My brothers and I are huge sports fans, particularly football and basketball. And like all fans, we have commentators that we love and some we just can't stand. Personally, I can't stand Billy Packer; he is just a bit too much the know-it-all for me.My younger brother has his least favorite as well. The one he could live without is Bill Raftery, who does a lot of work on ESPN and also covers the New Jersey Nets of the NBA. Now, when you hear Bill Raftery talk basketball you can see just how much he really knows about the game. He can break down players strengths and weaknesses, can explain coaching decisions, and can make even the most complicated aspects of the game seem like child's play. But when the lights are on, and he's behind his camera he becomes someone else. He turns into a walking, talking fountain of catchphrases. "Send it in BIG FELLA", "They're playin zone with MANTOMAN principles", and "With the KIISSS!" When he goes into his "Raft" state, he becomes a bad caricature of himself; he loses all of the knowledge of the game that he has and becomes a buffoon for the amusement of the crowd. And that's why my brother loathes him so much...because he is a caricature!

Now you are probably wondering what this little bit of trivia has to do with anything, so I'll get right to it. I see the way the Bill Raftery acts as a perfect symbolism of the way we conservatives act sometimes. Not all of us, not all the time to be sure; but enough of us enough of the time that we all end up looking bad. So don't get bent here, okay? I am just calling the spade a spade!

Let's take a journey through time, shall we? Think back to a time earlier in the year, before the elections when the title Speaker Pelosi was thought to be just a liberal pipe dream. It was late winter/early spring when the whole country went mad with outrage at the despicable Bush administration for having the termerity to attempt to do business with Dubai Ports World. The press jumped all over it as the biggest scandal since Watergate, the Democrats suddenly had a cause to use to show they were tough on terror, and the GOP used it to show how "independent" they were from presidential influence.

The Dubai Ports World deal was covered as though: a) it was the first time a foreign company would run a port in the U.S., b) it was the only company owned by a foreign government to run a U.S. port, and c) that it was some Arab/Muslim conspiracy to subvert port security. If you need a refresher, just check out this report from CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/port.security/index.html

The only problem is that the initial firestorm was not warranted, as noted in a Newsmax article at http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/26/233818.shtml.  All of the angst about DPW came off as being anti-Muslim and anti-Arab. And guess who took the brunt of that criticism...you guessed it, the conservatives! It was not that liberal Democrats weren't in on it too, it's just that the voices being covered when it started looking like racial/ethnic discrimination was the conservative voice. After all, that's what the media thinks of us any way, right? And we willingly played the clown on that one folks!

More recently we have the Michael Richards imbroglio. After Richards went on his tirade at the African-American Comedy Store patrons that heckled his lame attempt at stand-up comedy, Townhall columnists rushed to their keyboards to write about it. No problem there, as it was a story getting major media play. I mean, how often does a famous "comic" get angry and start taunting African-American men with a description of a lynching...in a public forum no less!

But the problem came in the responses to those columns by Townhall members. Too many quickly went from condemning Richards to falling into the "blame the victim" stereotype that conservatives are tagged with. Now, I don't know what set Richards off exactly nor do I care what the men said to him as they left the Store. And I am not saying that these men needed to sue Richards over what was said. What I am saying is that what Mike Richards said and did that night was shameful and hurtful.

But a gang of the conservative posters at Townhall jumped all over the men for heckling Richards! That's right, some of the posters were quite ready to overlook what Richards said in a vain attempt to make the hecklers out to be the villains. Nevermind that Richards repeatedly called the men n*gger, or that he informed them that a few years earlier they would have been "hanging upside down from a tree with a fork up your a**"! No, the problem was that the men were "rude", called Richards a "cracker" as they walked out, and that it was a case of blacks being given special treatment. See where we seemingly lived up to the "racist" facet of the conservative caricature on that one?

And most recently, we have Dennis Prager and his assinine article about Keith Ellison and the whole Quran dustup. Mr. Prager, in his zeal to defend some so-called time honored tradition rushed to his keyboard to denounce Keith Ellison's decision to have his swearing in picture taken with his hand on the Quran instead of the Bible. It would have been quite enough for Dennis to say that the whole Bilbe bit was a tradition that should be preserved, but he couldn't  stop there. Oh no, Dennis had to say that Ellison should not be "allowed" to take his picture with his hand on the Quran.

And with that, the snowball started rolling downhill! The posters immediatley started living up to the anti-Muslim facet of the conservative caricature. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself. How many of those responses to the article were raising the decision of Mr. Ellison to the level of a Muslim incursion into America, or the offshoot of multiculturalism, or some such other argument? And it is not just the arguments themselves, but the vehemence and intensity of the arguments that are notable; check the article out for yourself at www.townhall.com/content/55a05d19-ee16-4fec-96d6-1a8c735965a0. The amount of passion about his one, inconsequential decison by a relatively unknown freshman Congressman was way out of proportion. And it played neatly into the caricature of conservatives that the liberals and the media have created over the years.

As conservatives we have to be extra careful in what we do, what we say, and how we behave. We are watched constantly for any sign of "hypocrisy" and are held to impossibly high standards ethically, morally, and politically. We have to avoid the temptation of living down to liberal/media expectations of us.

Because if we continue to live down to the conservative caricature, we will quickly find ourselves looked at as the Bill Raftery of the political scene. It will not matter how smart we really are, how many good ideas we really have, or that we have real expertise. We'll just be looked at as the buffoon, the court jester sent in to give the other side something to laugh at and ridicule.

And that's not so funny, is it?

I never thought I wold be saying these words, but recent developments seem to make them inevitable: We are not going to win in Iraq. There seems to be a sense coming from the White House that we are doomed to failure in Iraq, and if the White House believes it they will make it so.

It all started with the "resignation" of Donald Rumsfeld after the midterms. Many a conservative was either flummoxed by the decision, angered by it, or both. I was in the category of "both". I could not understand the reasoning in waiting until after the election to dump the biggest Iraq war lightening rod out there. The Democrats and the media focused on the war, the "failures" of Rumsfeld and used that twin tack to put the White House on the defensive. If the President knew, and he did know, that Rummy was going to be gone before the midterms why wait until after to announce it? It would have more politically astute to dump Rummy early and save the majority, than to dump him after an a$$ whipping and look weak in doing so.

I also failed to see why Rumsfeld would be thrown under the bus in such an inglorious manner. This was the one man that never wavered in his committment to seeing the mission through, and willingly took the arrows for all of the Bush administration on the issue of Iraq. He never ducked a tough question, he never passed the buck, and he never threw his subordinates to the wolves. He showed true leadership and strong character throughout his tenure as SecDef. Whether we agreed with his war planning or not, we could always say that he was pursuing victory with integrity.

Now we have the nomination of Robert Gates, former Director of the CIA and late of the Iraq Study Group. The nomination of someone from this group, headed by James Baker, to take over the Defense Department gave me a bad feeling from the beginning. From all accounts the ISG is going to release a report that urges the U.S. to involve Iran and Syria in the effort to stabilize Iraq. These are the two main fomentors of sectarian violence in Iraq, and we are to beg their help in ending the very troubles they are causing? What madness is this? And from Mr. Gates' deep involvement in the ISG, there can be no doubt that he concurs with the findings of the group that have been leaked to the press.

And today's Senate confirmation hearings sealed the deal for me. When aked if we were winning the war in Iraq, Mr. Gates answered "No". Later, in response to a question from Senator Carl Levin Mr. Gates stated that he did not know if going into Iraq was the right thing to do. He wants to see what the results of the war are before he makes that determination. Why? What is so hard about saying that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do? Why can't he see that the liberation of the Iraqi people from the Butcher of Baghdad, their freedom from his tyranny, rape, and muder is a good thing on its own merits?

What is the new direction of the Pentagon going to be on Iraq, when the new SecDef cannot find it in him to say that we were right to take Saddam out? I know that things have not been all peaches and cream in Iraq, and I know that all of the decisions made have not been good ones. But the bad decisons that were made are not a reason to doubt the entire war effort. Mistakes are made in wars, that is a given. What we must do is correct them as best we can and continue the fight.

I fear that a Pentagon led by a charter member of the Iraq Surrender Group is going to vigorously pursue a way to get out of Iraq. There seems to be a serious move on the part of the White House to find an acceptable way to bug out of Iraq without winning the war that we are waging there. There seems to be a real effort to find a way to basically surrender to our enemies and still be able to win the P.R. battle at home. Otherwise, why would you nominate someone that help draft a report that advocates a surrender to head the Pentagon?

I have had my moments of disappointment wih George W. Bush during his tenure, mainly on the issue of the borders, but this dwarfs those disappointments. The man that led us into war, pledged to see it through to the end, and committed our troops to the fight seems to be willing to abandon the very fight he said he wanted to win. I hope that my analysis is wrong, but somehow I don't think it will be.

When you nominate a surrender advocate to head the Defense Department, surrender seems to be on your mind. Hopefully Robert Gates will committ himself to winning the war, but for some reason I doubt it. George W. Bush seems to be on a collision course with a total surrender in Iraq. Maybe all those people saying that Iraq was a new Vietnam were right...it seems that we're heading down that same familiar path. Politics has become more important than victory in some circles.

And now the Democrats will seemingly get what they have wanted from the beginning.

Surrender.

After reading a couple of articles at Townhall by Dennis Prager and Mike Adams, and especially some of the responses to those columns, I feel the need to weigh in on the issue in the articles. The articles are about the request of newly elected Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota to be sworn in using a Quran instead of the Bible. This has ginned up a great deal of angst and anger at Mr. Ellison's request, or if you prefer demand, not to be forced to swear an oath on a book that he does not believe in.

What has gotten to me is the quickness of conservatives to attack Mr. Ellison and to attempt to make this an issue that does not really concern personal religious choices. But despite all of the yelling, name calling, and claims of supporting cherished traditions this is precisely about personal religious choices.

The idea that Keith Ellison should be forced to stand in public and be forced to swear an oath on the Bible, just so that some so-called tadition is preserved is repugnant to me. I cannot for the life of me see how a group of people that claim to so love the Constitution as much as conservatives, can fix their mouths to say that this man should be forced to ignore his religious convictions to please them! Further, I do not understand how people that are usually sober, reflective, and responsible could go off  the deep end in trying to enforce some vaunted tradition; one, by the way no one cared about until now!

This is not about some foreign power attempting to subvert America; the last I checked Keith Ellison was from Minnesota. It is not about the creep of multiculturalism, nor is it about an African-American attempting to get special treatment. It is about  a Muslim elected to office in America and whether his right to practice the religion of his choice will be respected.

Which leads me to observe the selective hypocrisy of many in the conservative movement. I have been thinking and talking about this issue for some time, and this incident is just the latest example to pop up. We conservatives have to decide whether we are what we say we are, or if we actually believe what we say we do. We cannot continue to claim we want smaller government, while embracing big spending plans by the GOP. We cannot continue to pretend we believe in free speech when we are just as quick as the left to shout down voices we disagree with. And we cannot continue to scream about the left's 'War on Christmas" and the forcing of secular humanism on us, all the while saying that Keith Ellison has to conform to our religious beliefs/traditions. Doing anything else gives truth to the claims of Left Angle, Kimberley, and Phylo Se Phizer that we are hypocrites!

Claiming that allowing Keith Ellison to be sworn in using the Quran is going to create a slippery slope may be true. But the real slippery slope is in trying to force him to ignore his religious beliefs in order to please the tradition loving majority. The real slippery slope is in deciding that we will protect the free exercise rights of the religious...so long as they agree with our religion.

We are always telling ourselves that we are better than that, aren't we? We like to say that our conservative values are underpinned by the free exchange of ideas, so why are we acting so much like the left in this instance? If we are truly about the free exchange of ideas and are not afraid of new ideas, let's try to act like it!

Because if we continue to insist on forcing Keith Ellison's hand down on a Bible, just to appease us, we will have abandoned the ideology we claim to be believers in. We will have become the very things that we accuse the liberals of being...intolerant, freedom hating religious bigots.

I do not think that is the slope we want to slide down. Is it?

As I look around the political landscape and survey the situation, one thing leaps out at me from the landscape. It is something that causes me a great deal of concern and should concern all of us. The problem that I am seeing is the increasing abdication of responsibility in our so-called leaders, here and abroad.

Look back at the situation in Israel with Hezbollah. In that situation the government of Ehud Olmert responded to constant attacks on their northern towns by Hezbollah fighters based in southern Lebanon. An Israeli incursion was launched, fighting commenced, and the war was on...then came the abdication. The Israeli government abdicated their responsibility to finish the war that was brought to them by terrorists and gave the United States and United Nations effective control of their foreign affairs. By allowing the U.N. and the U.S. to force a peace on them that was seen as an Israeli defeat by Hezbollah, the Olmert government gave the power to decide when and how vigorously the Israelis would defend their homeland from attack. The Israeli people are less secure, less safe, and less feared by their enemies due to that abdication by the Olmert government.

Here at home, we have seen the U.S. Congress abdicate its authority to non elected, unaccountable "bipartisan" commissions. First, we had the supposedly bipartisan 9/11 Commission that was tasked with investigating the 9/11 attack and formulating some plans to prevent further attacks. On the surface the idea sounded great, but in practice it was a farce.

The 9/11 Commission was bipartisan only in the fact that it had both Republicans and Democrats on the Commission. The Commission had its moderate Republican members like Thomas Kean, it had someone that should have been a witness in Jamie Gorelick, and it had a Democrat hack extraordinaire in Richard Ben-Veniste, all pretending to want to find the truth about 9/11. In truth, Kean and his bunch wanted to avoid any confrontation with the Democrats and the media, Gorelick wanted to bury her key role in blocking intelligence sharing by the F.B.I. and C.I.A., and Richard Ben-Veniste simply wanted to get Bush.

From this "bipartisan" group we had a slew of recommendations that the Congress rushed to embrace and enshrine into law. They gave us the Department of Homeland Security, new security guidelines, and the brand new idea that intelligence agencies just might need to share information. The question is, why was the Congress not willing to come up their own ideas, or launch their own investigations? It is not for unelected commissions to dream up new government regulations and agencies...I thought that was why we elected members of Congress!

Now we have the "bipartisan" Iraq Study Group that it seems that the White House and Congress are waiting to tell them what to do about Operation Iraqi Freedom. This group is headed by James Baker, former Secretary of State for Bush 41 and includes such luminaries as former SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and Democrat power broker Vernon Jordan. The one thing that all three of these people seem to have in common is an abiding disapproval of the entire war effort in Iraq! James Baker was a vocal critic of the war effort, Justice O'Connor actively stuck her nose into the debate from her perch at the Court, and Vernon Jordan can be counted on to oppose the war by virtue of his close ties with the Clinton family.

It is to this group that the White House and the Congress are willing to abdicate their Constitutionally mandated responsibility to. It is to this group that President Bush will listen, and probably allow to shape his strategy in Iraq going forward. The question is: Why? And by what authority does James Baker get to control and influence U.S. foreign policy?

By abdicating their authority to this group, our government will be putting our fate in the hands of people that cannot be held accountable by us, the citizens. It seems that our government "leaders" are so afraid of making tough decisions, or decisions that may be unpopular that they are willing to outsource the job of governing to special "bipartisan" commissions. We, the people don't have much say in the matter right now...the President will do as he will. But this should be a wake up call to draw the attention of the people to the type of "leadership" that we have in the seats of power right now. This is a troubling turn of events and should be watched closely as it will affect us for years down the road.

This should also spur us, the conservative base, to get ourselves back in the game. There is an election coming in just a couple of years where we will have the chance to take our government back. And when we get out to the primaries, and then the general election, we have to nominate and elect real conservative leaders. And we must punish and dismiss the people that are selling us out daily. We must rid ourselves of the Abdicators among us.

A few days ago I was having a discussion with some classmates and the subject of judgement came up. We were talking about the recent Southern Baptist Convention that was held in Greensboro, NC and their decision to ban open homosexuals from membership in their congregations. I was all for the ban, and was immediately called upon to be more forgiving....and was admonished for being 'judgemental'.

My reply, which astonished many, was "Yes, I do judge people!" And all Christians should judge people, as well. It is our right and our responsibility to judge, and I am not ashamed of it.

Now that does not mean that it is my job to judge whether a person is going to heaven or hell, that belongs only to God. But I am to judge righteousness from unrighteousness, and I am to judge the company that I keep. It is my responsibility to recognize things that are in contrast to God's Word and to avoid them. It is my job to know right from wrong, and to choose to do right. That is the judgement that I am talking about here.

You see, what the Church needs today are more people that are willing to judge. We need more people and leaders that are willing to separate the light from the darkness, and are willing to tell the truth no matter the consequences. One need look no further than the Episcopal Church in America to see what happens when Christians are no longer willing to judge what is righteous. You have a church that ordains unrepentant sinners into powerful leadership positions, and ignores the plain words of the Bible in order to placate the secular world around them.

So Christians, the next time that someone accuses you of being judgemental proudly proclaim that you are. God Himself has given you wisdom and the power of discernment and has called you to judge for yourself that which is righteous. You have been given the roadmap to making the right decisions, now make those decisions! Judgement is not something to be afraid of, or ashamed of, but is to be embraced. And don't be cowed by those that shout "Judge not, lest ye be judged." It is your job to make judgements, within reason, so make them!

And if all else fails, recall the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 2: 14-16:
But the natural man does not recieve the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

God bless, and do your duty!

I usually don't write about matters of war and peace here, but this is something that I need to say. As we fight the war in Iraq and attempt to establish a working republic there, we are constantly bombarded with casualty reports. The headlines scream with the news of more deaths in Baghdad every day, and the death of every soldier in Iraq is reported as if it is the biggest news of the day.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I am not trying to be cold or callous, but the fact is that in wars soldiers die. I know it sounds mean, but it is the truth; all of the combat veterans here at Townhall can attest to that fact. And while every death is a personal tragedy that will devastate families and communities, the death toll in this conflict is very low. Since our invasion of Iraq in 2003 our armed forces have seen only around 3000 members killed in action. And if you balk at the word 'only' being invoked, let me give you some historical perspective.

I am going to go way back to the Civil War to give you this perspective, but in order to avoid comparing apples to oranges,  I am only going to mention the casualties incurred by troops from my home state. In the 5 years of the Civil War North Carolina , with a military aged population of 116,000 military aged men (18-45) sent 120,000 men to fight. The state had 1/9 of the Confederate States' white populace, yet it provided 1/6 of the soldiers that fought for the army of the CSA. And most importantly, the state of North Carolina lost 40,000 men in the fighting! And it took 5 years after the war for the state to restore its economy to prewar levels.

I say that because it pains me to hear the bleating of the media and certain politicians that decry the war effort in Iraq. I am tired of hearing how we are not getting the Iraqi infrastructure repaired, and in some cases created, fast enough. And I am tired of the constant refrain of the price that our troops are paying in blood and lives lost, when the situation is not as bad as it is made out to be.

There have been obvious mistakes made in the execution of this war, and the planning has left much to be desired. It would just be nice if for once the naysayers would look at this though the lens of history. Maybe then their view would not be so distorted.

 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.