reading your defense of the battle flag for the Northern Virginia militia (it is not the “Confederate flag”).

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2015 3:57 PM
Comment #396273

Can some liberal Kook tell me how they are personally and adversely affected by referring to December 25th as Christmas.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 3:57 PM
Comment #396274

Speak, you’re not the liberal kook, in this case, when I was talking about my owning a gun.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 3:59 PM
Comment #396275

RF, I always refer to December 25th as Christmas. You watch and read to much right wing nonsense.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2015 3:59 PM
Comment #396276

ibid comment 396274 Speak

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 4:01 PM
Comment #396277

RF, well thank you for separating me from all of the other “kooks”, as you put it, in your life. Somehow it doesn’t make me understand your objections to responsible and good gun control legislation.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2015 4:02 PM
Comment #396278

It is not mandatory for you to be so polite to the kooks and crabs. Their may be some queers in that mix also.

Posted by: tom humes at July 2, 2015 4:04 PM
Comment #396279

For my conservative friends I provide a link to Brit Hume on the mendacity of Hillary Rotten Clinton.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 5:38 PM
Comment #396280

“During his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2005, then-Judge John Roberts emphasized his strong belief in judicial modesty. “Judges are like umpires,” Roberts famously said. “Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them.” If confirmed as chief justice, he promised, “I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

But it was no impartial umpire who authored last week’s 6-3 opinion in King v. Burwell, the Obamacare subsidy case. Far from applying the rules as enacted in the Affordable Care Act, the chief justice discounted those rules as the product of “inartful drafting,” passed by Congress without sufficient “care and deliberation.” The lawmakers’ substandard work product, he argued, freed the Supreme Court to disregard the statute’s plain language, construing it to mean the opposite of what it says.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 5:53 PM
Comment #396281

One of the lefties who comments regularly on WB writes often that we have the best economy ever under obamawan.

Yet, the participation rate, which indicates the share of the working-age population in the labor force, decreased to 62.6 percent, the lowest since October 1977, from 62.9 percent.

Wages are stagnant.

The country continues to run deficits in its budget.

More Americans than ever, in the history of the country, rely upon government handouts to survive.

Despite electing a half-black president, racism is rampant according to the left.

Recent approval of fast-track authority in trade negotiations for obama will most likely result in, to paraphrase Ross Perot, result in a another huge sucking sound of our jobs leaving the country.

Meanwhile our foreign policy isn’t working. Wars continue to wage around the world. The US has spied on our allies and little trust from them remains.

Stay tuned…more to come.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 6:38 PM
Comment #396282

“The US has also infuriated its allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf states, by what they perceive to be a lack of clear purpose and vacillation in how they conduct the bombing campaign. Other members of the coalition say they have identified clear Isil targets but then been blocked by US veto from firing at them.

“There is simply no strategic approach,” one senior Gulf official said. “There is a lack of coordination in selecting targets, and there is no overall plan for defeating Isil.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 6:45 PM
Comment #396284


Did you not notice that the Supreme Court Obamacare decision wasn’t even close?

The Court didn’t have to go through some form of mental gymnastics to reach their opinion. It is not unusual for the Court to construe the intent of Congress by reading a phrase at issue within the context of the entire Act. In fact, it is general practice. The Supreme Court doesn’t play little gotcha word games at the expense of major legislation.

Republicans should actually heave a big sigh of relief. “The court just saved the Republicans from themselves,” said insurance consultant Robert Laszewski…

Posted by: Rich at July 2, 2015 7:28 PM
Comment #396285

Rich, there are many examples of the SC having disregard for statute’s plain language. That’s no excuse, simply a symptom of judicial imprudence and a disservice to the nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 7:33 PM
Comment #396286

The people elect representatives to serve in congress. Congress is the only branch of government charged with making laws. The SC is charged with determining if those laws are constitutional when a challenge reaches them.

Now we find folks cheering when the will of congress is superseded by judges, not on a constitutional basic, but on perceived intent and meaning of a single word. Is that really where we want our Democratic Republic to drift?

Is the left so bankrupt in their thinking that they applaud justices making law?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2015 7:48 PM
Comment #396287


The Supreme Court is not simply there to determine if a law is Constitutional but also to decide all cases and controversies arising under the “…Laws of the United States…”

Many cases have nothing to do with the constitutionality of a federal law but the interpretation or application of a federal statute. A good example is the recent Hobby Lobby decision where the SC determined that a federal statute (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) trumped regulations of HHS requiring coverage for contraceptives. It wasn’t decided on Constitutional grounds.

In this case, there was no Constitutional question, just whether a federal statute only authorized subsidies to state run exchanges. It was never a question either way on Constitutional grounds. The SC simply determined what the intent of Congress was regarding subsidies based on a full reading of the statute. Nothing really new here.

Posted by: Rich at July 2, 2015 8:28 PM
Comment #396290

There is no question we are enjoying the best economy of the modern era.

Non-farm payroll for June: 223,000.

Unemployment rate: 5.3%

U-6: 10.5%
Guess you won’t cite that number anymore. You’re running out of statistics to pretend the economy is not doing well!

Wages do need to improve, but do you really want to go there? Because you’ll quickly find yourself on Occupy territory.

I don’t think racism is any more or less rampant that it used to be. We are just more aware of it, and it is being called out.

I actually agree about the trade legislation. It always sounds good, but it never turns out that way.

We’re doing fine with foreign policy. The US, in collaboration with major allies, is about to announce a deal with Iran to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and draw it into the international fold.

More Americans benefit from various programs? That is not surprising. There are more Americans now than seven years ago. However, I would agree that some should be dialed back.

When Obama came into office, he faced a trillion dollar deficit. The annual deficit has fallen every year he has been in office, and it will nearly be eliminated by the end of his second term. That is remarkable.

Posted by: phx8 at July 2, 2015 11:00 PM
Comment #396291

The deficit will be eliminated by the end of Obama’s second term? What have you been ingesting? The debt is so large it will take decades to eliminate. In fact with the present Congress and all administrations we will never be debt free.
So phx8 again you are wrong, totally wrong about this economic question.

Posted by: tom humes at July 2, 2015 11:54 PM
Comment #396295

Oh, why try, phx8? Even business analysts on FOX business news channel admit that the US economy has the strongest recovery of all western industrial nations with substantial reductions of deficit spending and an emerging sustainable alternative energy configuration.

The conservative response to this progress is not that it is bad or counterproductivee, but rather that it could be so much better if federal regulation was reduced and streamlined, Sort of like saying taht if the Obama administration would allow a more Laissez-faire approach toward regulations, there would be a massive surge of new and innovative products and services on the market, Take the chains off and see the economy really explode.

Unfortunately, it was the relaxing o regulations and oversight that got us into the worst crisis since the Great Depression. While there is a need for reformation of the regulatory schemed, we should proceed cautiously in this area.

Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2015 1:17 AM
Comment #396296

There are two strains of response amid the GOP to the good economy. The establishment wing says yeah, it’s ok, but it would do better if there were deregulation and privatization. The far right conservatives are in complete denial. This morning I caught the first few minutes of Rush Limbaugh. He reacted to the good unemployment numbers with disbelief. Everything is a conspiracy. The economy is actually terrible! We see some of this kind of denial on WB. Statistics that were never a problem in the past with a GOP President and Congress, such as deficits and debt, suddenly become terrible with Obama, even when the deficits are reduced every single year.

What it tells you is that the objections are mere partisanship. And that’s fine, but it causes a bigger problem, because when partisanship becomes the prime motivation, it leaves no consistent underlying principle to the far right conservative agenda, just reaction to Obama.

For example, it is pretty tough for the GOP to criticize stagnant wages and at the same time oppose unions, minimum wage increases, higher taxes, and redistribution of wealth from the 1% back down to the 99%. Calling for corporate tax cuts won’t cut the mustard.

tom humes,
The federal deficit is not the same as the national debt. The annual deficit is the difference between revenues and spending. The national debt is the overall result of annual deficits. The Obama administration will come close to eliminating the deficit, which means the national debt will stop growing.

Posted by: phx8 at July 3, 2015 2:35 AM
Comment #396298

Typical liberal approach. When someone is in debt, then don’t try to call it surplus or any other name or theory. I have heard this before from a number of folks on this site. It is so idiotic. But what should I expect.

Posted by: tom humes at July 3, 2015 10:05 AM
Comment #396302

By the way, as we near full employment- usually considered an unemployment rate of 4.7%- wages will start rising regardless of whether other changes are made. The slack will come out of the labor markets and the only way to attract quality employees will be offering more pay; in other words, it will become a seller’s market.

tom humes,
We will never eliminate the national debt because we need it in order to keep the bond markets operating, for us as well as the rest of the world. This was studied in the late 90’s when the economy was so good under the last Democratic administration, and it was determined at least $3 trillion in debt would be necessary to keep Treasuries functioning. Today the number might be even larger.

Posted by: phx8 at July 3, 2015 10:59 AM
Comment #396307

A liberals dream. Get the labor participation rate down to 58 percent and we will have zero unemployment.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 3, 2015 1:19 PM
Comment #396308

More chicanery from obama and company.

“What’s left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in U.S. diplomatic history.

How did it come to this? With every concession, Obama and Kerry made clear they were desperate for a deal.

And they will get it. Obama will get his “legacy.” Kerry will get his Nobel. And Iran will get the bomb.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 3, 2015 2:07 PM
Comment #396310

debt is a false concept for our economic system. You have been taught the wrong theory in whatever school you attended. Debt is why we have so many nervous markets going up and down and sideways. They are all unstable. In our lifetime there has never ever been a stable market. To some of you a stable market is a rising market. That is a false sense of security. That is why so many people are not progressing in their financials today. The wealthy play the game of short term debt only to reap the profits of that short term debt. I am talking 24 to 36 hours of debt. Not months and years. They collect enormous interest on those short term debts. On the street they call it loan sharking. I was once a loan shark dealer. It was illegal and still is. I never got caught, but I sure reaped in large interest payments. That was back in the 60’s. That same system is used today only because the perps wear shark skin suits and pay off the authorities, they get away with it.

Posted by: tom humes at July 3, 2015 4:24 PM
Comment #396313

How long has Krauthammer been wrong on Iran?

Here he is in 2006, saying pretty much the same thing:


And of course, who can ever forget Iraq? Krauthammer was a propagandist responsible for spreading lies about that:

“Time is running short. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He is working on nuclear weapons. And he has every incentive to pass them on to terrorists who will use them against us…”

Or not.

What I don’t get is how this guy keeps his job? One would think that at some point, his editor or readers would start to notice he keeps saying the same things and keeps being wrong. Not theoretically wrong. Not philosophically wrong. Wrong in terms of absolute facts. Wrong in reality. How does Krauthammer do it? How does he keep his job? Even if he were an Israeli agent, at some point you’d think the Israelis would notice he can’t possibly have any credibility with Americans. Can he? I dunno. Propaganda is supposed to be a little bit believable, isn’t it? Maybe Krauthammer has found the perfect audience- maybe he can have credibility with readers who have the collective memory of a gnat. Freakin’ incredible.

Posted by: phx8 at July 3, 2015 8:16 PM
Comment #396314

Could it be phx8 for the same reason the idiots on MSNBC keep theirs?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 3, 2015 8:56 PM
Comment #396318

Can you cite an example of someone at MSNBC who does what Krauthammer does? I can put together a montage of Krauthammer being wrong about Obamacare. Not just philosophical opposition. I mean completely, totally, factually wrong, where he predicts one thing, and it turns out to be fly in the face of what happens in reality.

About the only consistent thing with Krauthammer is his hatred of Obama. And that’s what FOX viewers like. It’s just irrational hatred. Facts don’t matter. What happens in reality doesn’t matter.

For example, with this latest jobs report we now have 64 consecutive months of private job growth. Not government jobs. Private jobs. Job creation in the private sector. An all-time record. You would think Republicans would be celebrating that; after all, it is a good thing for the country.

An all-time record.

See if you can show me where the GOP predicted this and approves of this.

Posted by: phx8 at July 3, 2015 11:40 PM
Comment #396320

Sharpton, Schultz, please phx8 stop with the I love Obama crap and his BS talking points and you can add Mathews to that list. MSNBC hates republicans and the 3 I listed don’t hide the fact either so go try to blow smoke up someone elses backside.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 3, 2015 11:59 PM
Comment #396324

Some of the MSNBC heads may not like conservatives, but can you cite an example where they get it wrong on an issue again and again and again? I’m not talking philosophy or controversies about whether a cop shot a guy in self-defense or not; I’m talking about predicting something the way Krauthammer does, and then getting it completely, utterly wrong, and then continuing to predict the same thing!

Krauthammer does this with Iran and nukes and he has been doing it for years. His record on Iraq is absolutely atrocious. He was one of the chief propagandists and cheerleaders for one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history.

There is simply no equivalent among liberals.

Krauthammer isn’t the only one, by the way, but for some strange reason, some conservatives continue to cite him as an expert. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.

Posted by: phx8 at July 4, 2015 11:33 AM
Comment #396325

phx8, I could care less if Krauthammer gets his predictions wrong or not, You are now crabbing about some commentator that is NOT a Seerer. Get a life if that is the only thing you can find to BI**H about. There are more pressing issues in this country then having issues with a news commentator that gets his/her predictions wrong. I could give a crap less if FOX, MSNBC, CNN and any other media outlet tells stories that are false and misleading. I use the internet. So if that is all you can find to BI**H about is one commentator, IMO you need to get a life.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 4, 2015 12:22 PM
Comment #396334

Would the writer above, who derides what Charles Krauthammer wrote in the link I provided regarding dealing with Iran please tell us what exactly is incorrect in what he wrote?

I read the news on the dealings with Iran every day from many sources. What is not factual in Krauthammer’s writing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 4, 2015 5:53 PM
Comment #396337


I am not going to be an apologist for Iran but some perspective and balance is needed.

Contrary to Krauthammer’s assertion, Iran is not the greatest terrorist threat to the US, Middle East or Europe. That dubious honor goes to the Sunni fundamentalists following the Wahabi Sunni Islamic fundamentalism emanating from Saudi Arabia. ISIL and al-Qaeda are Sunni not the Shia of Iran. The 9/11 terrorists came principally from Saudi Arabia. None came from Iran or were from the Shia sect. So, lets get a little perspective on who the real Islamist nut jobs are.

Iran is at least a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and subject to IAEA inspections. We should remember that Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea never signed the agreement or withdrew (North Korea). All have nuclear weapons which were developed in complete secrecy. We should also remember that it was the US that encouraged and funded the initial nuclear reactors in Iran as a means of conserving Iranian domestic oil use and making more oil available for export.

While Krauthammer is correct that the sanctions have been very effective, he doesn’t seem to recognize that the Iranians have responded by electing a more moderate regime and are now willing to negotiate a substantial reduction in their dual use nuclear programs with inspection protocols.

While, I would agree that Iran may not be completely forthcoming about their past or current intentions with their nuclear programs, this agreement significantly delays development of weapons and has the potential of bringing a more moderate Iran into the international community. It is undeniable progress.

I also believe that it is in the interests of the US for a balancing of Islamic powers in the Middle East. Frankly, the Sunni powers (Saudi Arabia) are a powder keg of virulent Islamic fundamentalism. ISIL and al-Qaeda are a far greater threat to the US and Europe than the Shia of Iran. It would be a complete nightmare for the Sunni ISIL to succeed in the Middle East, particularly if they gain political control of Saudi Arabia, their religious center.

Posted by: Rich at July 4, 2015 8:59 PM
Comment #396339
While Krauthammer is correct that the sanctions have been very effective…

Krauthammer also makes the fatal flaw of forgetting that the sanctions are only effective due to the compliance of Russia and China. Now that Iran has elected new leadership, both of these nations are chomping at the bit at the prospect of rolling back the sanctions. Unfortunately, the US has zero leverage of Russia and China right now so we are playing with a very weak hand. We will be very fortunate to get an agreement that significantly delays the Iranian atomic bomb; otherwise, we might be facing a unilateral reestablishment of trade by Russia/China. In that case, we’d be looking at the prospect of greeting an Iranian nuclear weapon in months rather than years.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 5, 2015 12:19 AM
Comment #396342

The Iranians “are now willing to negotiate a substantial reduction in their dual use nuclear programs with inspection protocols.”

That is the goal…we will have to wait and see if it happens.
Any curtailment in complete and impromptu inspections will be a failure in the goal of containment.

No existing sanctions against Iran should be lifted until an acceptable agreement is signed and approved by congress.

“Unfortunately, the US has zero leverage of Russia and China right now so we are playing with a very weak hand.”

Totally untrue. The “weak hand” is obama.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 5, 2015 3:19 PM
Comment #396343

Kerry urges Iran to make ‘hard choices’, says U.S. ready to walk

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, a Republican, told the CBS “Face the Nation” programme he had urged Kerry to “make sure these last remaining red lines that haven’t been crossed - they have crossed so many - do not get crossed”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 5, 2015 4:44 PM
Comment #396344

What power does Obama have to compel Russia and China to sanction trade with Iran?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 5, 2015 5:21 PM
Comment #396357

No American president can “compel” any country to do anything except in war time (if we’re winning).

An American president with good advisers, (not rubber-stampers) can offer carrots and sticks to persuade countries to agree with American foreign policy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 6, 2015 1:30 PM
Comment #396359

This is interesting.

“After exploding earlier in the year because of deregulation, China’s benchmark Shanghai Composite has collapsed 29% since the highs of early June. China’s other stock markets have had similarly steep falls.

Bloomberg notes that the crisis is closely mirroring the 1929 Wall Street crash, which led to the Great Depression in the US in the 1930s.

China’s government is now also using the same tactics as Wall Street did back then to try to prop up the markets.

Over the weekend China’s top stock brokerages pledged that they would collectively buy at least 120 billion yuan (£12.3 billion, $19.3 billion) of shares to help steady the market, with backing from the People’s Bank of China.

The central bank is effectively becoming the buyer of last resort, printing money to buy up shares and prop up prices.

In 1929, Wall Street’s banks did something similar. JPMorgan and several other top financial firms agreed to pool resources and buy up shares to put a floor under prices. It happened after a drop of about 30% for the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

The effort by the US banking systems had only the briefest of effects on the index, and America was eventually plunged into the Great Depression.

It’s too early to tell whether China’s latest move will work.”

David Mitchell, C.E.O. NeUventure on Wall Street

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 6, 2015 1:35 PM
Comment #396366
An American president with good advisers, (not rubber-stampers) can offer carrots and sticks to persuade countries to agree with American foreign policy.

Which is precisely what Obama, Kerry and the rest are doing right now. If the deal falls through (which is looking increasingly likely), it is vital to our interests that China & Russia are persuaded to blame Iranian intransigence rather than American arrogance for the fallout. This is why we aren’t making stupid demands like Rubio’s idea that we force Iran to recognize Israel or stop funding Assad. Those are important issues and the nuclear issue does have implications for them, but they are not directly related to the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 6, 2015 3:12 PM
Comment #396369

Warren, get your story straight. You wrote that obama had no power.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 6, 2015 3:25 PM
Comment #396371

Here’s an interesting story.

Former CNN Reporter Duo Shoots, Kills Armed Robber

“The armed suspect’s behavior became erratic and violent, and he told them he wanted the man’s briefcase. When they tried to explain that there was nothing of value in it, the man lunged at Chuck, went to the other side of the bed and opened fire. Chuck returned fire, emptied the first handgun, got a hold of the other gun and shot the man several times. The armed burglar was found in the parking lot, and he later died in the hospital. Chuck was shot three times, but is expected to recover in the hospital.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 6, 2015 4:30 PM
Comment #396372

Why Are We Treating Iran as a Great Power?

“…what are the long-term consequences of the great powers of the world treating the Islamic Republic of Iran as if it were a major world power — which it manifestly is not?”

Very good article from Huffington partner World Post

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 6, 2015 5:27 PM
Comment #396374

Carrots & Sticks do not equal power. As you wrote, power only comes in war time when negotiating an adversary’s surrender.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 6, 2015 7:24 PM
Comment #396375

Obama & Kerry’s goal right now is to make sure Iran shoulders the blame if the deal collapses. By making Iran look bad, we can persuade Russia & China to hold firm on their sanctions. What we cannot do is cause the deal to fail by making stupid demands like Marco Rubio. That will make it look like we are more interested in American hegemony over the Middle East than in preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 6, 2015 7:33 PM
Comment #396376

As you wrote, power only comes in war time when negotiating an adversary’s surrender.
Posted by: Warren Porter at July 6, 2015 7:24 PM

What I wrote was; “No American president can “compel” any country to do anything except in war time (if we’re winning).”

Rubio has nothing to do with the negotiations Warren. The UN SC sanctions should not be lifted until Iran meets the terms of all our partners.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 6, 2015 7:48 PM
Comment #396379

Obama and Kerry’s goal right now is to make sure news of Iranian advancement on nuclear weapons doesn’t come out until after the 2016 elections.

Posted by: kctim at July 7, 2015 9:37 AM
Post a comment