Welcome

Welcome to my blog http://www.skegley.blogspot.com/ . CAVEAT LECTOR- Let the reader beware. This is a Christian Conservative blog. It is not meant to offend anyone. Please feel free to ignore this blog, but also feel free to browse and comment on my posts! You may also scroll down to respond to any post.

For Christian American readers of this blog:


I wish to incite all Christians to rise up and take back the United States of America with all of God's manifold blessings. We want the free allowance of the Bible and prayers allowed again in schools, halls of justice, and all governing bodies. We don't seek a theocracy until Jesus returns to earth because all men are weak and power corrupts the very best of them.
We want to be a kinder and gentler people without slavery or condescension to any.

The world seems to be in a time of discontent among the populace. Christians should not fear. God is Love, shown best through Jesus Christ. God is still in control. All Glory to our Creator and to our God!


A favorite quote from my good friend, Jack Plymale, which I appreciate:

"Wars are planned by old men,in council rooms apart. They plan for greater armament, they map the battle chart, but: where sightless eyes stare out, beyond life's vanished joys, I've noticed,somehow, all the dead and mamed are hardly more than boys(Grantland Rice per our mutual friend, Sarah Rapp)."

Thanks Jack!

I must admit that I do not check authenticity of my posts. If anyone can tell me of a non-biased arbitrator, I will attempt to do so more regularly. I know of no such arbitrator for the internet.











Showing posts with label Jonah Goldberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jonah Goldberg. Show all posts

Sunday, April 21, 2013

obama and gun control and unaffordable care Columbus Dispatch 4-21-13

Columbus, Ohio • Apr 21, 2013 • 47° Partly Cloudy

Jonah Goldberg commentary: Gun issue won't help Obama's cause in 2014

Already a subscriber?
Enroll in EZPay and get a free gift! Enroll now.

Sunday April 21, 2013 7:22 AM
 
“You know, I actually believe my own bull----.”
That’s what President Barack Obama once told a reporter. If the man ever uttered a statement that spoke more to his approach to politics, I haven’t heard it.
Whether it stems from a grandiose overconfidence in his own powers of persuasion, or the lessons he took from his years as a community organizer, or his own messianic conviction that he is on the right side of everything, including history itself, the president has operated under the theory that he can move the American people to his causes. And he can’t. He just can’t.
Yes, he got elected and re-elected, and that’s saying something. But whatever personal popularity the man has doesn’t transfer to domestic policy.
It’s as if the American people are saying, “Mr. President, we’re just not that in to you.”
“What about health-care reform!?” his fans invariably respond.
Well, what about it? Sure, it passed. But the Affordable Care Act didn’t become law because Obama ignited a populist prairie fire in favor of it. He dedicated vast, vast swaths of his time and energy trying to sell the American people on Obamacare. He never made the sale (and still hasn’t ). The misbegotten law’s passage is attributable entirely to the fact that Democrats rammed it through Congress — with a 60-vote majority in the Senate — using the sorts of backroom deals and corporate giveaways the American people despise.
Ironically, the only populist mass movement on domestic policy issues Obama can claim credit for creating is the tea party, which I think we can all agree isn’t what he had in mind.
Indeed, if Obamacare had been popular, the Democrats wouldn’t have been dealt a “shellacking” — Obama’s words — in the 2010 midterm elections. But they were. Democrats suffered a defeat of biblical proportions, despite Obama’s relentless campaigning.
In 2012, after scoring an impressive re-election win, Obama apparently thought he solved the puzzle. He needed more organization, like he had in the election. Obviously everyone loves what he has to say, Obama reasoned, but he needed to translate that love into action. And so he rebranded his presidential campaign into his own personal grass-roots operation, Organizing for Action. Action item No. 1? Gun control.
It’s worth remembering that when Obama took up gun control in his State of the Union address, he set the bar at shin level for himself and for Senate Democrats. He didn’t demand victory, he demanded a mere vote on the issue.
Running through a list of victims he was all too eager to politicize— “The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote,” etc. — he brought the Democrats in the audience to their feet. Many in the press hailed it as one of the most moving moments of his presidency.
With the sort of willingness to politicize tragedy that is always denounced as the vilest cynicism when Republicans do anything of the sort, Obama and his paid Organizing for Action subalterns took to the streets and the airwaves waving the figurative bloody shirt of Newtown for months (with nary a peep of complaint from the same press corps that routinely denounced president Bush for politicizing 9/11).
But when it came time to clear the shin-level hurdle he set for himself and Organizing for Action, they face-planted in the ground well short of the target.
And now, the president is going to run the same play, again. “If this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters,” he said in one of several bitter promises to turn gun control into an issue to win back Congress in 2014.
As Josh Kraushaar of National Journal noted, Obama couldn’t misread the political environment heading into 2014 any worse. Why? Because the places where the Democrats need to win to take back the House — the South and Mountain West — are precisely those areas where even many Democrats disagree with the president on gun control. Making it a central issue in 2014 is a boon to Republicans.
The upshot of this is that we will now endure nearly another two years of Obama haranguing us about how it’s him and “the people” against special interests and other evil forces who don’t care about murdered children. Washington will become more shrill and get even less done, all because Obama’s only play is a populist charade made possible by the fact he still believes his own bull----.
Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online.
jonahscolumn@aol.com

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Social issues are distinct ... Thanks Jonah Goldberg!

Jonah Goldberg commentary: Social issues are distinct; ‘yes’ on one doesn’t mean ‘yes’ on another

Already a subscriber?
Enroll in EZPay and get a free gift! Enroll now.

Sunday March 24, 2013 7:27 AM
 
Just because things can be put on the same list doesn’t mean they necessarily are similar. My attic contains within it thousands of comic books, an inflatable bed, some jigsaw puzzles, some family pictures and a Frampton Comes Alive! album. These things are, roughly speaking, in the same location, but they’re hardly of equal value, importance or function.
I bring this up for the simple reason that we’re hearing a lot about how the GOP must deal with “abortion and gay marriage,” as if they are almost the same issue.
Well, in my house, I hear about my dog and my mortgage a lot.
They’re both important, and complicated in their own ways, but they aren’t all that similar.
I think some liberals and some conservatives like to lump all social issues together, at least in part because they find their opponents’ positions on them so unfathomable. It’s like if an alien showed you a fnerk, a thrampahorn and a zizzenbozzle, you’d be forgiven for assuming they’re all somehow related to each other.
In fact, for a long time the shorthand for social issues was “God, guns and gays.” And a lot of analysts thought they would move all together. It turns out that various social issues stand or fall on their own.
If you’d predicted in the late 1980s that the country would become more pro-life, more pro-gun and more pro-gay, the experts would’ve laughed at you.
It drives some older liberals crazy that some young liberals are insufficiently pro-choice and it vexes some older conservatives that some young conservatives are insufficiently anti-gay-marriage.
I myself have grown both more pro-life and more sympathetic to gay marriage.
I’ve been in favor of civil unions for more than a decade — back when it was considered a left-wing position, not a fallback right-wing one. And I’d probably still prefer civil unions if we had settled on some arrangement that conferred the economic and legal benefits of traditional marriage without calling it marriage. Still, gays have an entirely understandable reluctance to settle for that and, besides, I think the argument over whether or not to call civil unions “marriage” has been all but lost, though there’s a glimmer of hope the decision might eventually be left to the states (which I favor).
As for abortion, my migration has less to do with religious arguments and more to do with my growing distrust of the government. Who is and who isn’t a human being with unalienable rights is just about the biggest question there is. And the fact that the answer usually is obvious — that guy, not that fly — only makes it more important.
The government has an obligation to protect the life and liberty of the subset of human beings we call Americans. If you commit a crime that obligation changes, of course, since the government also has an obligation to protect the rest of us from those who would do us harm.
Well, I consider a fetus a human being. It has done no harm, nor has it committed a crime punishable by death. More important, I don’t like it when governments start getting clever about who counts as full human beings and who doesn’t (See: Slavery, U.S., or Holocaust, Nazi). There are few areas where a bright line is more vital or necessary. I’d bet it won’t be very long before science is able to tell us whether some fetuses will grow up to be gay or not. The politics of abortion will suddenly get more interesting, I suspect.
But once you’re born and, hopefully, properly raised, the government’s chief obligation is to stay out of your way, whether you’re straight or gay, so you can pursue happiness as you define it — not how, say, Michael Bloomberg or Pat Robertson define it.
Which brings me back to gay marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage insist gays have the same right as anyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex. It’s a clever line, but it overlooks the fact that romantic love has been the paramount reason for marriage for quite some time. Telling people they’re free to be unhappy isn’t all that persuasive.
The whole point of the American way is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, come to think of it, maybe gay marriage and abortion have more in common than I thought.
Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online.
jonahscolumn@aol.com

Blog Definition

On Line Blog Definition
Google-Blog Definitionblog, short for web log, an online, regularly updated journal or newsletter that is readily accessible to the general public by virtue of being posted on a website.