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.

I just came across this  article this morning. It is supposed to be about the similarities between MoveOn and the America First committee at the beginning of WW2. Check it out, and see if it also reminds you of some of the paleo-conservatives in our midst. Let me know what you think!

When Katherine Harris told the Florida Baptist Witness that if "...we (Christians) are not actively involved in helping godly men in getting elected then we're going to have a nation of secular laws" the crap hit the fan. The cry of theocracy was immediately raised, Harris was pilloried for making the statement and demands for an apology were made. And predictably, the good little moderate Republicans went rushing to condemn her statements and try to distance themselves from her.

But what has really been gnawing at me is the number of people that bring up the theocrat accusation every time a prominent Christian speaks out on a political issue or tries to influence legislation. Now in one of my earlier posts here, "Is the Christian Right Wrong", I took the Church to task for involving itself too deeply in politics; however, I did defend the right of individual Christians to be a part of the process. My main warning was that the Church must not be seen as an appendage of any political party, lest it's message and real reason for being be obscured.

That said, this shouting down of Christian voices as theocrats, or potential theocrats strikes me as particularly unfair, and is troubling when the accusation comes from our side of the aisle. It seems to me that the theocrat label is being slapped on people for no other reason than their saying that they would like to see the triumph of traditional morals in the public square. They feel that the laws of the land are being written to excuse and promote certain acts that are seen as an affront to their morality, and when they say this they are being attacked as attempting to set up a theocracy. They see the push for recognition of same-sex unions, abortion on demand, and the destruction of embryos for research purposes as both a blight on the society and an affront to God. And for saying this they are accused of trying to wrest the reigns of government from the civil authorities and crown themselves kings over the land.

I see this as people simply exercising the rights that all citizens have to express their political views and to attempt to influence legislation. Why is it that when casino owners lobby for legislation that is their interest, or farmers, or telecoms it is just seen as a normal part of the process...but let a Christian individual or group do it and the Inquisition is invoked? Why do some people think that is okay to allow GLAAD, the ACLU, or PETA to attempt to legislate their particular brand of morality on the populace, but the most outrage is reserved for Pat Robertson or...God forfend...Rev. Jerry Falwell? Are the values that Falwell and Robertson espousing more outrageous than PETA? Somehow, I don't think so!

Another problem I have with this labeling of Christians as theocrats is that of the sheer unfairness of it. We conservatives are accused of all sorts of nefarious acts on a daily basis; we are the alleged bigots, homophobes, and racists of the media and liberals wet dreams. Now to be sure, there are some conservatives that are some of the things listed and we have encountered some of them at Townhall, we know who they are. But does that mean that we are all to be smeared by the words and actions of a few? Pat Buchanan is definitely an isolationist, and in my view a borderline antisemite; Pat Buchanan is also a noted conservative author and commentator. Would it be fair for all conservatives to be equated with Pat Buchanan's views on the issues? No? Then why is it okay for all evangelical Christians to be tarred as theocrats because of the rantings of some believers in the "Kingdom Now" theology? I would say that it isn't fair at all,  just as it is not fair for all conservatives to be equated with Pat Buchanan.

But the biggest problem that I see with the labeling of Christian voices as theocrats is that in doing so, we equate Christians with the true theocrats in the world today. If those that accuse evangelical Christians want to see a real theocracy, they need look no further than the Middle East which is populated with theocracies. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and especially Iran are the models for what a theocracy looks like and how it functions. Iranians have "free" elections where the Supreme Council decides which candidates get on the ballot. Saudi Arabia allows for mutilation for minor thefts, stonings for adultery, and beheading for some major crimes...all allowed by the sharia law. And for saying that the separation of church and state is "a lie" and that not being involved in the process would allow sin to be written into the law is enough to get Katherine Harris lumped in with the real practitioners of theocracy? Does anyone else see how ridiculous the comparison truly is?

We need to think before we start slapping labels on people that espouse opinions that we don't like, from either side of the aisle. If we bristle at having people accuse us of being Nazis because we believe in a muscular national defense, if we chafe at being called racists for opposing affirmative action then we need to think about the labels we apply to others. We need to stop accusing Christians of theocratic ambitions simply for trying to elect people that hold moral views that are compatible with theirs, and of accusing them of trying to establish a theocracy when they do so. It sends a message that all ideas are worthy of a hearing, that everyone has a place in the debate, except Christians. They need not involve themselves in the crafting of public policy that will affect them, they should just go to church, read their Bibles, and leave the decision making to others. Never mind that the policies will affect them just as they affect everyone else: Christians should just be quiet and let the system hum along, unencumbered by their opinions.

So the next time you feel the urge to play the "theocracy" card, I suggest you look to the east and contemplate what a real, live theocracy looks like, what it stands for, and how it operates. Then ask yourself..."Do I honestly believe that this is what politically active Christians have in mind for America?"

*note: While I do not agree with all that Mrs. Harris stated, I think it it would be instructive for everyone to read her entire interview. It can be found at here.

 I have noticed lately that more and more liberals are losing touch with reality and slipping off into a world of pretend. They have developed the strange ability to project their own personal reality onto real life situations like some character created by Stan Lee. It seems that every moment they are slipping further into their own land of make-believe.

The problem with this is that we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we want it to be. It would be nice if everyone got along, and we lived in a world "where seldom is heard a discouraging word, and the sky is not cloudy all day!" But we all know that there are discouraging words are said, and sometimes it rains on our parades. And when it does we have to have to have enough sense to come in out of the rain!

Pretending that problems don't exist doesn't help the situation, it only makes the problems worse. It is not healthy or wise to pretend that all is well in Zion when we all know that the walls are caving in around us...we have to either shore up the walls or abandon the house. Simply whistling along oblivious only increases the likelihood that the house is going to fall on us!

Which is what makes the thought of Democrats taking control of the Congress such a frightening thought. These people have fostered the delusion that if we just are nice to the jihadists they will leave us alone, while ignoring the fact that we were attacked while we were busy leaving the jihadists alone. But, they insist on repeating this type of tripe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They also have managed to convince themselves that illegal immigration is no problem; in fact it is something that fosters a strong economy. Their make believe land does not allow them to see that besides being a drain on the economy by depressing wages, illegal immigration makes us much more vulnerable to attack. We have to secure our borders, north and south, enforce violations of visa restrictions, and punish those that flout our laws in the first place. If we can't track the people that are here illegally, the least we can do is prevent any more from coming in. After we do that we can get after the ones that are here now, because we all know that everyone that sneaks into this country is not some innocent "trying to make a better life." But in Lib World, all is sweetness and light and all illegals are just sweet little Mexicans that want to raise their kids, pick their fruit, and landscape their lawns! Because these are the 'jobs Americans won't do'!

They also have this bizarre belief that military weakness will invite others to pursue peaceful relations with us. For some reason they actually believe that a weak America will not have Iran, China, and Russia salivating but running to us to be their friends. Obviously they have forgotten the lesson learned in the Cold War when a certain president allowed us to fall behind the CCCP in missile production while he hoped they would follow our lead in slowing missile production. We all see how that worked out, but in Lib World that is seen as a blueprint for peace!

I could go on, but you get the picture. We live in a world that is volatile, we have real enemies that really hate us, and we have real problems securing our borders...among many other situations that must be dealt with. And what do the Democrats offer? Be nice, leave the illegals alone, and draw down the military. Those are not solutions, they are a suicide note for America!

So if any of you are thinking about sitting out the upcoming elections because the Republicans haven't been all we expected, stop and think about the alternative. We can either deal with the real world as it is, or we can allow the Democrats to take power and drag us into their fantasy land. You have seen what their fantasies could bring to pass, now ask yourself...Would you rather have their fantasy or deal with our reality?

My fellow conservatives,

We are standing at the crossroads right now, and many of us don't seem to realize it. At a time when the Republican Party is in control of both the legislative and executive branches of government, and holds a majority of state governors offices we should be seeing a realization of the most deeply held dreams of the conservative cause. We should be seeing lower taxes, a strengthening of national security, less government intrusion in our lives, less government spending, and the fostering of traditional values just to name a few.

But while we are seeing some of these things come to fruition, we are seeing a lot more of the types of behaviors that are more commonly associated with the Democrat Party. We have a party that is spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave, members that are more loyal to themselves than party principles, and too many members of the executive and legislative branches that are showing themselves to be open borders elitists.

The time is now for us to take the Republican Party away from those that  do not hold conservative ideals dear. We the voters have the power to change this party for the better. Because without us, the voters, there is no Republican Party.

First, we need to look at the situation and see it clearly. We need to realize that the party elite do not really love us all that much. I know that sounds harsh, but it is true. The people that control the party are mostly the blueblood, country club type Republicans that have a tendency to look down their noses at the more conservative members of the party. Examples of this abound, from John McCain's open disdain for religious conservatives all the way up to President Bush's dismissive attitude towards those that oppose his open border policies.

Second, we must stop living in the past! While Ronald Reagan was a great President and a strong conservative leader, he has passed from the scene. Therefore, it does us no good to sit around reminiscing about the good old days when the Reagan revolution was sweeping the land...that time is gone. We need to deal with the here and now, not pine away for things that have gone on before. We need to start our own revolution to reassert the conservative principles that Reagan so deftly put into practice.

My friends, we have the power to change the Republican Party for the better, and the responsibility to do so. The "leaders' of the Party do not want to change and govern using conservative principles; they are much too busy trying to get good press clippings and get themselves reelected. Our power lies at the ballot box and we must not be afraid to use that power any longer.

We, the people are allowing the 'centrist' drift of the Republican Party to happen by the way we vote. There is no way that RINO's such as Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, or Lindsey Graham should be going back to the Senate term after term if the conservatives in our party were doing their jobs. These people have a well documented record of jumping into bed with liberal Democrats on all sorts of issues that run directly counter to conservative values. And why, pray tell is Arlen Specter still in the Senate? It is because the Republican Party elite, led by G.W. Bush, actively worked to defeat his conservative challenger Pat Toomey in the primary!

The Toomey-Specter race shows the fundamental split that is starting to show up in the GOP, with the conservatives wanting one of their own in office and the party wanting someone they know back in office. The decisions being made are not being made in the best interests of the people, but in the interest of having a numerical advantage in the Senate. But sending this RINO back to the Senate only weakens the conservative cause, and if we don't start voting for our principles over our party it will only get worse!

What we conservatives need to do is not wait until general elections come to make changes, but to get involved in the primaries. The primary level is where we, the voters, can have the most impact on the direction of the party. If we attack the RINO's at the primary stage we can rid ourselves of a great many of them, then we will be able to start claiming control of the GOP and it's platform. What we can't do is stay away from the polls in a fit of pique because the GOP isn't doing what we want them to do. We need to take a page from my brother Pat who always says. "Don't get mad, get better!" There's no point in us siting around being mad, when what we need to do is get active and make the party better!

And if you begin to get discouraged and think we can't do it, that would be a good time to look back at our history. Just remember this, when the Reagan Revolution was launched Ronaldus Magnus was not loved by the GOP. The GOP was more than willing to give presidential nominations to people like Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, men who were more country club than conservative. It was the voters that gave Reagan his two electoral victories, it was the will of the people that allowed him to take on the Soviet Union, and it was the people that have given him his place in history.

If we the people could have that type of effect then, why can't we have it now? We have the power to shape the future of the GOP and this country. It is well past time that we stopped crying about how bad things are and got off our behinds and did something about it! Now is the time for us to remember, "Don't get mad, get better!"

Is it just me, or do you get a bit weary of certain people always telling you that you're wrong? Do you tire of having Republican policies called ineffective, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong? I do too!

What really gets me is that the name callers are only occasionally able to give you any plans of their own, and when they do they are the same old plans they are always pushing. Their biggest plan for everything is to revise the tax code, which is fine as it goes, but that can't be your only real idea. There needs to be something more, but they never seem to be able to give you any more than that!

The naysayers are also unable to win elections that matter. It has been a good while since these people could muster a candidate for a major office that stood a chance to get elected. More often than not, their candidates go into elections knowing they probably won't win but are happy to make a good showing, and will claim a close loss as a 'moral victory'. But everyone knows that close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not in electoral politics!

But the worst thing about them may be how pompous and condescending they are. To hear them tell it, they are the only ones with any good ideas and the world would be so much better if they were left alone to run things. Why, if they were in control life would be all blue skies, sunshine, and rainbows (with no rain)! Indeed, their ideas would bring about a veritable utopia!

The beauty of all their talk is that they probably will never have to come through on their promises. Their lack of ideas, save for their few core beliefs, makes them virtually unelectable in any election that really matters. And not being elected means that you never have to come through with making your fanciful programs a reality!

Yup, that must be a really great place to be in sometimes. Never having to do what you say, never being in a position to test your theories allows you to always have the answer to everything...while never having to actually do anything. Yep, libertarians live a great life!

Oh, you thought I was talking about the liberals? Not this time! This time I thought I would give a little time to their fraternal twin, the libertarians. Now, any and all libertarians reading this, don't get too angry about what I'm about to say because I think it is for your own good, okay? But I believe that you and your liberal brothers have a lot in common, not necessarily with philosophy but with basic outlook.

See, both you and the liberals live in a dream world, where everything is the way you would like it to be. Whereas the liberals want a world where the government does everything for the citizen, you want a world where the government does basically nothing for the citizen. Where liberals see the solution to all problems in raising taxes, you see the solution in applying the fair or flat tax.

While there is nothing wrong with the fair tax or flat tax plan (I personally think this is way better than the current system), just like the liberals you have locked yourself into a situation where you define yourself by promoting ideas that won't gain a lot of traction with a wide number of voters. While I agree that the size and scope of government is way out of control, do you really believe that going back to doing only those things spelled out in the Constitution will actually work? And do you really believe that the people of America would actually vote for you on this type of platform? I really don't think you do...so this allows you to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at everyone without ever having to "show and prove" with your own policies. And that is a slick set up!

So please libertarians, take a long look at yourselves and try to get yourselves into the mainstream of American politics. I personally think that if you were more willing to work with the GOP, you would find that a great number of your ideals are basically the same as theirs, only differing in degrees. So if you ever want to be elected to any office higher than dogcatcher (not that you would run for it since that office is not spelled out in the Constitution) give the GOP a chance. If the GOP would be willing to embrace some of your ideas, and you could see the merit in some of theirs, we could really make the world a much better place. For everyone.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages we want to welcome you to the penultimate, definitive fight for what's right! Before this there were none, after this there will be no more! This is for the all the marbles, the whole enchilada, the whole shootin' match... this is the Brawl For It All!

Fighting out of the blue corner, wearing the snow white trunks trimmed in gold He hails from Heaven by way of Bethlehem in Judea. He sports an undefeated record having conquered Death, the grave, and Hell itself...He is the Alpha, the Omega, the Rock, the Redeemer, the strong Tower! He is the Son of Man, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Word, the True and Living God! He is the One, the only, Christ Jesus!

Fighting out of the red corner, in the blood red trunks he hails from the sands of Arabia. He is the slaughterer of Jews, the scourge of the infidels, the scimitar of Allah. He is the one called "Prophet"...ladies and gentlemen he is Mohammed!

People, this is the fight that is being fought all around the world today, and make no mistake about that. The war in Iraq, Afghanistan, the actions of Hezbollah are all a part of this ongoing battle between the forces of righteousness and the forces of the evil one. I am not saying that US foreign policy is the right arm of God here, but it is waging the physical side of a spiritual battle that has raged since Lucifer first attempted to exalt himself as a god. What we are seeing in the physical realm today is just the continuation of the war that Lucifer has waged against God and His followers since the creation of man.

We must be prepared to take some lumps, to get our noses bloodied in this fight because that is the nature of the battle. But we must be willing to stand up under the blows that the enemy lands, secure in the knowledge that in the end we will be victorious. The end of this was written from the beginning, and the victory is ours...we simply have to have the fortitude to see the fight through to the end.

So when we take a body blow, when we get that bloody nose, when we feel that we are about to be knocked down we need to steady ourselves, set our feet and stand strong. This is a marathon, not a sprint and we have our assurance that we have already won!! We are victorious, and nothing that our adversaries do or say can change that...God Himself has given us the victory!

Is it just me or does the sight of Republicans apologizing just frustrate you to no end? Any time a Republican is accused of anything, rightly or wrongly, the first impulse of the Republican is to beg forgiveness...loudly and repeatedly! When will members of the GOP finally grow a set of cajones and stand up for themselves, instead of retreating at the first sign of a conflict?

The latest example of the GOP tendency to run away instead of stand and fight is Senator George Allen of Virginia. As we all know by now, courtesy of the Washington Post, CNN, NBC, et al, Senator Allen uttered a supposed racial slur at a member of Jim Webb's campaign that has been following him around videotaping his campaign events. Allen pointed him out and called him 'macaca', which CBS informed me last night is in "some immigrant" communities a racial slur and that Senator Allen had to really search to find that particular slur. What has not been reported is: a) in what immigrant communities is this a slur, b) how was Senator Allen supposed to know about this obscure slur, and c) the word macaca in some spanish slang means clown.

So the MSM accuses Senator Allen of using a racial slur without having any proof of what he meant, and what does the good Senator do? He folds like a cheap poker table! He comes out and apologizes for saying something that could possibly be construed as a slur! And I thought in Senator Allen we may have had someone with the cajones to say to the press "Yes I called him a clown, and what of it? I think that any idiot that follows me around to tape me for ny opponent is a clown; don't you?" But instead we get another Republican that tucks his tail and slinks off to take another media applied ass whipping!

But, Senator Allen isn't the only one doing this...not by a longshot! President Bush apologizes to the NAACP for not reaching out to them!! and then apologizes for saying that he wanted Bin Laden dead or alive. What, did he not want Bin Laden or was he trying to keep the press off his back? Trent Lott has been apologizing for years for saying something that was blown out of proportion at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, and Republicans in general are always apologizing for some transgression...whether real or imagined!

Now, i'm not going to go into some spiel about how the left never apologizes because we all know how that goes. My problem is that this type of spineless behavior also manifests itself in the way Republicans govern. How many times have we seen Republicans abandon policies or positions because the media heat got too hot? How many times have judicial nominees been scuttled to quiet the howls of the PC mob? How many times have we seen the GOP embrace liberal positions in order to placate the MSM? Does the phrase 'comprehensive immigration reform' ring any bells?

I am afraid that if the GOP and its 'leaders' don't grow a set of brass ones, they are going to 'compromise' their way to irrelevance. At what point are these 'macacas' going to decide to stand up for what they believe in? Knowing the current crop of GOPer's in Washington, probably as they are giving their concession speeches. Spineless clowns!!