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.

Dear readers and friends, this entry is going to be a bit of a departure from  the usual fare here, but please bear with me. Many of you read my post about my brother Alfred and saw how much he meant to me; this is a chance for me to do what I asked you to do in that post. Today I want to introduce the world to the men that have shaped me in my life and whom I owe so much to. These are some of the greatest men I have ever known!

My grandfather Robert, everyone called him 'Sang", was probably the biggest influence in my life. I grew up with him and I swore he hung the moon and the stars in heaven! He was the strongest, funniest, hardest working man that I thought ever lived when I was a kid. But the thing that shaped me the most was that he loved me, my brothers and sisters and was willing to do just about anything for us. He instilled in me a work ethic and the knowledge that if I was going to ever be anything in life, I had better be prepared to work for it, because nobody was going to give me anything.

He also made sure that the kids living in his house went to school and got an education. He was a child of the Depression and he never really got to go to school because he had to help his family put food on the table. He never learned to read and he knew how hard it made his life, so he insisted that we get good grades and respect our teachers so that we would not have to live by the sweat of our brows, like he had to. I appreciate that to this day and I feel like my continuing my education is in a way honoring him because I am doing something that would make him proud. My only regret is that he passed away before my children had a chance to meet him and know what it was to be loved by that wonderful man.

My eldest brother Alfred was by far the most honest, upright, God-fearing man that I will probably ever know. But he was also one of the funniest and most irreverent as well. As I said before, his presence in my life led me to a love of reading that I have to this day, and have been able to pass onto my son. I always felt that I had to be well read and knowledgeable so that I could hold my own in conversations with him, as he did not suffer fools lightly.

He was also a man that made you feel loved whenever he was around. Since he has been gone, the one thing that I have missed most is his hugs...he had a way of embracing you that just let you know that he loved you unconditionally and would always be there to support you no matter what the circumstance. I miss the reassurance that he could always offer in good and bad times, just by a word, a look, and especially one of his hugs!

Brother number two is Dewey, the great athlete in the family. When I was a kid, you could not convince me that there was any better ball player in the world than my big brother! He used to take me and my little brother out in the yard and pound us in football and basketball all the time. But when we got a little older and wanted to really learn to play, he was right there to show us what he knew. That means a lot to a kid brother to have his big brother care enough about him to be willing to hang around home to teach me something when he could have been hanging out with his friends. That made me feel like I was something special, and I will always appreciate that.

I also look up to "Chuck" because of the way he lives his life. This is a man that joined the army in his twenties, started college in his thirties, and is now doing social work and serving in the National Guard as well. And he did all of this while being a good husband to his wife, and a loving father to his children. His drive and determination to succeed in all of his endeavors is a constant inspiration to me, and lets me know that I can achieve my goals just like he did.

Last but not least is my brother Pat, my 'little' brother. If there has been one person that has been with me through thick and thin, it's Pat. Good times, bad times, happy times, or sad times, I have always been able to count on him. He is my best friend, the one that I can talk to about anything and know that it will go no farther than him. He's the one that keeps me supplied with video games so that I won't have to buy them, and he's the one that calls me every week just to shoot the breeze! He is my sounding board and he also drops some things from time to time that end up here in the blog. He is a wonderful father, a great husband, and a young civil engineer that has a bright future in that field...unless he chooses to do something else. I am so proud to have him as my brother and friend!

And I can't forget my brother from another mother, big Craig P! This man works full time and is raising his three kids on his own, and he's younger than me! I am so proud of the man that he has become and I know that his mother would be too if she were still with us. He is light years away from the spoiled little boy he was when we were growing up, I can assure the world of that!

This is also a man that when I was going through a particularly rough time in my life, he was right there by my side. Every day for weeks, he would get off work and come by my house to make sure that I was okay, that I had someone to lean on. He never said that was why he was there, but I knew and I appreciated it. That is what men are made of!

So please everyone, honor the great men in your lives. Let them know that they are appreciated and are valued by the people they love. Don't you think they deserve it?

 The assault on Sen. George Allen has ratcheted up lately, even bigger than the 'macaca' flap stirred up by the MSM this past summer. The liberals in the press have decided that George Allen must be stopped and are pulling out all the stops to do it, witness the intensity of recent attacks on the senator.

First there was the flap about the Jewish heritage of Allen's mother, that he had denied for years. Apparently his mother and father decided not to reveal their heritage to their children so it was understandable that the senator would say what he did about the subject; he was going on the information handed down by his parents.

But to the liberals at the Washington Post his ethnic heritage is a huge story that has to be pursued. Why it matters is beyond me, but in Allen's denials were treated as the biggest story in a while by the media; just look at the way the Post covered the subject. And the blogosphere on the left is gleefully attacking Sen. Allen as a self-hating Jew, even though he did not know of his Jewish ancestry until August!

The latest attack on Senator Allen has come from the journalistic powerhouse Salon.com in a story that makes some crazy claims about the young Allen's actions while in college. The Salon story attempts to paint the Senator as a racist who made offensive remarks while a football player at UVa. The  report is hotly disputed by the Allen campaign and is covered in a story being carried on FoxNews.com that gives the Allen campaign a chance to respond. But don't count on the MSM giving you these facts, it does not fit the media template.

There is a reason that the left has attacked Senator Allen in such a ferocious manner, and it has nothing to do with a Senate seat in Virginia. The reason that the left has come after Allen with guns blazing is that they are afraid of him running in 2008.

The media has not been able to establish John McCain or Rudy Guiliani as the frontrunners in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, despite all their efforts. McCain continues to show himself as a self serving, moralistic boob that craves media adulation and has no qualms about insulting the conservative base; he has no real chance to win no matter what Chris Matthews thinks. And Guiliani is a New York liberal on all issues, save national security. Being foursquare against all that the GOP stands for is no recipe for a run in '08, regardless of the panting of the mainstream media pundits.

They fear Allen because he is a conservative that has had a successful tenure as the chief executive of Virginia, and has a way of connecting with voters. He has governed as a conservative, has been elected on a conservative plank, and is at home among his conservative supporters. Remind you of a certain sitting president, especially the ability to connect with voters?

This fear is why the Democrats and their willing media accomplices have started trying to dirty up the candidate now, a full two years out from election time. They have pulled out the antisemite charge, as silly as that is, and have decided to portray the senator as a closeted racist that used racial slurs in college. They have opened up the character assassination playbook and unleashed the tactics found there on Allen.

If you have any doubt that George Allen scares the bejeebers out of Democrats, just watch the way the attacks escalate from here. It will only get worse before it gets better!

You may not know it now, but if you look very closely and interpret the media attacks on Sen. Allen, you may just be looking at the true frontrunner for the GOP in 2008.

With all of the talk of a liberal/conservative divide, and all of the debate that attends it, I got to thinking about just what is the difference between the philosophies? What is it that makes the two seemingly incompatible? Why is it that the Democrat/liberal viewpoint is sliding closer to political irrelevance each and every day?

The answer comes down to the core values that each philosophy holds dear, the type of thinking about issues that each inspires in its adherents.

For the liberal/Democrat way of thinking the core values it seems to engender are the beliefs that everything is political, and that people are basically failures. You see the belief that all things are political played out in all types of nonpolitical issues.

For example, how long did it take for the Democrat party to turn Hurricane Katrina into a purely partisan political issue? The storm was barely over before the Dems were out in front of the cameras accusing the Bush administration of neglecting the people of New Orleans, and accusing them of being racists for not personally evacuating every poor black person in the city.

Another, more shameful example of this attitude was the reaction to the 9/11 attacks. While in the first days after the attacks everyone stood united in our grief, anger, and desire to bring the guilty to justice, it did not take long for the Democrats to break ranks. It was not too long before they were mocking Vice President Cheney for the precautions taken to safeguard him, and they were also quick to paint President Bush as a coward for hopscotching the country in order to keep him safe as well. Never mind that the precautions were taken to keep the country's leadership from being decapitated in a time when no one was quite sure what was going on; for Democrats and liberals of all stripes that was viewed as an opportunity to score political points.

The liberal/Democrat viewpoint also tells people that they are basically failures that need the government to take care of them. They create among their constituents a victim mentality that allows them to fail and have ready made excuses for that failure. If you're gay, the excuse is homophobia; if you're a woman, it's sexism. You know and have heard all the rest; racism, ageism, and whatever other 'ism' that can be found to excuse failure!

And that is the main reason that Democrats/liberals rarely win elections when it matters. They have created a constituent base that is so fractured that they cannot serve them all; as my brother Patrick said it a few days ago, "They have too many backs to scratch and not enough hands!"

They have also internalized the victim mentality and find excuses for their failures, instead of trying to find ways to correct their mistakes. Take Bill Clinton's anger with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" this morning. When asked about continued criticisms of his handling of the terror threat during his tenure as President, Slick Willie came unglued! It wasn't his fault of course;according to the former Prez, FoxNews was out to get him, Chris Wallace was trying to 'make his bones' by asking the question, he was really engaged but the Bush team dropped the ball in its initial 8 months, blah, blah, blah, wah, wah, wah! But not once did he say simply that he did not recognize the threat that terror posed to the U.S., that he regretted the lack of foresight on the issue, and that he regrets that mistakes were made. That would have been an acceptable response, but instead he goes off on a rant that was designed to place all the blame on the infamous 'vast right-wing conspiracy'.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have in my view a few core values that define it. But notice that I did not link the conservative philosophy and the GOP together, as I did with the Dem/libs. The reason is that the two are not inextricably linked; look at the likes of McCain, Chafee, Specter, or Snowe and you can plainly see that all Republicans aren't conservatives. But it is rare to see a Democrat that is not a liberal. Quick, name me one Democrat that is not a liberal (and you can't use Zell Miller)! Bet you couldn't name one, could you?

The incompatibility between the two philosophies comes down to a few basic points. Point one is that conservatives see people as potential successes instead of as preordained failures. Conservatives believe that if given a fair chance at life that most people can find a way to succeed at what they want to do. And success is not simply measured in money, it is measured in the sense of pride and self worth that comes with knowing that you did the best you could and got as far as your talents would take you.

Point two is that conservatives stress personal accountability in life. It is up to each individual to make a success, or failure out of his life; there are no excuses for the decisions that one makes in life. The belief that success or failure is dependent on the person involved is an animating force in the way that conservatives live their daily lives.

And point three is that conservatives are able to incorporate points one and two into their political philosophy. It is the belief that people can succeed in spite of obstacles that has allowed the conservative movement to gain strength in today's political climate. Conservatives did not look for shadowy conspiracies when they were losing elections in the 1960's and 1970's, they looked at themselves to see what had to change to allow for success. And after doing some soul searching and reassesements of what winning would take, we got the triumph of Ronald Reagan!

And it is the belief that people are accountable fr their own actions, and are responsible for their own lives that is the reason behind the conservative disdain for massive government handouts. Again, look at Katrina for an example; conservative opposition to the FEMA bailouts of the residents of New Orleans was not predicated on race or any of the other popularly held reasons ascribed to conservatives. It was mainly due to the fact that these people had ample warning that the hurricane was coming and chose to stay in harms way, instead of evacuating to safety when warned of the impending danger. And when disaster struck, the taxpayers of the U.S. were stuck paying the tab for the poor decisions made by others.

So if you were wondering what were the sticking points between the two major political philosophies of the day, I hope I have been able to give a little insight on the matter. Because in the end, it all boils down to the competing core values of both.

Lately I have been reading and hearing more and more of the notion that a GOP loss in November would be a good thing. Jonah Goldberg wrote about it yesterday, and our own BrianR has been saying it for quite some time; they feel that the only way for the GOP to find it's way back to the conservative base is to lose the House.

As much as they feel that this is necessary, I feel that this is a case of cutting of the nose to spite the face. What do we really stand to lose in November if the Dems win? Read on and I'll give you the rundown.

First we would allow the Democrats to control the nation's purse strings...and that is not a good thing! These are the people that virtually invented profligate spending, and would quickly make the GOP seem like a group of spendthrifts. We see the GOP spending on domestic programs as out of control, but can you imagine how much more the Dems would spend? Remember, the problem that the Dems see with the Medicare drug program is not too much spending, but too little! Just think how much more could be spent if they were in control of the House.

Next we would put the Dems in control of the various House committees. How long do you think the Dems would wait to launch an impeachment investigation and trial against President Bush? Jonah Goldberg seems to think that such a move would give Bush a bump in opinion polling...but what good is that when you have been impeached by the House? And with the Dems working hand in glove with their media masters how much of the truth do you think would get out to the public?

Further, what would be the future of GOP nominated judicial choices? How many would actually get to a vote, or out of committee? As much as the left loves having liberal activists on the federal bench, you can bet your last money that anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky will not get a hearing! This would give them the ability control much of American law for years.

Finally, a  GOP loss would give the Dems de facto control over foreign policy. If these people get control over the House, just watch how they repeat the Vietnam experience. Remember that it was not a battlefield loss for the U.S. in the Vietnam, but a media and political loss. Then it was Walter Cronkite telling us that Vietnam was a lost cause, now it is Chris Matthews; then it was the NYT publishing classified documents, and they are still at it today. But most importantly, then it was a Democrat controlled House that de funded a war they hated being run by a President they distrusted. Now it would be a Democrat House that holds the ability to de fund a war they are trying to distance themselves from, being prosecuted by a President they despise. If you don't think the Dems would de fund Iraq in a New York minute, you are kidding yourself!

One more thing, we all see how hard it is to get incumbents out of office, especially with gerrymandering and McCain-Feingold. If you create a new class of Democrat incumbents in the House, how do you propose to remove them once they win? It is much easier to win as an incumbent than as a challenger...do we really want to run the risk of letting the Democrats retrench and regain power?

So come November, do not allow your disappointment in the GOP to lead to a Democrat win. We had better be careful what we wish for, because if we get it we may not be able to get rid of it.

And that would really be cutting off our nose to spite our face!

With their decision to apply Geneva Convention protection to the jihadists in American custody, Senators John Warner, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have just joined the ACLU in the Jihadist Protection Agency. And in so doing, a little bit more of their true colors are beginning to show.

The three in question are claiming that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions should apply to the detainees that have been captured in the GWOT; however, the language of Article 4 makes plain that the jihadists are not to be treated as prisoners of war. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read if for yourself here. In trying to fit the jihadis into the Conventions' framework the Terrible Trio have basically said that the Conventions mean nothing, that no matter what you do, or who you are you will be protected. That flies in the face of what the Conventions are for.

What has galled me is the foolish justification they give for it; they say that it will somehow keep our soldiers safe if they are captured. Someone needs to tell them that if the jihadists capture any of our soldiers, there will be no POW status for them. They will be put on camera, taunted, and murdered with the video showing up on the internet...and al-Jazeera. It has happened before, and it will happen every time one of ours falls into the hands of the terrorists. There can be no doubt about that!

A little while back I wrote a post called the Land of Make Believe, all about the Democrats and the world of pretend they inhabit. With the decision to try to extend legal protection reserved for real soldiers to terrorists, the Terrible Trio has entered that fantasy land. Hopefully the rest of the GOP members are wide awake and see how dangerous this idea is.

Senator McCain is running for President and trying to get back in the good graces of the media horde, and Lindsey Graham is trying to elevate himself to 'maverick' status beside his hero McCain; that explains why they are doing what they are doing. But can anyone explain to me why John Warner would involve himself in this foolhardy endeavor? Hopefully he will come to his senses soon and not follow the other two down the road to infamy.

Let's all hope that the plan of the Terrible Trio goes down in flames, because we cannot afford to see this measure succeed. Our very future may depend on it.

All of you that regularly read my posts know that I am rarely one to discuss race in my writings, and the reason is that in many instances it just has no bearing on what I have to say. But this is different and what I have to say may offend some, and may turn others off; I hope that you will read what I am about to say and try to get an understanding of where I am coming from.

As I sat reading Harry Jackson's latest piece at Townhall, and reader reactions to it, my blood began to boil. I was reading things that insinuated that Rev. Jackson was somehow in bed with the "civil rights" cabal, that his appearance at the State of the Black Union event somehow proved it, that his plans were off the mark, and that it should be held against him that he refers to himself as a "Son of Africa". All of which got me to thinking this: Too often conservatives act just like liberals, especially when it comes to Black people.

Take something as simple as what Blacks should be called. Some prefer to be called Black, some prefer Afro-American, and some African-American, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter. Now, I understand about the hyphenated American argument as I have made it myself at times, but if the person that calls himself African-American is true to his country before his race, what does it matter?

But too many conservatives cannot abide that! They demand that you not use the name African-American, you should simply call yourself an American, and so on, and so forth. But why? Why should I not call myself what I want, why should I not identify with my family's origins? To make you feel more comfortable? Why is it that I must change to suit you?

Let me give you some personal background on my family that I recently uncovered. It seems that mine is the first generation of my family to be removed from sharecropping, and I am 35 years old. My mother had to work sharecrop fields, as did her father, and his father before him, and before him were slaves. My father's father was born in Greer, South Carolina in 1910, less than 40 years after the fall of the slave system in the Civil War; his father was most likely a slave at some point in his life and was most likely steeped in African religious and cultural traditions.  So for me to deny my African ancestry is an affront to all those that came before me, that laid the foundation of my family, and carved a path for me out of the wilderness. So please do not tell me that I am wrong if I choose to call myself an African-American or a "Son of Africa"! In so doing, I honor both my African and American family heritage, and calling myself that does not in any way mean that my race comes before my country.

Another problem that conservatives fall into when talking about race is the tendency to tell us what to do. That is particulary galling to me, because you do not know what we should do! It seems that some conservatives have decided who our 'leaders' should be, what problems we need to address first, and how to address them. How, pray tell, can you know all this? And do you realize how much you sound like liberals when you talk down to us, or make uninformed comments about us? And frankly, that is one of the reasons that Blacks aren't flocking to the conservative cause; what's the point in moving across the ideological aisle if there is still going to be someone trying to tell you what to do?

Take an example from Rev. Jackson's article. The reverend places the need to protect marriage as his number one priority for improving the Black community. Seeing all of  the societal and familial breakdown in the Black community since the Great Society began, that seems like a more than reasonable position for the Reverend to take. But no, cry the conservatives! What Blacks need is school vouchers! Really?! School vouchers are the key to solving the myriad problems the Black community faces?! What a load of crap!

Now, don't get me wrong, school vouchers are a great idea. There does need to be a valid educational choice for students that are trapped in failing schools; however, the major problems facing the Black community does not concern school choice. Our first priority must be to fix our families!

When the family unit is broken or nonexistent, that leads to many of the ills plaguing the Black community today. The destruction of the Black family directly correlates to the rise in illegitimate births, exploding teen birth rates, burgeoning street crime rates, and the staggering incarceration rates among young Black men. These problems were not caused by, but were heavily influenced by the breakdown of the Black family that took place during the 1960s, when it became more financially beneficial to be unmarried and have a child than it was to be married and have a child. As soon as LBJ started handing out welfare checks, food stamps, and section-8 housing the number of single parent homes exploded...and the effects of that explosion are still being felt in the Black community today.

See, we have to get that straight, we have to rebuild the family unit in the community in order to deal with our other problems. If you stepped back and looked at the whole picture, you would see that it was government programs that jump-started these problems, and it is going to take more than another government program to fix it.

And these are just some of the attitudes that sometimes try my patience with my fellow conservatives, and I could go on. Like the conservative penchant to tell us who our heroes should be (King...good! Malcolm...bad!), whose ideas to follow, and what path to take to solve our problems.

The Black community needs support and help, not for someone to ride in claiming to have all the answers. Help us, give us suggestions, throw some ideas out there in the arena, but please do not try to tell us what to do! We have had that from the left for longer than I can remember, and I don't think we need that same attitude coming at us from the right as well!

And don't get defensive or angry when we choose to do things differently than you would like. Because sometimes it is a Black thing... and you wouldn't understand.

Democrat politicians are not patriots, they are not engaging in dissent, and they are not interested in helping us to defeat an enemy that has pledged itself to our utter destruction. And while they may not be technically guilty of treason, they are at the very least traitorous.

Every day we hear some politician, be it "Dingy" Harry Reid, John "The Gigolo" Kerry, or Nancy "Bela" Pelosi running around making negative statements about the war effort, the battle planning, or the duration of combat in Iraq. Teddy Kennedy says the war was "cooked up in Texas", John "Unindicted Coconspirator" Murtha advocates a run and hide plan for peace, and Jimmy "The Lust Bucket" Carter goes onto foreign soil to slander our President and the British Prime Minister.

My question to this group of losers, malcontents, and failures is simple: What do you propose to do about the threats we face? The answer we will get from them is probably on the order of "We have a plan...vote for us and we will reveal it." Or better yet, "The threat has been overstated, Bush just wants to scare you." That is the usual Democrat non-response, isn't it?

But you know what, we should be scared; we should be frightened out of our wits. And not just about the terror threat, but about the fact that the Dems want back in so that they can "deal" with the terror threat we face. These are the same people that ignored fatwas by Bin Laden in both 1996 and in 1998, while they were in control of the national security apparatus. Can we really trust our safety to people that can find ways to ignore declarations of war on us? I certainly don't think so!

So all of you conservatives whining about the imperfections of our current crop of legislators, and hinting that you might not vote when it counts, take a look at Bin Laden's fatwas. Then think about who ignored the threat in order to consolidate political power. Finally, decide if we can afford to allow them to take control of our security again, for any length of time.

And when you've had time to digest the fact that allowing them to regain control would be a massive mistake, one of epic proportions, quit your whining and get ready to vote!

We had better ante up in November, or we could be left holding a dead man's hand.

Now marinate on that!

In this culture of ours, we tend to devalue words by over usage. And one of the words that we have done this to is the word hero.  Today I am going to give it back the value it deserves.

I am not going to tell you about some one that took a 'heroic' stand in a lawsuit, or was the 'hero' of the big game on Saturday or Sunday. I am going to put that title on people that actually deserve it.

Five years ago today we were attacked on our own soil by people that were bent on our destruction. They attempted to destroy our financial capital, to bring our military nerve center to its knees, and decapitate our national government. These men were bloodthirsty, cowardly murderers with no regard for human life, neither theirs nor ours. But on that blackest of days, there were heroes.

There were heroes that rushed into the World Trade Center towers, not knowing what awaited them; they only knew that their fellow citizens needed them. And so these heroes, wearing NYPD and FDNY uniforms plunged into a living Hades, asking no rewards; only seeking to do their best for their fellow men. That, my friends, is a hero.

There were heroes in the WTC that did what they could in the confusion to help those in need around them. These people did not think first of their own survival, but of the importance of getting everyone possible to safety. That is the definition of a hero.

There were the people at the Pentagon, both military and civilian, that led people out of the rubble to safety. And there were the firefighters, police, and first responders of all sorts that rushed to that horrific scene to give aid and comfort to the injured and frightened. And in the midst of all of these were men like Sen. John Warner of Virginia and SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, that were on the scene doing whatever was necessary to help. That is what heroism is.

And finally, there were the passengers and crew of United Flight 93. These people, upon hearing the news of the other flights that had been hijacked, decided that they had to resist their captors. Knowing that the odds were not good that they would ever go home again, these people decided to take action. And that action was not just an attempt to save themselves, they were attempting to save other innocents from the fate of those in Washington and New York. So these brave souls gave themselves in an effort to spare others the fate that was staring them in the face. That act of selflessness exemplifies what true heroism is.

So as we remember the tragedy of 9/11, let us not forget them; as we mourn those we lost, do not forget those that gave. Some gave their blood, some their sweat, all their tears, and many their very lives. Do not forget to honor them.

For they answer to one name for all time.

Hero.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ( Amendment 1.)

With the brouhaha over "The Path to 9/11" I thought it was time for someone to examine what free speech is, and is not, in this country. Because some people seem to believe that some speech should be more free than others.

Take the liberals in our midst. They feel that they should be able to lie, smear, and attack anyone that opposes them on any issue. Black "leaders" like Je$$ie Jack$on feel that it is okay for them to accuse anyone of racism if they oppose any part of the racial justice agenda, radical gay groups reserve the right to call anyone that dares disagree with their agenda homophobes, and secularists call any Christian within a mile of a public policy discussion a theocrat. But woe be unto you if ever call them bigots or dispute their assertions, because you will be taken to the free speech wood shed.

The reason for that is the mistaken belief that many people have that they have a right not to be offended or have their feelings hurt. But if you carefully read the Constitution's first amendment you won't find that notion anywhere. No one has a right to not be offended, but those that believe that will do anything to quiet anyone they find offensive.

That attitude is wrongheaded, period! While we should strive to be civil in dealing with others, it is not required. All of us have said things that were deemed offensive by someone, and we have all said things that hurt the feelings of others, but we should not be penalized for it beyond our dealings with the offended party. Trying to restrict speech for the benefit of those that may be offended is a losing proposition that will cost us all in the long run.

So let's all strive to be civil, kind, and respectful toward each other. If we can do that we can de-fang the free speech monitors that lurk among us. If we monitor our own speech, we can put the busy bodies out of business.