A little while back I shared with you a line I got from my brother Pat, "Too many backs to scratch, not enough hands." Remember that one? Well, when I originally wrote it I was referring to the Democrat Party; however, it seems that it could also apply to the GOP.

If you look closely at the GOP, it is no real wonder that the Democrats won the recent midterms; what is a wonder is that the GOP ever won anything at all. As much as we point out the fractious nature of the Democrats and all of their competing subgroups, the same can honestly be said about the GOP.

Look around the GOP bigtop and you'll see all sorts of interesting characters. You have your blueblooded, country clubbers who seem only to care about their business interests, there are the libertarians that hold onto pipe dreams about shrinking the government to its lawful size, you have your Log Cabin (?) members that are conservative in many ways, but tend to trend towards identity politics, and you have your Christian/morals members that are very concerned with social issues.

The blueblooded hate the hayseed Christians and wish they would leave the Party, the Log Cabin members hate the hayseed Christians and wish they would leave the Party, and the libertarians hate the hayseed Christians and wish they would leave the Party. Anyone notice a trend there?

For some reason it has become almost unacceptable in the GOP to be both fiscally conservative and socially conservative. As a Christian myself, this trend has upset me somewhat and has at times made me question my commitment to the GOP. It is hard being the object of scorn coming from all sides of the spectrum, but harder still to accept being attacked by the members of your own Party; the very people that you thought you shared so much with.

For example, I have read articles and blog posts that have stated that the very social issues that are important to me as a Christian are somehow to blame for GOP setbacks. The issues of stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex "marriage" are being assailed as wedge issues that really don't amount to much on the political scene. But is that really so, and are the raising of these issues a loser for the GOP? The polls seem to indicate otherwise.

But, I digress. The point is that the GOP is likely to flounder along until it finds some true common ground among the various factions under the big tent. Sure, we all say that we want smaller government, but what does that mean? Does it mean fewer social safety net programs, less funding for infrastructure projects, or a lessening of the military budget? Do you see the problem that the Party faces?

You see, the concepts that the GOP claims to hold dear are simply too broad and open to too much interpretation. When no one really knows what smaller government means, or what less government intrusion means, then it can mean anything. And if it can mean anything, then ultimately it means nothing...at least not to voters.

So the GOP faces the daunting task of actually defining itself and its goals really for the first time. The recent election results should have shown the GOP leadership, and I use that term very loosely, the necessity of having values and beliefs that can be easily transmitted to voters. The voters need to know what we mean by smaller government and the like, and the definition must be one that the voters can approve of.

If not, the the vaunted big tent of the GOP will become a Bigtop that houses a run down, dilapidated circus. And nobody will pay to see the GOP's sorry show.

Well, the champagne has been sipped and the drapes have been ordered. The Democrats are this very minute trying on their old cloak of power to see if it still fits, and they are congratulating themselves and their cohorts on a job well done. They have finally achieved the victory that they have sought for so long, they are finally back on top!

Hey Democrats, enjoy the party while it lasts! Because very soon it is going to be time to get down to work, and you have some things that you have to get a handle on right off the bat.

1. What to do about Iraq?  Seemingly since we took our first casualty in Iraq the Democrats have been agitating for us to declare defeat and come home. They have also been promising a plan for 'victory' for the last couple of years. Now the bill has come due, and the Dems are going to have to show and prove. You have to show us a real plan now, not "We will do it smarter", and you have to prove it will work. Good luck with that!

2. How to handle the international jihadists? Again, it has been "We will be smarter" for the past few years when confronted with questions about how you will deal with the jihadists. Now that you have power, will you actually do anything to defeat them,or are you simply going to talk them into submission? If that's the plan I have a suggestion: Sheets Byrd would be the perfect guy for this job, as he has ample experience in talking loud and not saying anything.

3. What do we do about Social Security? In case you missed it, the funds are quickly drying up and the system is o the verge of bankruptcy. Of course you already knew this, as you were the main obstructionists blocking President Bush's proposals to reform the system. Now it's up to you to fix the problem that has been mostly of your making, and half measures aren't going to get it this time. You have just inherited the proverbial sticky wicket on this one!

4. What you gonna do when the illegals come for you? You have just inherited the newest third rail in American politics. Even your rank and file members know that illegal immigration is a huge problem and has to be seriously addressed. How are you going to sell your open borders elitism to the people that want stricter enforcement without creating a backlash against your Party? Better get to work trying to figure that one out!

5. Any plans for energy independence? Years of opposition to drilling for oil that we know is just waiting for us to tap, coupled with fierce opposition to building any new refineries in the U.S. has put us at the mercy of foreign oil producers. And claiming that we are going to go towards using hybrid cars and alternative fuels is a nice rhetorical point, but is not very realistic. Now you get to formulate real plans for getting us out from under the thumb of OPEC without the cover of blaming the Republicans for your failures. This, I gotta see!

And that's just the (extremely) short list! With a lack of any clear ideas for dealing with the real challenges this country faces, this may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats. In this brave new world where the MSM is not the only game in town, the Democrats are soon going to find themselves having to put up or shut up with very little cover being supplied by their media accomplices. We are watching you and you can't hide from us. You are going to be held, for maybe the first time, accountable for your actions and your words. Ain't the internet grand!

So a hearty congratulations to the Democrats for their victory in the elections. I hope you knew what you were asking for, because you just got it. And remember, "To the victors go the spoils!" May you live to choke on your victory.

 Let me be one of the first to say it: I was wrong. It's not easy to say and it definitely pains me to have to say it, but here goes...Speaker Pelosi. The nightmare has become a reality.

In the next few days we will begin to hear the GOP spin on why the election was lost, about how we frittered away the House and quite possibly the Senate, as well as several governorships. But before all the spinning starts, let me tell you what I think happened.

Here on my blog I have a post titled Attitude Adjustment" that points out the defeatist attitudes that the GOP constantly drags around and makes known to all the world. This election is the manifestation of that attitude and all of the negative feelings that the GOP carries around.

The GOP lost because they were too invested in a defeatist attitude, and that attitude most likely bled over to the voters. We have had several spirited discussion on Townhall threads and at different blog sites about whether or not the GOP deserved to win, what a loss would truly mean, and what we could look forward to if the Democrat Party should win control of the House. I bring this up not to rehash the arguments, because we will soon see which ones carry the most weight. Rather, I am trying to make the point that while we were engaged in debate, many 'casual' voters never took the time to study the candidates and issues and based their decisions on media reports and the like. And the 'casual' GOP voter got plenty of negativity, not just from the media but from prominent conservatives and Republicans as well.

The GOP most likely lost out on their 'casual' voters because of their own actions. Had I been less informed I probably would have run screaming from the GOP in disgust myself! Here is a Party whose candidates ran away from the President on every issue, that constantly predicted defeat...DEFEAT!!...for itself, and instead of giving the voters any reasons to vote for the GOP concentrated on why not to vote for the Democrats. Hell, I was even guilty of it myself!

Now we are in the same position that we have been in for most of my life; stuck with a Democratically controlled House, and possibly a Dem dominated Senate as well. But we have no one to blame but ourselves. We saw the national Party abandon candidates at the first sign of trouble in the polls...think Dewine and Santorum, and we witnessed the Party concede control of the House to the Democrats before the elections even started. That is what we, the voters, saw and this is the end result. The GOP was too eager to predict defeat, to rationalize it, and now we must accept it.

Things are changing, and no matter what Speaker-in-Waiting Pelosi says we can look forward to our taxes going up, the borders being opened, and for the investigations into the Bush Administration to begin. We have just put ourselves back into the political wilderness for God knows how long; but at least it is a position that is familiar to the GOP members. Most of them have served in the minority and they all acted like a minority for the last 12 years, so they won't have to make a big adjustment back to their subservient roles.

Maybe one day the GOP will start to act like winners and be able to inspire confidence in their supporters. Maybe this will be the wake up call needed for the Party to refocus, grow a set of cajones, and learn to stick to its principles.

Sadly though, the GOP probably won't do this at all. After all, they are too accustomed to being the Republi-Cant's.

In the spirit of calling a spade, let me disabuse some of my fellow conservatives of their view of the GOP as the "conservative" party. The GOP is not now, and never has been the "conservative" party, it has just been more conservative than its counterpart over the years. There are many that don't see it that way, and many others that have never thought of things that way; for all of you, take a walk with me and I'll explain what I'm saying to you.

The Republican Party, from its very inception was not a conservative party. The modern GOP dates from the antebellum period, around 1850, and was decidedly "liberal" in its aims, the main aim being the abolition of slavery. There was nothing conservative about attempting to root out an established system of human degradation, and the very foundation of half the nation's economy. Nope, my friends, that was a radical position to take!

The Reconstruction Era saw the GOP further involved in the radical movement to ensure the rights of the newly freed Blacks in the country that was exemplified with the first Civil Rights Act in the nation's history and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Those could in no way be called conservative actions, could they?

But enough of the history lesson, what I am mainly focused on is the GOP of the modern era and it's policies and positions. While we conservatives would all like to think that the GOP is the conservative party, it really isn't that at all.

You see, the whole 'big tent' approach precludes the GOP from being a truly conservative party. There are all sorts of people that are under the tent; you have social conservatives, social liberals, moderates, RINOs, all manner of people and ideas are included. There are certain common threads that most have with each other, lower taxes and smaller government chief among them. But the while these are GOP staples, they do not apply to everyone in the Party and not all of our politicians hold these views.

Look back at our recent GOP Presidents. Dating from Teddy Roosevelt, there is hardly a true conservative among them, with Ronald Reagan being the most visible of the lot. I mean, were Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, or either of the Bush Presidents honestly true conservatives? Nixon gave us OSHA, Ford continued Nixon's country clubber policies, H.W. Bush raised our taxes, and G.W. Bush has been trying to redefine conservatism to include open borders advocacy.

The thing we have to realize is that the GOP has no real love for its conservative members; if it were possible for them to be rid of us and still win elections, they would toss us overboard to the sharks in a heartbeat. The GOP has always had a country club, blueblooded feel to it and still does. Even some of the people that conservatives look to for guidance and laud as fathers of the movement have a barely disguised disdain for the uncultured masses in the grassroots conservative movement. Not to get anyone too hot under the collar, but just look at what people like William Buckley, and media mavens like George Will have to say about the so-called Christian Right; they don't really have a lot of use for those of us that are not part of their old boys clubs.

Now I am not saying that we should abandon the GOP, because we really have nowhere else to go. What I am saying is that we had best get it through our heads that if we want to make the GOP a conservative party, we had better be prepared to fight to make it so. We will have to convince or conquer the voices in the GOP that stress that "moderation" is the key to success, we will have to stand firm against the incursion of liberal Republicans in the Party that would sell us out all day every day, and twice on Sunday, for a positive mention in the New York Times (John McCain take a bow...and pet your lapdog Lindsey while you're at it!)

Because in all honesty, when you look at the things the GOP has done in the past, the way it has governed,  and the Presidents it has elected (with Reagan being an exception) the conservatives in the Party are the true RINOs. If we want the appellation to truly fit the McCains, Grahams, and Snowes of the world we are going to have to rise up and take control of the party.

Then, and only then, will the GOP really become the "Conservative Party"!

As the elections get closer, just over a week away as I write this, I am compelled to write just one more post about the midterms. I have read many articles that say that the GOP is doomed, that there will be no real consequence if the Democrats regain control of the Congress, and that maybe it will be a good thing for the GOP to lose. Some of our own Townhall bloggers have advanced some of these opinions, most notably my esteemed colleague and friend BrianR. He has written some very good articles over at his blog which have given me much food for thought. But the more I think on it, the more I find that I can't totally agree with this type of thinking.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, these elections are very important to all of us. We are at war today with an enemy that seeks our utter destruction, and I do not for a moment believe that a Democratically controlled Congress will see this fight through to the end. They have distanced themselves from the war as much as possible, they have attacked those that are tasked with prosecuting the war at every turn, and have loudly proclaimed their wishes to see us 'redeploy' from the field of battle. A House controlled by the Democrats would not hesitate to pull funding from the war effort in a bid to completely cripple what would be a lame duck President. They may not just pull funding outright; in fact, they would probably tie it to 'benchmarks' that would give them political cover as they de-funded our war effort. Can we honestly hand them the power to do so, just to punish the GOP that has so disappointed us?

Further, there is the notion that many put forward that the majorities would be so slim as to create gridlock. That may be so, but there is another scenario that many have not considered; those that have read Brian's blog will recognize this, but many of you may not. The scenario is this: The Democrats win the House, and gain a small majority in the Senate...say a 53-47 lead. That may seem razor thin, until we factor in the RINO's that seem to caucus with the Democrats on so  many important issues. If Linc Chafee, Olympia Snowe, John Sunnunu, Arlen Specter, John McCain, and his personal lapdog Lindsey Graham continue to go down their 'bipartisan' paths, can you imagine the effect that could have on policy? There would be a big enough majority to push through the 'comprehensive' immigration reform the elites love so much, and a majority that could successfully block the appointment of any judge to the right of Sandra day O'Connor to the federal bench. Is that the path we want to take into the future?

And please, do not think that I am trying to use any scare tactics on you. I wouldn't do that, as a I have too much respect for my readers to try to pull something like that on them. I am, however, trying to get you to look at the possible consequences of allowing a Democratic majority to regain control of the Congress. The last time we allowed that to happen, we spent forty years in the political wilderness searching for the Congressional Promised Land!

Also, I do not buy the premise that a loss is a good thing. While there may be lessons that can be gleaned from a loss, it has been my experience that you can learn way more from a win than a loss. Further, I have to disagree with the use of Ronald Reagan's ascendence as an example of electoral losses being good things in the long run. You see, I am convinced that it was not just disgust with Jimmy Carter and the Democrats that swept Reagan to victory; it was the embracing of Reagan's view about the greatness of America that caused his landslide. Besides which, if the election of Reagan was the end all be all, then why did the Democrat domination of Congress continue until 1994? That is not to diminish the import of the Reagan Revolution, but it does not stand to reason that Reagan's election and popularity was in response to negative reaction to the Democrats, more than a positive reaction to the man and his ideas.

I will not attempt to convince you to vote in any way that goes against your conscience, nor to vote for a party over your principles. If you have a choice between a truly conservative Democrat and a RINO in your local races, by all means vote your principles. But please do not withhold your votes in this election as a means of punishing the party that you feel has let you down. This election is much too important to the immediate future of our nation and its direction to give it away in a fit of pique.

And for those that feel that the GOP has done a poor job, I concur. To those that are disgusted by the rise of the RINO, I am in total step with you there. And those that are clamoring for a change in the direction of the party, towards a more conservative political view, I am right there with you.

But for those that feel that the GOP needs a loss to refocus, that it would not be so bad to have the Democrats in power, I must beg to differ.

This is too important a time for us to 'turtle up', to become insular, and to give away the reigns of government to those that could do real harm; not just to our ideas, but real tangible harm to this nation.

On November 7, 2006 I only ask that you go to the polls and do your civic duty.

Today at AOL news, I saw an article that was written by Kevin Tillman, the younger brother of slain Army Ranger Pat Tillman. Everyone knows the story of Pat and Kevin Tillman, how they rushed to join the Army after 9/11 and how they volunteered for, and made the grade as Rangers. We also know how Pat Tillman was KIA by friendlies on a mission in Afghanistan, and the subsequent attempts by the Army to cover up the true circumstances of Pat's death and create the image of a fallen hero, killed by enemy fire.
 
The article, based on a posting that Kevin Tillman has at some blog or other, is very critical of the Bush administration, and among other things asserts that the Iraq war is an illegal war. For more of Tillman's views, or rantings if you like, I suggest that you check out the AOL news site as I won't be repeating it here. But the article has inspired me to write something here that we all probably feel, but many are unwilling to say...so I'll say it for you.

To all former military personnel, no matter how ancient or current, please shut up! Your views about the war and how it is waged are no more valid than anyone else's simply because you have served in the military!

Serving in the military does not give you any special cache to critique war policy that others don't have. Just because you served does not make you an expert in military tactics, military law, nor international law. It just means that you chose, in most cases, to serve in the military. That's it, nothing more!

I am sick to death of former military personnel popping up all over the place trying to tell the current leadership how to do their jobs. Some PFC from the Vietnam era is in no place to tell Donald Rumsfeld how to be SecDef or George Bush how to be CinC!

And former service does not exempt you from criticism! John Kerry, John McCain, Jack Murtha, John Warner, and Max Cleeland, among many others, are all given some special consideration and deference for their former military service. My question is simply this: Why? Just because they served honorably, in most cases, does not mean that they cannot be criticized for the positions they hold today; likewise their former service does not mean that they are in a special position to make military decisions. Think of it this way: How does getting yourself out of Vietnam in four months...four months!!!...with a bunch of flesh wounds make you an expert on military tactics?

Now, I am not saying that I do not appreciate those that choose, and have chosen, to serve in the military. On the contrary, I understand, somewhat, the dedication and sacrifice that it takes. I have a brother that served in the active Army and is now a reservist, I have cousins, friends, and former classmates that served. I'm just saying that just because they served does not mean that they have a special say in how the military and its operations should be run.

All of which brings me back to Kevin Tillman. Having recently lost a brother, I can understand the pain and sense of loss that he is going through. I can only imagine the feelings of betrayal and bewilderment that Mr. Tillman must feel concerning the actions of the Army in trying to deny his family the unvarnished truth. But that does not mean that Mr. Tillman should be given carte blanche to spout unsupported opinions as fact. Mr. Tillman may think that the war is/was illegal, but that does not make it so. And, as harsh as it may sound, when you volunteer for the Army, then you willingly join the Rangers you don't get to choose the wars you may have to fight. What you do is fulfill your duty, do the job you chose to do to the best of your ability, and when your service is over continue to support your brothers in arms. It is not an act of support  to contend that your brothers in arms are committing an international crime every day that they are in theater, fighting for the safety and security of the Iraqi people and for those of us stateside.

In cases like those of McCain, Murtha, Kerry, and now Mr. Tillman military service is no longer a cover for them. And there is no military exemption from honest criticism.

More and more I hear the cry from scholars, experts, and media personalities that Islam needs to go through a modern day reform movement. They say that there needs to be an Islamic Martin Luther nailing a new 95 theses to a mosque door somewhere in the Middle East.

Folks, I hate to be the one to tell you this...but that ain't gonna happen!

There is a fundamental difference in the Protestant Reformation, and any proposed Islamic counterpart. The difference is that in the case of Martin Luther, he did not argue for the Church to turn away from its Scripture, he was urging a return to them. He posited that the Catholic church had turned away from the Scripture by giving extra-Biblical authority to the pope to interpret Scripture, to have political authority, and in the granting of special spiritual authority to priests.

The Reformation led by Luther did not seek to overturn the words of Scripture itself, only to bring the catholic church into agreement with the Word of God.

Anything like this in the Islamic religion, however, would have to be a direct attack on the moslem faith itself. The Koran, which the moslems believe are the literal words of allah, would have to be directly contradicted in order to bring about any reformation. The Koran instructs the moslem not to become friends with the Jews or the Christians, but to regard them as enemies; likewise, the Koran tells the moslem that it is his duty to lie in wait for, and to kill the unbelievers. How could any moslem, no matter how moderate, speak out against the literal word of allah?

So to all those calling for an Islamic Luther to rise up, or for the religion to be reformed...you can forget that! You would have better luck convincing a 3 year old to disavow Santa Claus! The moslems are too wedded to the Koran, and are too devout to tear down the beliefs of centuries in order to fit into the modern world.

There can be, and never will be, any hope for an Islamic Reformation.

There is a word out there that has ingrained itself into our culture that is seen as so bad, so dirty, so foul that it cannot be spoken in polite company. It shows up in T.V. shows, books, movies, news programs all the time, and every time it is uttered some people get a slight shiver. They are repulsed by it, it revolts them, and makes them feel dirty after hearing it. And many in our culture have used it to mark people that are undesirable, have used it as a curse, and an insult.

The elephant in the room is the dreaded F word: Fundamentalist!

But hold on, let me hip you to some game here folks! According to my Webster's New Student Dictionary, fundamentalist means, " a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing as fundamental the literal interpretation of and absence of error in the Scriptures, the second coming of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, and substitutionary atonement." And you know what, I am more than proud to be a fundamentalist!

I am not afraid to say that I believe that what God has revealed to us in his Word is true, that Christ was born of a virgin, was crucified on a tree, went to the grave, and three days later rose again to redeem all mankind from sin...if they are willing to accept Him.

The problem with too many "Christians" today is that they are running away from these fundamental truths to seek out a 'truth' that works for them. They are abandoning the faith of their fathers in order to justify living life on their terms, in a clear rejection of the Scriptures. To do this, they have to convince themselves that fundamentalism is wrong and must be shunned. In so doing, they give themselves license to do whatever they please; they justify their choices by pretending that the Bible is in error whenever it is in conflict with the choices they are making.

Another 'dirty' word out there is evangelical. The media, political pundits, and others have so distorted the meaning of the word that nominal Christians run screaming at the sound of it. My trusty Webster's defines evangelical this way: "Emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual."

Now tell me, what is so threatening about that? I'll tell you what! In a world that is more and more secular, including many mainline Protestant denominations, the evangelical movement is something that frightens them. It does not allow for works to replace the blood of Christ as the vehicle for salvation, it emphasizes the need for a personal relationship with a personal God and savior, and forces man into a subordinate role. It rejects the secular humanist theory that is all too popular; where man is the center of all things and there is nothing greater than himself. It declares that God reigns supreme in the universe and that man must prostrate himself in front of God, live a  life of obedience to Him, and must recognize His Lordship.

So, as a Christian I gladly accept, even embrace, the F word as a description of who I am and what I believe. And all that call themselves Christians and do not embrace the fundamentals of the faith need to take a long look at themselves. You cannot be a true Christian if you are not willing to take the Word of God as the truth, and are not willing to enter into a personal relationship with the Savior of mankind.

So embrace the F word, and the E...because in the end this is the only way to be.

I was reading the column at the 'Hall by Jeff Jacoby on the Amish and their forgiveness of the man that raped and murdered their daughters and after reading it and the responses to it I felt compelled to write this.

There seems to be a lot of unforgiveness in the minds and hearts of the posters at this site, especially on this issue, and it is being unfairly directed at the Amish. There is the attitude expressed by my good friend BrianR and others that the Amish cannot offer forgiveness to the murderer or to his family. I beg to differ with this assessment.

While man cannot forgive sin, as that is the sole purview of God, man is commanded to forgive those that trespass against him. The Lord's Prayer says so, and the verses immediately following, Matthew 6:14-15 make it plain that we are to forgive our fellow man his trespasses. Matthew 18:21-35, 2 Corinthians 2:5-8, and Colossians 3:12-13 also deal with this subject.

We are supposed to be willing, able, and ready to let go of our anger, our hurt, and our need for vengeance and show forgiveness to those that hurt or offend us. Forgiveness, as one of the posters noted, is an active process. It is so much more than saying "I forgive you" and smiling; it is deciding everyday that we will not be consumed with anger, hurt, and hatred. It is trusting that God will see that justice is done to those that hurt us and resting assured that He will be true to His word to us.

There is has also been the sentiment expressed that the Amish could only exist here and are somehow indebted to America for their survival. That is true as far as it goes, but what does it have to do with the situation at hand? I do not understand the vitriol being hurled at a group that bothers no one, minds their own business, and has decided to keep itself separate from modern society. I mean, we conservatives have a field day complaining about, and dissecting the problems of our current society; we have a good old time talking about how debauched and hedonistic the culture has become, yet we attack the Amish for withdrawing for that same society! What are we doing, what are we saying when we criticize those people for simply living their faith?

While the Amish may not join the military and defend the country, they are doing the same as any other person that does not serve in that way. They are good citizens, they pay their taxes, and they make a positive contribution to their communities. Is that not enough for us to show them the respect they deserve as fellow citizens? Does military service now become a criteria for solid citizenship, and if so where does that leave me? I never served in the military, does that now mean that I am not a good, solid citizen?

The Amish are simply trying to live the Gospel as they see it and should be respected for doing so. I do not understand all their religious beliefs and will not try to dissect them, but I will show them respect. I respect that they are doing the best they can to practice Christian forgiveness, and respect them for it. In my opinion that puts them one step closer to godliness, and there is nothing wrong with that.

And if that makes me a pollyanna, or sanctimonious then so be it. I believe the Amish are to be  commended to for the forgiveness they have extended and will receive their reward in heaven. So save your anger and acrimony for the perpetrator of the crime, not the surviving victims.

They deserve our prayers, our condolences, and any support we can offer them in this tragic time. So please find it in your hearts to give that to them.

They deserve nothing less.

The GOP needs a big, fat attitude adjustment! This party has the biggest losers mentality since the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of the early 1980's...they rarely won, and when they did they didn't know what to do. That is what I continually see with the GOP when it gets power.

The party and its 'leaders', and I use that term lightly, seemingly have no idea how to be winners. The GOP took back the House in 1994 and have held the Presidency for 20 of the last 28 years, and they still act like losers. They allow the minority party to set the political agenda, to paint all events in the worst light for the GOP, and run screaming from any type of political confrontation. Just look back and you will see that the GOP seems to lack the intestinal fortitude to do anything that really matters.

There is no real leadership in the Congress, the President seems more interested in making nice with the Democrats than in letting them know that they are the minority party, and the conservative pundits wallow in defeatism.

Think I'm wrong? Just stroll through the archives of the 'Hall and you will see what I am talking about. How many times have the writers here told us that the GOP is going to lose the House in November? How many say that the GOP deserves to lose the midterm elections? And think about this, most of those articles were written before the current Mark Foley "scandalette", to steal an Ann Coulter-ism!

The pundits seem to be attempting to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you continually tell the voters of the party that the party deserves to lose, that in fact they will lose, it makes it that much more likely that a loss will occur. Just listen to the conservatives that tell us that the Foley matter is going to doom the GOP, that immigration will doom the GOP, that spending will...you get the point!

There needs to be a sea change in the GOP attitudes that takes them from the belief that they have to be nice to the Dems, in the case that the Dems regain power, to an attitude that the party has a mandate to govern. There needs to be an attitude that the voters have given the party a majority and thus have empowered them to govern in a conservative manner. There has to be a realization that winning is just that...WINNING! You know, "To the victors go the spoils" is as true now as the day it was first spoken.

The GOP has to break the minority mindset it adopted during its long exile from the reigns of government and begin acting like the majority party. And its most visible members, outside of government officials, have to stop speaking defeat to the base. Stop spending so much time telling us what the worst case scenario could be, and start telling us what we can do to strengthen our hold on the majority. Every once in a while hit us off like Rufus and Chaka Khan..."Tell me something good!"

Because if the Tampa Bay Yuccaneers can one day learn to win and become World Champions, it shouldn't be too hard for the GOP to learn to act like winners after they have won.

All it takes is a little attitude adjustment!

Readers of Brian R's blog will recognize the title from one of his earlier posts, and it seemed to capture what I'm writing about so perfectly that he allowed me to use it. Thanks for loaning me your title Brian, and I hope to do it proud ;D

 This may seem to my regular readers as ground once covered, and in a way it is. But as long as Republicans continue to act this way it will remain ground that has to be plowed repeatedly.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the Republican compulsion to throw each other under the bus whenever a political problem arises. This time it is Speaker Denny Hastert that the conservative pundits are all getting the long knives out for. They are just like the lyrics to that old song, "They smile in your face, and all the time they're trying to take your place...backstabbers!" Many conservative commentators are actively patting Hastert on the back with one hand, and using the other to push him out the door of the House.

But what purpose would slitting Denny Hastert's throat do the GOP? In the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, the last thing the GOP needs is more upheaval; yet many prominent conservative voices, some here at the 'Hall, are willing to see just that happen. Heck, they even say that it is necessary for the GOP to force Denny from the Speaker's chair to reclaim our allegedly lost credibility.

People, tell me how forcing Denny Hastert out at this point, before we even know what actually transpired will make the GOP look like it is unified going into the midterm elections? How is the GOP going to convince the conservative base that they are strong leaders, if at the first sign of trouble they sacrifice their fellows to the twin gods of media outrage and Democrat dirty tricks? Do these people not understand that this is the political equivalent of cut-and-run?

And some of the criticism of Denny Hastert has been, in my view, unfair. I have read all about his 'failure' to corral Foley, his alleged negligence in that matter, and now he is being derided for not being a strong conservative leader and not being a strong majority  leader in the House. I say that those charges are poppycock!

Some are even criticizing him for not being the leader the Party needs, and that's really where I think the haters need to climb off the man's back! When did it become the role of the Speaker to be the leader of the entire party? I thought that was the position that the President assumed politically; it has been for as long as I can remember!

See, now that the Foley scandal has erupted, Denny Hastert is the person that everyone, right and left seemingly, has designated as the fall guy. The one's on the left want to add a trophy above their mantle heading into the elections, and the one's on the right want to pin all the GOP failures on somebody so that they can all claim they did their best in this past session.

But you see, if anyone is to blame for GOP Congressional failures in this term, it cannot be Denny Hastert. It was the House that passed the immigration bill that the country was demanding, it was the House that has supported the President staunchly in the war effort, and it was the House that showed the greatest amount of support in the war on terror. It was Hastert that was able to keep the party unified in the House, while the Senate Republicans were seemingly going in a million different directions, and pursuing a million separate agendas.

Sadly though, the GOP seems determined to put the millstone around the neck of one of their own, and cast him into the roiling sea. And they do this without realizing that their constant scuttling of their mates hangs like an albatross around their own necks.

How is the country supposed  to believe that the GOP is going to really fight to win the war we are fighting now, when they won't even fight their political enemies to protect one of their own? It seems that when it comes to electoral politics, the GOP is the party of cut-and-run.

I guess Brian said it best..."They eat their young."


 

Dear readers, I would like to change things up a little bit. I have given you a glimpse of my eldest brother in a post, and followed that up with a post on the men that have shaped my life. Now, please read along as I introduce you to the women in my life...from the Queen Bee to my Little Princess.

There are two Queen Bee's in my life, and I am going to introduce the first to you now. The current Queen is my wife, Tracey. We have been married for 11 years now, and while every year has not been easy, I wouldn't trade them for anything! You see, I knew that I was going to marry this woman from the first time we actually met. We danced around each other for a while, playing the dating game...you know the drill. But when she agreed to marry me, my whole life changed.

My wife is truly my better half and she makes me whole. Her personality is nearly the polar opposite of mine, and that... is a good thing! We complement one another in ways that I never thought we would, and we have been able to take certain parts of the other's personality to round out our own. When I sit at my keyboard and put my opinions out there for all the world to see, that is her influence; she gives me the confidence that what I have to say matters, and other people would like to hear it.

It has been her love and support that has allowed me to chase my dreams, it is her encouragement that makes me believe that I can fulfill those dreams and I can never thank her enough for that.

The original Queen is my mother, Betty...or as I often call her, Betty-Boop. This woman, with the help of my grandfather, raised four of us children on her own. No matter how tough times were, she was a rock that we could always count on. Growing up, I never knew or recognized the sacrifices she made for us, the things that she willingly missed out on so that we could have what we needed. That type of sacrifice and the work ethic involved to meet the needs of four growing children have been a real inspiration to me. My mother is my heart and I never neglect to let her know how much she is loved and appreciated.

My older sister Trina has been like a second mother my whole life. She taught me how to read, how to ride a bike, and how to play basketball. I remember as a child pretending to go to school on Sunday afternoons with my little brother and sister as the students, and Trina was our teacher. Whatever lessons that she had learned in school that week, we learned on Sunday afternoon! The thing is, by the time that I started school all of those Sunday afternoon lessons had prepared me for the real thing!

And when I did start school Trina was my protector. She fought many battles sticking up for me until I could stand up for myself, and she didn't lose any of them. People, including yours truly, never could get out of the way of that left hand!

And to this day, I know that if I needed her to fight a battle for me she would gladly do it. She has been there for me in good and bad times, she has been more than a friend, more than a confidant, more than a protector. She has been my big sister and I will always love her for the love she has showered me with through the years.

My baby sister LaToya is such a special woman. She is the baby of our family, and the free spirit. She is the one that is not afraid to try things or to take risks. Sometimes things don't quite work out the way she thought they would, but she's not afraid to try things out. And I admire her for that. Not everyone is confident enough to do what they want, to pick up and leave everything familiar behind  and just chase a dream. That takes a courage that most people just don't have, and I am proud to see that my sister has it!

And even though she may be a little spoiled, and a bit impetuous I love her just the same. She adds a lot of spice to the family, and to my life.

Now we get to the Little Princess, my daughter Madison. It's hard to believe it but she is almost 3 years old now. It seems like yesterday that we were bringing her home, and I was giving her the grand tour of the house! Now, she thinks she runs the house!

But she has brought me so much joy, and she has helped make me into a better man. Now, my son changed my life as well, but it is different having a little girl to look after. With my son, it is all about teaching him to be a good man and that entails things that I can show and teach him. With my daughter I know that I have to set a different example for her. I am the first man that she will ever love, and I have to be worthy of that love. I have to model the type of man that I want for her when she is older, because she is looking at me now and determining what a good man is. And that is an awesome responsibility for a man to have on his shoulders. But with the relationships that I have with my mother, sisters, and especially my wife I am confident that I can do the job. I cannot, and will not, fail her. I love her too much for that.

And I would be remiss if I did not give a mention to my mother in law, Annie. From the day she met me, Annie has been nothing but good to me. And when I married her daughter, I became her son...period. I hear all the jokes about inlaws and the like, and I just smile at the thought of my inlaws. Annie has been a sounding board for me at times, she has been a loving grandmother, and has always been willing to lend a helping hand to my family. She is no longer an inlaw to me, she is simply my second mother...and I love her.
I also have three other wonderful sisters, Maria, Becky, and Yolanda that married my brothers and I can't leave them out. Maria has welcomed me into her home so much that it feels like my home, and she has been a great mother to my two wonderful nieces.  Becky married my brother Dewey, has given him three wonderful children, and more than holds her own in my smart-alec family. And Yolanda was married to my brother Alfred, gave him a beautiful daughter and a son that I am sure will be a wonderful child. And she made my brother happy, which is the most important thing of all. I am blessed to have these three in my life as well, and I am proud to call them sisters.

So again I say to you, let the women in your life know that you love them. Let them know every day, not just Mother's Day or Valentine's Day; don't take it for granted that you will have time to tell them later. As my pastor used to say, "Give them their flowers while they yet live"; let them know you love them today, because tomorrow may be too late.

There is a hard truth that is being ignored in the whole Mark Foley imbroglio, and it is possibly the most germane point in the whole scandal. While everyone is focusing on what the House leadership knew, where the instant messages came from, and why they were disclosed so close to the midterm elections, there is a falsehood that is being spread that is largely unremarked upon.

So I will call the spade and let you all in on the truth. Are you ready? Good. Here we go!

Mark Foley is not a pedophile! A pedophile is defined as "the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children" by Wikipedia. As we all know, prepubescence is before puberty and peripubescence is right around puberty; the young man Mr. Foley allegedly propositioned was past the age of puberty and starting towards young adulthood. Therefore, Mr. Foley does not fit the profile of a pedophile given at this site.

I point this out because it is my belief that by accusing Mr. Foley of pedophilia, the media and their allies are attempting to shield the homosexual lobby from any type of scrutiny or criticism. There is a reason that my decidedly nonscientific research came up with 356,000 Google hits when I ran a search on the linked words Mark Foley pedophile! And that reason is that the GLAADs and GLESNs of the world will do anything to convince the world that Mark Foley has a mental illness, and is not just some horny gay guy, because that is just not good for their image as the most put upon group in the history of mankind...Jews excluded, of course!

The gay lobby needs for Mark Foley to be seen as a pedophile because it covers up the fact that Foley was simply acting out on his homosexual impulses. He saw an attractive younger man, attempted to cultivate a relationship with him, and finally began sending him pornographic instant messages...having virtual sex with him. Now tell me, how much different is that from how gay men openly court other gay men, and especially younger gay men? The problem is that Foley is high profile, his actions are viewed through a political lens, and having him identified as a regular gay male would be devastating to the image that gays have built for themselves as being just like you and me, the only difference being who they sleep with.

And this isn't the first time that this tactic has been employed. We all remember the sex abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church here in America, and we remember the phrase "pedophile priest" being used to smear the Catholic priesthood. But the truth of the matter was entirely different. According to Bernard Goldberg's excellent book Arrogance, the real story "...was gay priests molesting fifteen sixteen year-old boys. Those are the facts, and they are indisputable" (166).

The similarity is striking in the way that the media, then and now, has chosen to push the 'pedophile' angle on the public. By distorting the facts, the media are able to reshape the debate and deflect any negative attention that the GLBT community might possibly face. It sets up a straw man that everyone can take turns knocking down, and allows questions about the wisdom of having gay men in such close proximity to adolescent boys to go unaddressed. It's a pretty slick double play, if you ask me and it could only be pulled off with the help of the willing media.

Now I'm not saying that gay men are any worse than heterosexual men, or that they are more dangerous either. I know plenty of heterosexual males that would willingly seduce a 16 or 17 year old girl if they thought they could get away with it. What I am saying is that the media allows homosexual men to get away with it by calling it something that it isn't!

That said, I am sure that some will read this and call me a homophobe, a bigot, or intolerant. If that be the case, then so be it; thats the price that comes with calling a spade a spade. I'm a big boy...I can take the weight!

But the next time you hear Mark Foley being described as a pedophile, remember what you have read here, think about it, and don't be fooled!

Because in this case, as in the Catholic sex scandal, pedophiles need not apply

I have been following the news lately and some of the things that I am hearing leave me incredulous. I am hearing liberals make claims that no one could possibly believe are true, since the liberals have long since staked out positions contrary to what they claim to hold now. So I just have a few questions to ask of the liberals out there.

Since when did the liberals start to believe that we need more troops in Iraq? It seems like they have been agitating for a pull out of troops since the day we started the fight against Saddam Hussein. I don't remember Bela Pelosi or Schmuck Schumer saying that we need more troops; in fact I distinctly remember them calling for a 'redeployment' of troops out of Iraq and into a country to be named later!

Since when have the liberals respected the opinions of the intel community? As my sister Trina would say, "When did their mouths become prayer books?" Aren't these the same agencies that, according to the left, were clueless at best and servile at worst in gathering pre war intel? So why is it that suddenly their limited views on Iraq being a breeding ground for terrorists is to be accepted with no questions? Since when did the left begin to trust the CIA? I thought that the left had no use for them at all. I guess all that changes when they say something you want to hear, eh?

Since when did the libs start caring about defending this country from terrorist attacks? They have spent the last few years systematically attempting to destroy or obstruct every tool used to fight the terrorists. This is the party that had Dingy Harry Reid crowing that "We have killed the Patriot Act", that has attempted to shut down the Terrorist Surveillance program, and has tried to portray Gitmo as some torture chamber in order to get it shut down. Is this how the libs think the war against the jihadists will be won? Do they think that the words of a Jack Murtha in accusing U.S. Marines of cold-blooded murder is really helping make us safer? Or is it just a way for them to grab political points with their rabid, fringe base?

And finally, when did liberals start caring about honesty in public officials? The same party that ran around for months screaming "Culture of corruption...culture of corruption" like Gomer Pyle yelling "Citizens arrest, citizens arrest!" has had to abandon that idea altogether. What with William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana being caught with his hand in the till, the corruption charge has died a painful death. And don't get me started about the pathological Billy Drop Trou Clinton and the pack of lies he told on FoxNews Sunday! It would take all night to unpack and debunk all the lies he told in that one short interview.

Now, I know that no liberal would ever be able to give an honest answer to any of my questions, as it is not in their nature to tell the truth very much.

But hey, since when did it hurt to ask?

Folks I tell you, it is an absolute hoot watching the left trying to get themselves some religion! These people despise Jerry Falwell, hate Pat Robertson, and would jump on Billy Graham if he weren't old and sick. They have had nothing but contempt for all of us religious, Jesus-freak, Bible-thumpers for as long as I can remember; now all of a sudden they are running around pretending to be a part of the faithful.

They come up with strange groups like the Red Letter Christians that claim to be non partisan, but a closer look reveals exactly who they are. They claim to be evangelicals, but they spend their time and effort pushing left leaning causes and positions. And the left thinks that people are going to be fooled by this group? That just goes to show how dumb they think the faithful in this country are.

What the left does not understand is that to Christians, religion is not something you do one or two days a week. Our religious faith in God is at the core of who we are and shapes us, molds us, and guides us in the decisions we make in our lives. Our faith is not something that we pick up and put down as it suits our purposes, it is the driving force in our lives. Our faith in the eternal Word, the Lamb of God is not just lip service, it is life service!

Which is why it amuses me so much to see the liberals make all sorts of ostentatious displays of religiosity. We all remember Bill Clinton carrying that 14 pound family Bible out of the National Cathedral and trying to appear pious while carrying on with Monica Lewinsky. We also remember that he was getting spiritual advice from Rev. Jessie Jackson, who at the same time was carrying on his own illicit extra marital affair. Boy to be a fly on the wall for some of those conversations!

And who can forget the scenes of liberals attempting to quote Scriptures to justify their foolish policies, and either mangling or taking the quotation totally out of context? And the sight of liberals piling up into the pulpits of (mostly black) churches every four years and trying to pretend that they are true believers is both infuriating and funny. They are infuriating because it is an affront to God for a pastor to turn over the time that people have set aside to hear the Word preached to some secularist that lives a life that is usually in defiance of the Word of God! But it's funny just to see the secularists squirm while trying to fool the faithful.

So here's a message to the liberals out there trying to show how they have 'got religion'; to quote Jay-Z , "You can't sell me bulls*it man because we know the prices!" Loosely translated that means, for all your pretending you can't fool any of us because we have seen much better hustles!

So come election time, don't be fooled! Say praise the Lord, pass the ballot and run the 'jacklegs' out of office on a rail!

But please pray that the doorknob doesn't hurt them when it hits them in the arse! It is, after all, the Christian thing to do.