And, Meanwhile, the World Burns Down

We’ve got stories that Venezuela’s government is importing Cuban mercenaries to suppress revolution while the President of Ukraine has fled Kiev.  Elsewhere, Syria is still a blood bath, the Taliban are poised to return to power in Afghanistan five minutes after we leave and the war clouds continue to grow in the Asia-Pacific theater.

Just when do we start to get some of that “smart diplomacy” that Obama promised?

Here’s the thing – if you ever wondered what would happen if American power were removed from the scene, here ya go.  This is what a post-American world looks like.  To put it bluntly, as the smoke cleared over the radioactive rubble of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world became peaceful only in so far as America prevented war.  Through nearly four years of global battle and at high cost in blood and treasure, the United States emerged in 1945 as both the arbiter of the world and its guarantor of peace.  All the UN organizations; all the international talk-shops; all the treaties and discussions and agreements and alliances – all were completely pointless except that the United States stood behind them.  No one on this earth then (or even now, actually) wanted to ever fight us, again, in a general war.  Small wars on the side could be managed, but no one ever wanted to re-awaken the Sleeping Giant.  To do so was national suicide.  As long as our power was there as a standing threat, everything could be kept under control.

Take America out of the equation and very quickly everything would fall apart.

And so it has, because we are out of the equation.  While our power is intact, the President of the United States refuses to use it and the world knows he will not.  This is because Obama – that child of modern American indoctrination dressed up as education – believes absolutely that the problems the world has had since 1945 were caused by us, rather than kept from getting out of hand by us.  Obama was told in school that if there was a war or oppression some where, then it was because the United States did it – he never learned that the war or oppression was kept from becoming completely horrific simply because we were there, and at will could utterly destroy whomever was making war or causing oppression.  The world now knows that no matter what anyone does, Obama simply will not do anything about it – and so it just goes from bad to worse out there.  Believe it or not, people can be downright evil – they don’t have to be forced to be evil by a clever CIA plot.  I know this will simply stagger our liberals, but its just one of those hard facts of life.

The world is in more danger of a long, general war than at any time since the 1930’s.  We’ll see how it comes out.  Hopefully we can keep out of any war until at least January 20th, 2017 because more fearful than Obama refusing to use American power would be having that man use American power…it would be like giving a machine gun to a drunk.  We’ll have to rebuild all this after Obama is gone – pray it doesn’t take another world war to do it.

42 thoughts on “And, Meanwhile, the World Burns Down

  1. Amazona February 22, 2014 / 9:03 pm

    This is about a different kind of “burning down”.

    There has been a lot of bickering about Common Core, usually with opponents being trashed as knuckle-dragging primitives who simply lack the intellect to recognize the merits of this wonderful program.

    The other day I was listening to a Denver radio show which featured a woman who has been trying to get the Colorado legislature to at least postpone ruling on Common Core until it has been more thoroughly examined. She read parts of a book which is required reading in this program, “The Bluest Eye” (if I remember correctly). She described it as filth and from what I heard her read I cannot disagree. It is, according to one description, intended to let us develop understanding of the sexual drive of a pedophile. It focuses, in graphic language, on explicit sex scenes,many of which involve rape of young girls.

    Evidently one school district refused to make this required reading—something about not wanting to force 14-year-olds to read pornography, I believe—-and the ACLU stepped in. You’ll never guess how they defended this book. Yep—-objecting to it is “racist”.

    There’s a lot to say about this. Check it out. And remember, this is only one small part of the disaster that is Common Core.

    • Retired Spook February 23, 2014 / 10:51 am

      If you can believe people like Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush, and I’m not all that certain that you can, Common Core started out as a noble effort by state governors to establish national educational standards. The problem results from the program being hijacked by a combination of federal bureaucracies and private money like the Gates Foundation, with a goal that seems to be more in line with producing good little worker drones than about education. On top of that, the push-the-social-norm crowd latched on, which is where books like “The Bluest Eye” come from. The feds got involved very early on, and promised lots of “federal” money to states who signed up, literally before an outline was even written about the program, and 40+ states signed up without even knowing any details. Now a number of states, Indiana included, are having second thoughts. I just hope it’s not too late to reverse course.

      • Cluster February 23, 2014 / 11:03 am

        I anyone has any questions as to what our educational system is instructing, I think the following should put those questions to rest:

        “If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?”

        Got that? If any research or opinion counters that of the progressive agenda, it shouldn’t be allowed.

      • Amazona February 23, 2014 / 11:12 am

        Common Core has a lot in common with Obamacare.

        1. It is based on an idea that is not necessarily bad: Whether the idea is that everyone ought to be able to get good health care or that every child ought to get a good education, the central idea is benign and even positive.
        2. Once the basic idea is accepted, the government gets itself involved, and takes over
        3. “The government” in its current incarnation is so wildly, radically, Left-wing that its involvement quickly changes the first, central, idea into a twisted, malignant thing with a primary goal of increasing federal power and authority, not the original concept
        4. The contents of the mutated version are no longer related to the original concept so much as they reflect social values and agendas of the RRL
        5.. The efforts to push through the mutated version of the original concept are based on so many lies that a reasonable person has to ask, if this is truly such a good thing, why does it have to be cloaked in so many layers of deception?
        6. There are frantic efforts to push this program through without careful examination and evaluation—-a slightly modified “You have to pass it to see what’s in it” approach.

        So we have a plan which claims to have a goal of increasing proficiency in mathematics, but which math teachers decry as unworkable. The word constantly used by CC advocates is “rigor”—-the implication being that the courses will rigorously demand a higher level of learning—when some of them, like math, are merely untested theories which experts think ridiculous, and others, such as mandatory reading of pornography, are simply perverse.

        “The Bluest Eye” is an example of this. It claims to be mandatory reading because it will expose children to the thought processes of pedophiles, as well as black culture. There is no defense for the sexually graphic nature of the book, its detailed descriptions of various sex acts including rape of a minor. There is no explanation about why a 14-year-old should be exposed to graphic and detailed accounts of sexual arousal and sex acts. There is no explanation of why anyone would find it a good thing to “understand the mind of a pedophile”. There is no explanation of why being subjected to this kind of filth will help a child understand and relate to black culture. Is Common Core claiming that one has to understand the mind of a black pedophile to understand black culture? Is Common Core actually linking sexual perversion and rape of minors to “black culture”? Really ????

        Why, if this Common Core thing is really so great, does it have to depend on lies, and be pushed through state legislatures without review? Why, if it is so wonderful, do states have to bribed with federal tax money—–that is, your money and mine—–to adopt it?

      • Retired Spook February 23, 2014 / 11:17 am

        Got that? If any research or opinion counters that of the progressive agenda, it shouldn’t be allowed.

        Cluster, sunlight is the best disinfectant for rid ourselves of these ideological cockroaches. Fortunately the Internet is still a relatively free forum, and I do think large numbers of ordinary people who were never concerned with such things are beginning to sit up and pay attention. And I still maintain that people like the woman whose quote you highlighted will be found hiding under the bed if they’re ever put in a position of having to physically defend their ideas.

      • Amazona February 23, 2014 / 11:49 am

        Cluster and Spook, what jumped out at me in this quote was not the standard Left-wing response to dissent, which is to destroy it, but the bland assumption that if someone does not agree with the METHOD for opposing “… racism, sexism, and heterosexism..” then this means he is in favor of it.

        Look at what she says: “…“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals…”

        These 20 words sum up much of the Leftist world view. First, it is only “our university community” which opposes these things—-the smug assumption of moral superiority, the claim to the Higher Moral Ground which can only be occupied by people with a lockstep acceptance of Leftist policies. Second, it is that if you do not have the exact same approach to the goal of solving problems, you “counter (the) goals” of solving those problems.

        I think this second thing lies at the heart of the divide between the average unexamined Liberal and the conservative mind. The average unexamined Liberal has been convinced, through careful and cunning propaganda, that if someone does not support the Liberal approach to, for example, providing health care to the needy, that someone simply does not care if people die in the streets. And so on.

        Few things baffle a Liberal more than agreeing with a goal, and then pointing out that there is more than one way to accomplish that goal, and that other ways are also compliant with the wording and intent of our Constitution. Huh?

        But there is a huge comfort level associated with the either/or paradigm. It is quite satisfying to latch onto a general idea that might, in itself, be quite admirable, and then to set up qualifiers for being admitted to the club that wants this goal to be achieved. So if you don’t agree with the stated approach to solving the problem, this really means you are indifferent to the problem. Or, worse yet, that you approve of the problem. That keeps membership in the club limited to those who never question the dogma, and lets those who accept the dogma lay claim to membership in an exclusive club of morally superior beings.

        I think this is really the underlying assumed, but unexamined, emotional basis for much of the average Dem voter’s resistance to conservatism.

      • Cluster February 23, 2014 / 12:14 pm

        the smug assumption of moral superiority,

        And that statement right there summarizes the liberal mindset, and defines the challenge we face.

      • Retired Spook February 23, 2014 / 12:33 pm

        But there is a huge comfort level associated with the either/or paradigm. It is quite satisfying to latch onto a general idea that might, in itself, be quite admirable, and then to set up qualifiers for being admitted to the club that wants this goal to be achieved.

        I devoted an entire post to that very subject a couple years ago. Interesting to go back and read some of the comments.

      • Amazona February 23, 2014 / 1:39 pm

        Cluster, it is not just the “liberal mindset”. It has a lot of traction on the Right, too. People on both sides want government to validate their own sense of moral superiority and to use the force of government to enforce that definition of moral superiority on others.

        Once either side says “I am more moral than you” there is no common ground regarding how best to govern the country. Once either side says “Your position makes you morally inferior” there is no way those people are going to be interested in talking to each other about things like how to accomplish admirable goals within the restraints of the Constitution.

      • Cluster February 26, 2014 / 9:03 am

        Once either side says “I am more moral than you” there is no common ground regarding how best to govern the country.

        Really well said. And that has been the wedge issue liberals have used so effectively over the past few years.

      • dbschmidt February 23, 2014 / 9:09 pm

        In a different version of your Progressive play on words comes:

        Retired U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens would like to see five words added to Constitution’s Second Amendment, the result of which would be to destroy its intent, and turn the “right to bear arms” into a mere catchphrase lacking meaning.

        Changing, in his opinion, 1 of 6 Constitutional amendments from;

        A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        To [his] suggested the inclusion of five words for clarification, with the “new and improved” Second Amendment reading:

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

        Now, I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, like our President; however, if I understand the Constitution correctly—everyone that is not in the military is the militia. Sure, they have age and other limits well defined but that never stopped a 14-year old boy, nor a 74-year old patron from making distinguishing marks during the first revolution—nor will it now.

        Just my $0.02 cents worth (before taxes),


      • Retired Spook February 23, 2014 / 11:16 pm

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

        Former Justice Stevens should be careful what he wishes for, but it’s typical of the static thinking of Liberals. I can’t think of a better way to re-establish the state militia structure than to make gun ownership contingent on being a member of the militia.

      • M. Noonan February 24, 2014 / 2:32 am

        Another website – I think Ace of Spades – pointed out that under US law all adults 18 to 45 who are not in the National Guard are in the Militia (this is a long term legal fact which dates from the original Militia Act of 1792)…so, if he gets his way, it’ll just legally force everyone 18 to 45 to buy a military-style weapon. Liberals (a) don’t think and (b) just don’t know jack about what is going on…

      • Amazona February 24, 2014 / 2:45 am

        “..Now, I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, like our President..”

        That’s OK—neither is he.

      • Amazona February 26, 2014 / 11:25 am

        My uber-Left cousin was here for a few days so I got to practice some of what we have been talking about. She is quite hung up on the rich/poor thing, always has been, so I avoided that for the time being. She seems quite enamored of the ACA, so I tried out the concept that we as Americans can do whatever we want, as long as we do it within Constitutional boundaries, and the discussion went quite naturally into the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government, the 10th Amendment, and then I quoted only one Founder, who said that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to engage in charity. She was completely surprised to hear any of this, and it did not get her back up. She looked thoughtful and said she had not heard any of this and was going to look it up. I offered to send her links and quotes and she said thank you, she wants to study on this.

        I then went to the idea that One Size Does Not Fit All and that a community is far better suited to know how to distribute charity when it is needed. She and I grew up in the same little farming community so we had a local reference, a man who was a sluggard and a drunk who just refused to work, and a woman with six children whose husband died in an accident. So we could talk quite openly about how a federal government, off in DC and staffed with bureaucrats, would see both cases as the same, as people in need, while local administration would understand the difference.

        I didn’t push things, just responded when she brought things up, but it was productive, and when she left she commented that while we are very different in our ideas, we could talk about them.

        It was an interesting experiment, and I am going to see how my other approaches work with her. As she was getting ready to leave I said something about people voting just on issues and she said her late mother was a single-issue voter, voted exclusively on abortion. I just said that abortion should be a state-decided issue, and in any case people need to realize they are not voting for an issue, like gay marriage, they are voting for the political system that either supports the issue or hides behind it to get votes. She looked a little surprised at that concept and then said “We need to talk more”.

        I have referred to her here, over the years, as my poster child for the irrational Left, so this was quite an educational visit, I think for both of us. What it told me is that after many years of contentious debate, all of which devolved into sheer emotion on her part when her ideas feelings were challenged, it was pretty amazing to have long and cordial and mutually respectful discussions in which my position was stated and accepted without fireworks. Not “accepted” as in “agreed with” but “accepted” as in worth thinking about and looking into.

        If she can be brought around to the understanding that at the federal level the issues that matter so much to her are not within the scope of authority of her Senators, Representatives, President or Vice President, but that at this level her basic decision is whether or not she wants the country run according to its constitution, I think anyone can.

      • Amazona February 26, 2014 / 11:45 am

        db, regarding your post on the suggested mangling of the 2nd Amendment, I have a couple of other revisions the former justice would probably also like to see.

        1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” should no doubt be changed to:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof EXCEPT WHEN SUCH EXERCISE OFFENDS THE COLLECTIVE, or abridging the freedom of speech AS LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHAT IS ALLOWED, or of the press WHEN ITS POSITIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO GOVERNMENT, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble WHEN ASSEMBLIES ARE APPROVED BY GOVERNMENT, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

        And that pesky 10th Amendment can be “fixed”, too:

        “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” can easily be fixed, to read:

        “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution MAY BE ASSUMED TO BE ALLOWED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED, WHILE LIMITED POWERS are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

        That is, to comply with the way the government is run today. Don’t change government to fit the law, change the law to fit the government.

      • Retired Spook February 26, 2014 / 1:58 pm


        Your conversation with you cousin is encouraging. I hope millions of similar conversations are taking place all around the country. I think, at the end of the day, even Liberals want to leave a better world for their children and many, from both sides of the political/ideological aisle are coming to the realization that ours will likely be the first generation to not achieve that goal unless we change courses.

      • Amazona February 26, 2014 / 3:03 pm

        Spook, I wish I had touched more directly on the concept that most differences are not differences of goals but just differences in how to achieve them. The Left has been brilliant in its strategy to Divide and Conquer by convincing people that if we do not like their approach to a problem we are indifferent to the problem. Once people understand that the goals are the same—to provide that “safety net”, to make sure people have access to health care, etc.—it is a lot easier to talk about the best way to make it happen.

        At this point the other person has to pretty much make a decision—to be governed by the restrictions of the Constitution, or to toss it in the garbage. And I think that most Americans, at least those over 35 or so, still have an instinctive respect for the Constitution, at least for the idea of the Constitution, and it is hard to come to the point of a decision like that and just say “to hell with the Constitution, I want this and I don’t care what it takes to make it happen”.

        My cousin did not know that in Colorado, there has been a plan in place for years, guaranteeing health insurance to people who have been turned down. As a Coloradan, I have no problem in subsidizing this kind of plan. Here we can check off a box on our gas bills to agree to donate a dollar or so from each bill to help pay heating bills for those who can’t afford it. I am fine with that. There are so many solutions to problems, but the best solutions tend to be the individual ones, tailored to individual problems.

        One thing my cousin did immediately agree with is the concept that every time a dollar passes through any hands, part of it sticks to those hands. So a federal program, with its own agencies and bureaus and offices, will mean more of those sticky fingers to nibble away at those dollars, so by the time they get to the intended recipients they are pretty diminished.

  2. Jeremiah February 22, 2014 / 9:19 pm

    We need to do like Ukraine and demand Obubba step down.
    Good to see Lenin come down.
    During my lifetime I’ve gotten to see two statues of dictators come down — Saddam and Lenin, and of course, the tearing down of the Iron curtain in east/west Germany. If anyone can think of any others, feel free to list them. I think it is an awesome thing to see dictators dethroned! Where, however, is America’s resolve to have change in Washington?
    I think we as Americans need to do like Kiev and demand Obubba step down.

  3. bardolf2 February 23, 2014 / 1:06 am

    Ukraine will now fall into the realm of Europe and not of Putin’s Russia or what normal people would call a good thing. The socialist government in Venezuela is facing serious opposition by people in the street or what normal people would call a good thing. Syria got rid of its chemical weapons or what normal people would call a good thing. As long as humanitarian aid is allowed to prevent starvation there is a chance that Syria may be at the bottom of the well, ready to start the climb up. Americans not dying in Afghanistan and a defanged Taliban will still have popular support, I’m going to call that a win for the US.

    Here’s my yardstick for smart diplomacy. In 2015 The US will be the world’s largest oil producer. A big suck it to the middle east as nuclear/solar/natural gas makes the US energy independent. With technology making outsourcing less lucrative, the US can move towards manufacturing independence. With the most powerful military in the world already and drones keeping US soldiers more and more out of harms way, it looks like the US is in a position to lead the world into a peaceful flowering of make/mine/build/do it yourself activity like never before.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 23, 2014 / 9:44 am


      Predicting the future is a fool’s errand. I certainly hope you’re right, and I will be pleasantly surprised if you are, particularly on Ukraine, Syria and the Taliban being de-fanged. I haven’t followed the events in Venezuela, but there’s considerable consensus that Ukraine will eventually fall back under Russian control. Syria has only destroyed something like 4% of it’s chemical weapons, and the Taliban is poised to regain power in Afghanistan as soon as we leave. I don’t think we’ll have to wait too long to see who’s right — certainly by this time next year.

    • Amazona February 23, 2014 / 12:10 pm

      “The socialist government in Venezuela is facing serious opposition by people in the street…”
      but “…Venezuela’s government is importing Cuban mercenaries to suppress revolution.”

      Unless the “people in the streets” are as well trained and armed as professional military personnel, their “opposition” is likely to end badly for them. Not a good thing.

      “…Syria got rid of its chemical weapons…”
      Well, less than ten percent of them. If we only had a mathematics professor here to explain that this means they still have more than 90% of those chemical weapons. Oh, well, I think we can agree that a Syria armed with chemical weapons is not a good thing. And Syria IS still armed with chemical weapons.

      “….a defanged Taliban..”
      Hmmm. “defanged”? Not hardly. The Taliban kept its hold on Afghanistan even while we were there—not sure how leaving it to them will result in pulling their teeth.

      ” In 2015 The US will be the world’s largest oil producer.”
      Well, not “the world’s largest”, though pretty substantial. It will take removing federal interference to give the Unites States a chance to become “…the world’s largest oil producer”. Slash the imperial rulings that give the EPA unlimited power, remove the federal roadblocks to leases on public lands, and we will see how that develops. In the meantime, we still have to deal with Leftist propaganda attacks on the petroleum industry, such as buses in Denver being plastered with huge signs about fracking contributing to climate change.

      That “peaceful flowering” sounds so Flower-Child-putting a-daisy-in-the-barrel-of-a-gun precious, but Mark is right, it has been the awareness that a powerful entity existed which would step in to protect the abused that has kept a lot of abuse from happening. That will not be accomplished by suggesting that if you go to San Francisco be sure to put flowers in your hair. Yes, a peaceful flowering of economic prosperity for everyone is a wonderful goal. We just have to remember that it has to be backed by authority.

      • bardolf2 February 23, 2014 / 11:34 pm

        “The U.S. will surpass Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s top oil producer by 2015, and be close to energy self-sufficiency in the next two decades, amid booming output from shale formations, the IEA said.”

        CNN is asking whether the Socialist government of Venezuela can survive. Short term Cuban mercenaries will stop the movement. Short term growth pains.

        Syria will be getting rid of their weapons within the year. A complex situation to be sure, but not getting worse.

        The Taliban is defanged as far as a danger to the US. Don’t care about Afghanistan all that much.

      • M. Noonan February 24, 2014 / 2:30 am

        Glad you’ve got your whistling past the graveyard practice all done…and the Fed will keep stocks high forever!

      • Amazona February 24, 2014 / 2:41 am

        Thank you, dolf, for filling out your commentary.

        Gee, if I had known Bloomberg said we would be the world’s leading oil producer in just a year or so, I fer shure would have taken it much more seriously. That’s going to be quite an achievement with about half of the oil reserves in federal lockdown. Does Bloomberg predict an EPA change of heart as well? Less anti-fracking pressure? You and Bloomberg do realize, don’t you, that getting oil and gas from shale depends on fracking, which is under fire from the EPA and being threatened by every crackpot environazi group in the country.

        If CNN is asking a question, guess that means they know the answer, eh? You seem to.

        So you know that Syria is going to give up its chemical weapons, do you? Good to know. Evidently they just don’t like being told what to do, but once the pressure is off they will come through and do the right thing.

        And when you say the Taliban is “defanged” you only mean regarding its threat to the US. You kind of left that out before. What is the source for this analysis of the intentions and abilities of the Taliban?

        Mark, I think “whistling past the graveyard” is far too kind a description of dolf’s wish list.

  4. Retired Spook February 26, 2014 / 3:03 pm

    Some interesting questions raised on Rush’s show today. If religious freedom ends at the church door or in your home, and government can force a business to perform a service that is contrary to the owner’s religious beliefs; can the government also force a doctor to perform an abortion?

    And, what would be the outcome if a member of the KKK asked a black baker to bake a wedding cake for him?

    Is it clear yet that we’re headed down a veeeeeeeery slippery slope?

    • Amazona February 26, 2014 / 3:41 pm

      I heard part of the show, and the part I heard mentioned the concept that freedom of religion does not stop at your door, or at your church, but it also addressed the new theme of American law, which is that it is wholly discretionary.

      We have, in a few short years, tumbled down from being a nation of law to a nation in which the Executive Branch of the Federal Government not only picks and chooses which properly legislated laws to enforce, it makes its own laws without benefit of legislation, and it further instructs others that they, too, can pick and choose which laws they feel like following.

      This is hard on the heels of the regression of the nation into a tribal structure in which any one tribe is encouraged by government to hate and strike out at those in other tribes, a nation in which demographics define us, not our citizenship. We now have laws which apply to some and not to others, dependent for now on skin color and ethnicity but this being a slippery slope it can quickly shift to pretty much any criterion of the moment. As a matter of fact, religious identity has become one of the areas in which different rules apply to different religions.

      We struggled to become a colorblind nation, a place where people are judged by their character and not the color of their skin, and in half a decade we have regressed to one of racial disharmony, distrust, and being on the brink of racial warfare—-all fomented and encouraged by our own government.

      We were established, and once flourished, as a nation of opportunity, and have quickly eroded into a nation of class hatred which punishes success, demonizes the productive, and pushes people into slavish dependency.

    • 02casper February 26, 2014 / 10:32 pm

      “And, what would be the outcome if a member of the KKK asked a black baker to bake a wedding cake for him?”

      I can’t imagine a case in which a KKK member would want a cake from a black baker.

      • Amazona February 26, 2014 / 11:23 pm

        Well, I guess that settles that!

        Nice advancement of the discourse, there, Speed Bump!

      • Cluster February 27, 2014 / 8:06 am

        LOL. Liberals are always so resolute in their worldview, and if it doesn’t turn out their way, well then it’s republican obstructionism or just fabricated lies – much how Harry Reid blamed cancer victims for lying about their personal experiences with Obamacare.

    • M. Noonan February 27, 2014 / 2:53 am

      Looking further in to the law (now veto’d), it actually is unremarkable – just attempts to codify the ability of the citizen to refuse service and then be protected from punishment unless the State can show a very strong reason it should be otherwise. The left dressed it up as “Jim Crow” revived and managed to win this round of the debate, but the fact is that lots of States already have this law on the books – including Arizona (this appears to have been a refresher in light of liberal fascist attempts to force people to participate in same-sex marriages).

      My view is that unless you can show me that you are endowed by our Creator with the right to force me to do a thing for you, then I don’t have to do it.

      • Amazona February 27, 2014 / 11:09 am

        I am outraged (yes, it’s time to take on the word that has been owned by the Left for so long) at the bullying of Arizona in this matter. I am particularly ticked off at the NFL.

        Since when is it any of their damned business how a state legislates? People have been remarkably silent on this blatant use of the NFL —–and by extension of all football fans—-to intimidate a state official into doing something that is entirely unconnected to football.

        Little-known fact: The TV show “Frasier” was supposed to be set in Denver, but it was moved at the last minute to Seattle because Colorado failed to pass a law giving special status to homosexuals. In LeftSpeak, failing to give special status to a group, stating that they will be treated exactly the same as any other group, is “discrimination” and MUST BE PUNISHED. This hysterical overreaction came out of Hollyweird, so it is kind of expected, but it is typical of the tactics of the Left.

        Now we have the NFL trying the same crap. They are pretty sure no one is going to boycott their precious Super Bowl, so they feel quite confident in wielding the power of OPM, or the benefits of having the Super Bowl in Arizona, to bully and intimidate. They know that football trumps integrity so they know people will watch their games no matter how much they take on the identity of jack-booted thugs determined to force their own opinions on others. People might stop watching Duck Dynasty in protest, but they aren’t going to give up their football. That would require backbones and a commitment to the rights of the people. Ain’t gonna happen, so the NFL can trample on people with impunity.

        How far does this nation have to go down the rabbit hole before we start to realize how close we are to losing every right to self-governance? Arizona is just first in line, pummeled over and over by bullies determined to interfere in her Constitutional right to state sovereignty, first by the Executive Branch of the federal government and now by a bunch of bully-boys using power they have appropriated from their real jobs in sports.

      • Amazona February 27, 2014 / 12:07 pm

        But it is not just the NFL. There is pressure on all sports organizations and other corporations to attack Arizona:

        “Asked if the NFL should suspend Cardinals home games if the bill becomes law, Davis said, “I don’t know. I would hope that they would.”

        “But I think that we also have to do a good job of not just pointing the finger at the NFL,” he said. “There’s a baseball team there. There’s a basketball team there. There are corporations there. We should put pressure on Coke and Pepsi and everyone and not just expect the NFL, as one separate entity, to do all the heavy lifting.”

        The article goes on, and on, and on, and touches on the need to see homosexuals as people, just like us. This is pretty funny, as they are going so far out of their way to make sure we see them not just as people, but as shrill strident wall-kicking hysterics who want to force people to do things that violate their religious beliefs and who want to use the economic power of corporations as the army behind them.

        I have known and cared for many people in my life who were people first and only secondarily to me were they homosexual. It has never been an issue for me. Now it is becoming an issue, now I want to fight back, because now it is not about being accepted, it is about ramming a radical agenda down the throats of America, and it is about denying people their basic rights to live their religious beliefs and to vote for their own laws.

        In a perfect world, Arizona would tell the NFL to take their game and shove it, and Americans would boycott professional football for a year to make the point that this is a GAME supported by us, and not a political action group. I’d let Coke and Pepsi and every other entity mentioned as potential bullies register the fact that Americans don’t take kindly to strongarm tactics and they had better shut up and stick to what they do—-sports or soft drinks or whatever.

        I am concerned when I see corporations fall into lockstep with radical political agendas and then try to use the power they have, the money and the dependence of the populace on their products, to ramrod those agendas down the throats of the people. I prefer to have business and politics separate, and find this newly blatant partnership disturbing. I particularly note that this merging of the political and the corporate seems to exist, or at least flourish, when a radically Leftist government is in power.

    • Cluster February 27, 2014 / 8:28 am

      Would the government force a Muslim baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

      • Retired Spook February 27, 2014 / 10:28 am

        I would guess that Casper would say yes.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 27, 2014 / 11:15 am

        If the government can force a Christian to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, why would they not be able to force a Muslim to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple?

      • Amazona February 27, 2014 / 12:12 pm

        If the government can force a Christian to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, can the government force that Christian’s church to hold the wedding ceremony?

  5. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 26, 2014 / 3:38 pm

    The recent National Science Foundation’s science survey contained this nugget that explains something that has always puzzled me.

    One of the more amusing aspects of the current political scene is the claim of liberals to be “pro-science”–a claim that is often made in the context of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, which is anything but scientific. Science is a method, not a body of dogma, and I am not aware of anyone in public life who is anti-science.

    Of course, before you can be pro- or anti-anything, you have to have some idea of what you are talking about. This is where most Democrats fall short, to an astonishing degree. A National Science Foundation survey conducted in 2012 found that 51% of Democrats do not know that the Earth goes around the Sun, once a year!

    Keep that nugget in mind for the next time someone tries to tell you how smart liberals are.

  6. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 26, 2014 / 4:03 pm

    Another gem from Powerline. After listening to Tom Harken extol the virtues of Cuba on the Senate floor, Senator Marco Rubio took the podium and let the socialist senator from Iowa have it with both barrels.

Comments are closed.