Thursday, January 31, 2008

John McCain, Democrat, Part Deux

"The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.

Also, McCain lies a lot, which is really more a specialty of the Democrats."

This is an exert from the latest post from Ann Coulter. She is pretty honest about her feelings on McCain in this post and in her previous one. And she's not alone. Rush has been quoted many times over the last week attacking McCain's so-called "conservative credentials". He goes so far as to say that for the first time in his career he can understand not voting for the Republican candidate. He is very careful in his choice of words. He stresses that he isn't encouraging it, but he can understand it.

McCain shares many of the same policy positions as Hillary and Obama. If he were elected, it is likely that taxes would increase, there would be more laws passed prohibiting free speech, he would nominate more "main stream" judges, he would allow terrorist civil trials within the United States, and would probably close Guantanamo. This is all before he gets to addressing illegal immigration. Can the President sign an executive order outlawing the word "illegal immigrant"? It would attack free speech and pander to the left in the same bold move. I think President McCain (or Vice President Lindsey Graham) might go for it .

When icons of the modern conservative movement like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin all believe McCain to be a Democrat, and when these same people start talking about pulling any lever but the Republican one, I think we are in trouble. What does it say about the potential Republican nominee?

There is still a lot of time between now and November. I for one plan on writing a check to Romney's campaign (yes even in the current economic crisis). I am truly worried about the Republican Party. I believe the only people who will defend McCain at this point are either Republicans who want the party to win above all else, or Democrats.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

John McCain, Democrat

With all of the election coverage right now, it might be easy to think that the Presidential race is almost over. By listening to the media, and reading the newspapers, it might be easy to believe that McCain has already won the Republican nomination. This would be impressive, since he isn't winning the delegate race (actually he is running third) and he hasn't won the most states up until now (Romney is at three, followed by McCain at two). However, it is also easy to understand why the news media likes him so much: he is a Democrat.

With the exception of Ron Paul, there is very little difference between the Republican candidates when it comes to the war on terror. After that, McCain starts sounding more and more like he should have a (D) beside his name and not an (R). For example: McCain is a big believer in the man-made global warming myth. McCain is a cosponsor of the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act. This would impose many of the Kyoto type regulations on the United States without the U.S. ever signing on to to Kyoto. You may believe that climate change is happening, but the impact of a law like this on U.S. companies could be devastating. Democrats typically favor this type of global legislation, not Republicans.

McCain not only supports a higher tax burden on American citizens, he also believes in the same class warfare the Democrats resort to when they discuss taxes. McCain originally voted against the Bush tax cuts. On the campaign trail, he is saying he did this because the tax cuts weren't coupled with spending cuts. I can understand this point of view. However, originally he didn't vote for the tax cuts because they helped out "rich Americans" at the expense of the "working class". Which party does that sound like?

Most people who follow politics remember the recent "comprehensive immigration reform debate". Senator McCain was a very vocal supporter of the bill, and a supporter of the lack of debate that went along with it. Senator McCain is on the record supporting amnesty. He is also on the record attacking those who want to build a fence on our borders. Remember, comprehensive immigration reform was never suppose to be debated. It was suppose to be brought up, voted on, and passed before the American people even knew it was being discussed. But considering another piece of the Senators work, why should we be surprised by this?

Most conservatives and many Republicans hold the Bill of Rights as sacred. Not Senator McCain. To me, the position that prevents him from being considered for my vote is his position on the First Amendment. The Freedom of Speech clause in the First Amendment is suppose to protect political debate. We can and should debate if it pertains to the New York Times or not, but we can all agree that a citizens right to criticize his government is protected. The McCain-Feingold Bill, as Robert Tracinski says, "...has the evil distinction of being the nation's first direct attack on the freedom of political speech during an election campaign, precisely when such speech is most important." If you arn't familiar with this bill, look it up, it's law now, so you should know about it. In a nut shell, it prevents candidates who are trying to defeat an incumbent in an election from running adds on TV. It is still legal for the incumbent to make any number of press conferences, thus getting air time. I can not vote for a Presidential candidate who limits the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights.

You may be sitting at home reading this and thinking that you agree with Sen. McCain. By all means vote for him. But don't for one minute think he is a conservative or a Republican. His past record shows that on domestic issues, and some foreign ones, he will vote and think the same way Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. McCain may be the chosen candidate for the media. He should run in the party that most closely represents them.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

"Make Me Lose Control..."

Once again, it is time for a post that has nothing at all to do with politics. I hope you enjoy, and tune in again soon for some fresh political debate. I have written from time to time that I am a member of the Blog Ninjas. This group formed from the "Mystery Topic Challenge". I have met a lot of very good bloggers in the Blog Ninjas forum. I hope this submission is up to their level of writing.

The latest challenge from the Blog Ninjas is this: You know how you can be driving along, just minding your own business and suddenly a song will come on the radio that transports you through space and time so clearly and throughly that you miss your exit or rear end the car in front of you?

Here's your topic: What song transports you through space and time, and where do you go?

"I run a comb through my hair
And step out in the street
And the city's the color of flame
In the mid-summer heat..."

Eric Carmen's "Make me Lose Control" is one of those songs that really transports me through time and space. When this song came out, my Stepfather really liked it. He bought a copy of the single and would play it over and over and over and over (you get the idea) in our house as loud as we could stand it.

"Jennifers got her daddy's car,
Shes playing uptown on the stereo
We go cruisin' so close,
The way they did long ago
My darlin..."

I didn't always get along with my Stepfather. More times than not, he and I simply didn't see things the same way. He pushed me a lot, and there is no doubt that I am the person I am today because of his influence (good or bad). Most of my memories are not pleasant of him. However, listening to this song for the fifth or sixth time in a row on a Saturday is one of my best memories of him. Whenever I hear it on the radio, I can't help but smile.

"(turn) turn the radio up for that sweet sound
Hold me close never let me go
(keep) keep this feelin alive
Make me lose control
Baby, baby..."

My stepfather has been dead since 1995. I hadn't heard this song in many, many years. Then one day, after work, I had my four year old daughter in my lap driving around our block. She had her hands on the wheels, I had my foot on the gas (or break). I wasn't paying attention to the radio, until I heard the first two or three notes to this song. Then I think I sang the entire thing while we drove around the block. I don't know if I had more fun singing it, or my daughter had more fun laughing at me singing it. After the first chorus, she started singing along as well. I hope when she is older, if she hears this song, she thinks of me driving around in the car with her and both of us singing as loud as we could.

"(when) when I look in your eyes, I go crazy
Fevers high with the lights down low
(so take) take me over the edge
Make me lose control"

I hope you enjoyed my entry into the challenge. If you decide to vote for me on the Mystery Topic Challenge, I am listed as andycivil. Thanks and go check out the other post as well.

Please visit the Mystery Topic Challenge Blog to view all of the other entries. Once you've read them all, please be sure to vote HERE in the Sidebar for your favorite.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

My Reading List

I saw a post on A Light in the Dark a few days back that I really enjoyed. It was Jayne's reading list. She got the idea from Laura Williams's Musings, so consider this full disclosure. Here is my reading list in no particular order. Some of these I plan on reviewing for this site, some of these I just enjoy.

Currently Reading:

1) The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge by David McCullough
2) The Bible. This one is taking some time.

My stack of books includes:

1) An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems by Glenn Beck. You really have to love the title.
2) The Race by Richard North Patterson.
3) John Adams by David McCullough.
4) Iron Kissed (Mercy Thompson Series, Book 3) by Patricia Briggs
5) Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10 by Marcus Luttrell
6) Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies by M. Stanton Evans. I believe this one will generate some really good debates around here.
7) America: The Last Best Hope (Volume I): From the Age of Discovery to a World at War by William "Bill" Bennett. I have read and reviewed Vol II for this site already.
8) The Reagan Diaries Diaries by Ronald Reagan.
9) An assortment of Kathy Reichs Novels.
10) Showdown by Ted Dekker

This is only a partial list. A full list of the books sitting in one corner of my bedroom would be far too embarrassing. If you see anything on here you have any comments on, let me know. If you see something you would really like to see a review on, let me know too.

What's on your list?

Friday, January 11, 2008

Man Kills Daughter, Wants Son : Women's Rights Groups Silent

If you have been reading this site for a while, you probably know I am not a fan of the Women’s rights movement here in the United States. I target specifically the movement here because it seems like the National Organization for Women and other similar groups have lost their way. Don’t get me wrong: I support women having the same rights as men. However, I think NOW tends to forget why they are around in the first place. I found a good example of this today. Check out the following article from Fox News:

WINTER HAVEN, Fla. — A Polk County man is facing a first-degree murder charge in the death of his baby daughter.

According to a Polk County Sheriff's Office report, Marcos Gomez-Romero told investigators he beat Ariana Rodriguez Romero to death because he wanted a son, not a daughter.

Investigators say he told them the beatings had gone on for months.

Romero is charged with first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse. His daughter died Christmas morning.

I saw this and was outraged. This article was on the Fox News front page. At the same time, I made a bet with myself that this article wasn’t even on the radar for the women’s rights groups. So, I did a quick google search and found myself on the NOW website. Here is a quick rundown of articles on NOW listed as “Hot Topics” as of the writing of this post:

The first is a notice that the National NOW Family Law Advisory Committee has been compiling information for women that face divorce or child custody suits. Important, but really a hot topic?

Next is an article entitled “Engaging Women Project Effectively Makes Connections between Voter Participation and Policy Change”. Um, you think?

The third “hot topic” from NOW: Hilary Clinton is the first women to win the New Hampshire Primary.

I have a wife and a daughter I love very much. Because of that, I am very frustrated when I see these supposed women’s rights groups sound more like political action committees and less like real Women’s rights groups. If I can get outraged and appalled by this article, an organization claiming to want equal rights for women should recognize that a man killing his daughter because he wants a son is a problem. And if they can't, then I can recognize a problem with the women's rights movement.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Romney is Winning!

I am a little confused by the coverage of the primaries so far. If you have been following the Republican Primaries, then you know that Huckabee won the Iowa Primary, and McCain won the New Hampshire primary. Many political commentators are saying Romney must win Michigan, or pull out of the race. Some have even said it is time for him to pull out of the race now.

An important point to remember: the Republican Presidential nominee may not be decided by the number of states he wins. Most states split their delegates in proportion to how the primary goes in that state. For example, while Huckabee won Iowa, he doesn't get all 40 Iowa delegates. Instead, Iowa has assigned its delegates as follows: Huckabee gets 17, Romney gets 12, McCain and Thompson both get 3, and Paul gets 2. I believe the remainder are "unpledged delegates". These delegates can vote for whichever candidate they wish too.

New Hampshire's primary was won by McCain, but once again, the winner doesn't get all of the votes. And here is one more piece of information you may not have heard: Wyoming has already had it's primary. Guess who won it: Romney. If you are keeping score at home, the current delegate count (including unpledged) is as follows: Romney (30), Huckabee (21), McCain (10), Thompson (6), Paul (2), Giuliani (1). So currently Romney is actually winning the Republican race!

There are still a lot of states left to vote. Some of them divide out their delegates and some don't. In order to win the Republican nomination, a candidate has to get 1,191 delegates. Things can change between now and September when the Republicans will actually nominate their candidate, but keep the points in mind as you watch the coverage this election season. I have no idea why the points aren't talked about more often. However, feel free to return here periodically to see what the current score is.

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Quick Notes

I wanted to share two quick things with everyone..

First, in the coming weeks, I plan on participating in the Mystery Topic Challenge more frequently this year. Some of these posts may or may not pertain to politics. I hope you enjoy them. If you want to find out more about the Challenge, or even participate, stop by Blog Ninjas and learn more.

Second, I have written about Ayaan Hirsi Ali a few times on here. Some of my readers have emailed me asking for more information and the latest news on her. I saw an article in the New York Times from her today and thought I would share it.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible

Writers Warning: The following post will be very “pro-Bible” and “pro-Christian”. Being the understanding author I am, I recognize this will cause some in today’s society to launch into hysterics. As such, I ask those hysteric prone individuals to skip this post. I will have a new one in a few days, and will be happy to debate less hysterical issues with you then.

There is an old argument that rears its head between Christians and Atheist from time to time. It goes along this line: If the Atheist is right, when the Christian dies, he (or she) will have had a good life, but will simply cease to exist. If the Christian is right, the Atheist will be totally unprepared for what they find. Think about that as you read this post.

I just finished the The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible (Politically Incorrect Guides) . This is the latest in the P.I.G series to come across my reading list. It has also been the most fascinating, and the easiest to read. It is very difficult to come away from this book thinking the Bible is wrong. Robert Hutchinson writes the following in the first chapter:

It wouldn’t be so bad if these attacks on the Bible represented something genuinely new…but instead they are merely repetitions of allegations made for about 1,800 years. They are as original as dirt – and about as interesting. The problem is, many of these new champions of enlightened reason, standing on high from the pinnacles of academia, don’t appear to be aware that their ideas are literally millennia old.

This thought is something Mr. Hutchinson comes back to time and time again through the course of the book. Some of the topics are likely to really inflame those who equate Christianity and Judaism with fanatical evil. There is a chapter devoted to Sodom and Gomorrah as well as the freedoms that have been inspired by the Bible. And while many of the arguments found in this book could be ripped from today’s headlines, yet they are often cited from sources that are 100’s of years old or more.

Back to the argument from the beginning: if the Atheist is wrong, what happens? If you fall into this boat, are you really willing to gamble without putting a little homework in? If many of today’s arguments have been around for hundreds of years, shouldn’t you look at a few of the answers?

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Why I am Optimistic in 2008

A happy new year to you! I am pretty excited about the coming year. 2007 had it's highs and lows, and I am sure 2008 will as well. However, there are a few things I am very excited about with the coming year:

  1. Global Warming: I wrote last year that I thought global warming had hit its high point. I don't mean the temperatures, I mean the fanatical discussion surrounding it. While there are still many many faithful believers, I think many people have had their eyes opened during the last year. I see more and more articles by Fox News, CNN, and the mainstream media discussing the other side of the argument. I think in the years to come, 2008 may be looked at as the time global warming stopped being considered a serious subject.
  2. The Election: No matter what your political belief system, 2008 is going to be an exciting Presidential election. Neither the sitting President nor Vice President are running for office. While Mrs. Clinton could get elected, I believe it will be someone else. I had always assumed that Mrs. Clinton would have a lot of support in the Democratic Party. However, my dental hygienist told me something I had never considered before a few months back. She said that while she would vote Democrat, there was no chance she would vote for Hillary. I asked her why, and she said that after having a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for the last 20 years, it was time for a change. I agree with her, and I think there are a lot of people who see the race the same way.
  3. The War in Iraq: The news coming out of Iraq seems to be increasingly could. Violence is down, Al-Queda is in trouble, and Iran seems to be trying to stay out of Iraq. While there are still challenges ahead, could this be the year we start to come home?

No matter what, I think the next year is going to be an exciting time. Have a great New Year!