Recently we have seen a superior Israeli military force basically lose a confrontation with Hezbollah in Lebanon due in large part to ineffective civilian leadership, and some in America contend that we are doing the same in Iraq. As for the Iraq situation, I am not so sure that a loss in imminent but I have no illusions about what just happened in Lebanon. No matter how you look at it, Israel lost this war and I think I know how it happened, and I can see how it could happen in Iraq.

The first step to losing any war is to place handcuffs on yourself. Look at how we have been fighting in Iraq and how the IDF fought in Lebanon; we restricted ourselves from the outset from firing on mosques, civilian areas, and culturally/historically important sites. The Israelis bet over backwards to try to clear civilians out of every area where they planned to bomb Hezbollah targets. All our actions got us was the Iraqi insurgents firing at us from places they knew we were reluctant to fire on, and Israeli policy allowed the Hezbollah fanatics to relocate to new areas. By following such restrictions we, and they allowed the enemy to fight another day.

The second step is to use half measures in fighting your enemies. We have yet to release the dogs of war fully in Iraq to finally root out and destroy the so-called 'insurgents', and Israel never unleashed it's full military might against its enemies, either.  Surgical air strikes and the use of special forces is all fine and good, but at some point you have to bloody your enemy to the point that he loses the will to fight back.  Israeli reluctance to sweep through Lebanon and fully engage the enemy allowed the enemy to continue to rain death on Israeli towns and cities, as our reluctance has allowed Muqtada Al-Sadr's militias to engage in sectarian violence in Iraq. Had we eliminated his forces in Sadr City to begin with, we would definitely not be dealing with his militia causing trouble in and around Baghdad. Think about this too; if we were not using half measures in this war would Fallujah still be standing, or would it be the world's largest sand parking lot?

The next step is to allow the leaders of your enemies to become heroes. By not going hard after Al-Sadr in Iraq and Nasrallah in Lebanon, they are allowed to become heroes to those that oppose our efforts. By not finishing Al-Sadr, we allowed him to become a major player in the political process in Iraq and to continue to foment sectarian violence there. Israel's letting Nasrallah survive allows him to become the leader and inspiration of future attacks on Israel, because he will do just that until he passes from the scene. You must never allow these types of men to become rallying points for your enemy in a war, unfortunately both we and Israel have done just that.

The most important step is to have leadership that follows public and world opinion in developing war plans, and in figuring out the objectives of the conflict. That is where the US and Israel part ways, but only slightly. We have a President that generally has not been one to consult with pollsters or the UN about how we wage our wars. Israel is saddled with Ehud Olmert who began gauging world opinion nearly form the moment the IDF was sent into Lebanon. It became obvious to me that Olmert lacked the courage and leadership needed to do what had to be done to rid southern Lebanon of a strong Hezbollah presence there. Where the US and Israel seem to me to converge is in the way the US rushed to the UN to get a cease-fire agreement in place, and how quickly Olmert and his Cabinet voted to accept it. It seems that both parties were being unduly swayed by the bogus media coverage of the conflict and by the winds of 'world opinion' at the UN and were more than willing to create a phony 'peace' to appease their critics. I don't know about you, but I just don't see that as the way to go when fighting an enemy sworn to destroy you!

In all future conflicts look to these simple rules and you can just about predict the outcome of wars. Wars are only win by those that are willing to do whatever needs to be done to win, and by those that have strong enough leadership to stand the criticism that will come with their efforts to defeat their enemies. Israel has already failed the test, and unless our leadership wises up we face the same failure ourselves.

Every day we see and hear people from the left wing of the political spectrum castigating the right for being opposed to freedom, for allegedly shredding the Constitution, and basically being the world's greatest oppressors. We get it from the entertainment media, from the news media, and from all manner of leftist 'experts'.  But the hard truth of the matter is that the ones making the accusations, the ones that profess to love freedom so much are really the ones that trend toward the authoritarian in their beliefs.

Look at the terrible record of the 'liberals' in this country. Take speech codes for example. Speech codes are simply a way for the left to control what ideas are acceptable in society; despite the claims that they are to protect the feelings of others, they are simply a way stifle speech they disagree with.

Hate crimes laws are supposed to be about punishing people for committing racially, ethnically, religiously, or gender based crimes. But what they actually do is mete out extra punishment for crimes based on what people think. To think that what a murderer was thinking about during a murder makes his actions more heinous is absurd, it simply does not matter what thoughts were running through a criminal's head; what ultimately matters is the actions the person took. Honestly, what does an extra ten years tacked onto a death sentence for a 'hate crime' really mean?

The left in this country has also shown its disregard for the Constitution in its wild cheering for, and support of, campaign finance laws that literally ignore the 1st Amendment in order to protect incumbent candidates. This in and of itself helps to create a near permanent group of 'representatives' that are able to gather more and more power into their hands. It is near a point of creating a new oligarchy in this country, which is one of the things that the Founders were dead set against seeing happen in their new nation.

Furthermore, the agendas that the left most openly support are things that are meant to force all people into the same policy positions. The force feeding of the gay agenda, abortion, and identity politics are designed to stifle any free and dissenting thoughts, and force all into one ideological box. This is not a recipe for freedom by any means, it is a recipe for tyranny.

For all of the left's braying about the right attempting to create a theocracy or the wild accusations of 'Constitution shredding', it is the left that is seriously trending toward authoritarianism. According to Webster's New Students Dictionary an authoritarian is defined as "relating to, advocating, or demanding total submission to authority as concentrated in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people". Does this not sound like the ideas that the left espouse in their attempts to force their doctrines on the people of the United States in direct opposition to the Constitution itself? Does not McCain-Feingold reek of this stench? Do we not see these fingerprints in the attempt by such legislation to create a nigh untouchable political elite by silencing the voices of their opposition?  Is it any wonder that the left is more than willing to subjugate the interests of the United States to the whim of the United Nations, a group that has no responsibility to our people; I'm sure we all remember Jean Francois Kerry's statements about the infamous "global test".  And is it any wonder that the left has always supported authoritarian tyrants from Stalin to Castro to Hugo Chavez, the new darling of the left?

So the next time you have some liberal/leftist trying to convince you that the conservative movement is a threat to America take time to reflect what the left really stands for. And if you are ever tempted to vote for one of their ilk, remember this: A vote for the left is a vote against all we hold dear. Never forget that the left has never met a tyrant they did not like! We can ill afford to allow these dupes to gain control of our government.

I have not been doing a lot of commenting on the Israeli-Hezbollah war as the blogs are full of talk of it, and many of those doing the writing are already saying what I think so there has been no need form my voice. But the announcement of the proposed UN backed cease fire plan compels me to give my two cents on the situation.

As many have already stated, the war between Israel and Hezbollah is the same type of proxy fight that we had during the 1980's against the CCCP. In our case we were fighting communist backed forces in Grenada and El Salvador; the Israelis are fighting Syrian and Iranian proxies when they take on Hezbollah. So why is the world, including the US, pressuring Israel to stop short of defeating an enemy that has been attacking them for more than a decade? And do not these 'world leaders' not realize that anything short of total defeat of Hezbollah is a win for the jihadists? This sends a message that managing a successful propaganda war can defeat an enemy, even in situations where the side running the propaganda war is the clear aggressor. That is not a message that we should be sending to anyone, ever!

And the terms of this cease fire are ridiculous! How is a cease fire between Israel and Lebanon supposed to stop Hezbollah from firing rockets into Israel? The terms of the cease fire do not prevent Hezbollah from continuing to attack Israel, and sending in UN troops is not exactly a deterrent. This is the same UN that watched a kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, did nothing about it, and tried to cover up their knowledge of the whole affair! And these are the people that are going to keep the peace on Israel's northern border?!

For Ehud Olmert to agree to this shows me that he is not fit to lead Israel. He is unwilling to fight to keep his country safe, is more worried about international opinion than safety, and is more than willing to sell out his nation to appease the UN. And the actions of the Bush administration in this is disappointing as well; why is it okay for us to go to war after one attack but we ask Israel to stop fighting an enemy that has kept her under constant attack for nearly a decade? If W is not willing to allow Israel to defend herself, then how can we be sure that he is willing to fight our war on terror to the end?

This cease fire is a dangerous message to send to the terror masters about the will of the west to stand and fight. It says that if enough complaints about 'civilian' deaths are made in the press, if enough of the world opinion leaders can be swayed, that the west will stop fighting its enemies in order to maintain a good image. Shameful!! This cease fire may bring 'peace' today, but it is a peace that cannot last. It has been proven that appeasement does not work, but we have just seen a new "peace in our time" moment, with Olmert and the UN Security council in the Neville Chamberlain role. It didn't work then, and it surely won't work now!

As many of you may have surmised by my previous posts about the world of sports, I am a huge sports fan. Have been since I was a kid, and will be for as long as I live. You see, I am one of those people that sees sports as teaching life lessons and I believe that some ideas from the sports world could work in all sorts of areas of life if anyone actually tried them out.

Which brings me to Bobby Knight. Now, I have two brothers that visit this blog and they know that I can't stand Bobby Knight, and for all of his accomplishments in college basketball I am convinced that he has never been good for the game. So it may come as a surprise to them what I am about to say: America needs to take the Bobby Knight approach in Iraq!

You see, Bobby Knight as a coach is, and has always been, a believer in breaking a player down in order to build him back up. By breaking the player down as low as he can go, he is able to mold that player into the kind of player that he needs for the team to succeed, and for that player to realize his full potential. It sounds harsh, but it is a method that has worked for Bob Knight for decades and has brought great success to every program that he has coached.

By now I'm pretty sure you're wondering what the heck this has to do with the situation in Iraq, so let me explain what I'm driving at here. The US should have used the Knight method in making war with Iraq, and in trying to establish a democracy there. When major combat operations were going on we, like Knight, should have been focused on destroying every vestige of the country's former self. We should have crushed their armed forces and crushed the will of the 'insurgents' to continue to fight. We should have destroyed or disbanded every government ministry and gotten rid of every high level member of the Baathist regime that we could find; totally break down the 'player' like Knight so that there is a blank slate to work with when the rebuilding begins.

When it came time to build up the 'player' we should have been molding them in our image, and bending them to our will. Sure there would have been some grumbling, and some defections, but the ones who stayed behind to finish the process would be team players. They would have been 100% behind us and committed to making Iraq a functioning society. They would be committed to our vision, because it had become their vision and they would be front and center trying to make sure that their country is stable. Because just like Bob Knight, we would be working only with guys that were with the program and were willing to sacrifice for the success of the team.

I am convinced that the Bobby Knight approach would work as well for our military efforts as it did on the basketball court. Using this method has brought him 3 national championships, the second most wins by a major college mens coach of all time, and the last undefeated national championship team in the NCAA. And if all this doesn't convince you, then realize that this method is something that Coach Knight learned while coaching at the US Military Academy from the men who trained our soldiers. They know whereof they speak, because this is the strategy used to win the Second World War; total defeat of the enemy, pacify the rebels, and build the nation back in our image!

See, I told you that coaching strategies work for real life situations!

{A special edition for Pat and Chuck--HOLLA!}

 Can you believe that there used to be a time when people openly declared their liberalism? Yep, there was a time when liberal wasn't something to be ashamed of but was something to aspire to; there was a time when liberals were on the right side of many issues including national defense. To many, looking and listening while liberals call themselves moderates, progressives, anything but the  dreaded "L" word, it seems an impossibility that liberals weren't always so.....loony is the best way to describe it, I suppose!

Take FDR for example; as much as we find fault with the social policies of Roosevelt, and the issues we have with some of his wartime and postwar decisions, we can recognize that he did not do things with any ill will intended. We can recognize that the New Deal, however misguided, was done with the best of intentions; President Roosevelt was doing what he thought it took to help America through, and get her out of the Great Depression. His partitioning of Eastern Europe after World War Two would turn out to be one of the greatest diplomatic blunders in history, but most can acknowledge that the President did not simply abandon those people out of spite, but he was doing what he thought was best in a chaotic postwar period.

Another liberal hero that we find much fault with is LBJ. Just mention the Great Society and conservatives see red! It has become the biggest boondoggle in the history of mankind, but putting aside the politics of it, we can't assign any ill motives to the passage of the programs. Johnson actually thought that what he was doing was a good thing, that they were positive steps for the government to take. He did not introduce Medicare and Medic Aid to dive up medical costs, he did it to try to make medical care available to anyone that needed it. Likewise with the food stamp program: LBJ never intended to consign the poor to a life of government dependence, but intended for the program help those in need to be able to put food on their tables. We all have seen the outcome of the Great Society, but do we really believe that the problems the programs caused were intended or do we recognize that they are the proof of the law of unintended consequences?

And look at the help the civil rights movement received from the liberals of society. These people risked a lot, from reputations to their lives to combat a situation that they saw for what it was; state supported racism and segregation was a blight on this nation. It was holding the nation back from living out its creed and the liberals of the day were front and center in helping destroy that system and erase that blot on the nations character. And they did it not because it was the popular thing to do, but because it was the right thing to do.

But somewhere along the way, liberalism lost its way and its soul. It went from representing what could be great about America, to what is wrong with the world. Liberalism became bitter and hateful, it became about dividing instead of uniting, and it lost its sense of right and wrong. Liberalism became dark, brooding, and eventually embraced nihilism wholeheartedly.

Just look at the causes that liberalism embraces and you can see the rot that has consumed the movement. Liberalism embraces infanticide, and calls it a 'woman's right to choose'. It advocates for the destruction of traditional marriage under a false banner of inclusiveness, it seeks to usurp the role of parents in the lives of children by injecting the state into family life, it shelters all sorts of pornographers and sexual deviants by claiming that their acts and words are protected by the Constitution. The philosophy that once stood against tyranny now tends towards the authoritarian with the implementation of 'speech codes' and a whole host of politically correct notions that it attempts to force on society daily.

Modern liberalism, unlike its classical predecessor is doomed to failure and defeat. You see, the American people are not the kind that see the glass as half empty, the vast majority of us see the glass as half full; it is this clash of attitudes that spells doom for modern liberalism. For a pollical movement or philosophy to succeed it needs to appeal to the 'better angels' of our nature; modern liberalism is incapable of that because of its nihilistic outlook, and so naturally cannot appeal the the best of man's virtues.

It is a sad end for a philosophy that has given America some of its greatest triumphs, but the embrace of nihilism sealed the doom of the liberal philosophy. May the liberal philosophy Rest In Peace.

While we are understandably watching with great interest the happenings in the Middle East between Israel and Hezbollah, and we are still rightly consumed with the war in Iraq, we have taken our eyes off our own backyard and have forgotten about the fox in the henhouse. That fox is Hugo Chavez and the henhouse is Latin America and the Caribbean, areas that the Monroe Doctrine held out would fall under our watchful eyes.

Hugo Chavez is a menace, plain and simple and we would do well to turn some of our attention to his doings in Venezuela. While we weren't looking, ol' Hugo has been busy attempting to strengthen his influence in Latin America, even in involving himself in the Mexican Presidential elections. It seems our man Hugo styles himself as the modern day Simon Bolivar and wants to lead Latin America in a 'revolt' against US influence in the region.

What makes Chavez a menace is that he is conducting a huge military buildup right under our noses. According to Townhall contributor Douglas MacKinnon, Chavez recently finalized a deal with Russia (yes, our so-called ally) that would pay the Russians three billion dollars to purchase 24 fighter jets, 53 attack helicopters, Russian made submarines, add more AK-63 machine guns to the 100,000 recently purchased, and to build a Kalashnikov factory so that Venezuela could produce even more of the rifles. Does that worry anyone but me? It seems not to worry our friends at the State Department because I have not heard a peep from any of them about this. The questions that someone needs to be asking is why does Venezuela, with no real regional rivalries, feel the need to go through such a massive military buildup? And shouldn't someone be concerned that this is being done by a fraudulently reelected quasi-dictator?

Furthermore, Chavez bears watching because of the pinch he could put on the American economy. While the talk about US dependence on foreign oil centers on the OPEC countries, our top five suppliers of crude oil are Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria and as you can see, there is only one Middle Eastern nation among the top five. Three of the top five are in the western hemisphere, with two of the three in Latin America. Venezuelan oil alone makes up 15% of US oil imports and combined with Mexico these two Latin American countries export 2.745 million barrels of oil into the US daily. That is why Chavez's interest and involvement in the Mexican election is so ominous; if he were able to get an administration that shared his anti-American, procommunist outlook elected, he could have exercise a great deal of influence over the US because of his control of that much oil and the impact an interruption of that oil flow could have on the US economy.

It seems that Chavez wants to become the successor to Fidel Castro as the thorn in America's side in Latin America, and has been a great devotee of "El Presidente" and his brand of Communist rule. With his huge military arsenal, his lust for power, and a treasury overflowing with oil revenues, Hugo Chavez is positioning himself to be the lead dog, the jefe if you will, in all of Latin America. While we have been preoccupied with other crises and commitments we have ignored what has been going on to the south of us; we had better start taking notice of this particular fox before we wake up and find all the hens devoured.

I hope Fidel Castro dies and suffers before he meets his Maker, and I hope his brother Raul follows him out the door in short order. I look forward to seeing Osama Bin Laden assume room temperature sometime very soon, and he can take Kim Jong Il with him so they hit hell at the same time. And if all goes well, the Grim Reaper will come calling on the fiends that rule Iran right after that. And for those that are wondering: No, I don't feel guilty about my feelings because all I'm looking for here is justice!

Merriam-Webster's defines justice as "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair: righteousness", and wanting to see these people dead is the expression of a heart longing for justice in this world. Let's make the case for justice for each of these fiends individually, shall we?

Fidel and Raul Castro have enslaved and impoverished a nation that is bursting with natural resources and hard working people. These two creatures have lived like kings, wanting for nothing, while their people live in squalor and fight off starvation due to food shortages. Fidel and Raul routinely have any dissenters jailed, abducted, or murdered and they persecute homosexuals and force HIV carriers into camps where they are denied medical care until they die. These men are bloodthirsty tyrants who have brought incalculable suffering, misery, and death to the Cuban people and for that they both deserve slow, agonizing deaths.

Osama Bin Laden is the terror mastermind behind 9/11 and was a huge supporter of Mohammed Aideed in Somalia, and has long been the driving force behind Al Quaida. His millions have bankrolled countless acts of bloody terror on innocent citizens wherever his minions operate, and for his support of this type of indiscriminate killing, he deserves to have his head hacked off with a machete. And the duller, the better!

Kim Jong Il is the little pot bellied tyrant that rules over North Korea with an iron fist. He has ruthlessly starved his people in order to pursue military strength; he lives as royalty as his people waste away from hunger. He willingly sacrifices the lives of his captive countrymen in order to feed his armies and satisfy his lusts. For sentencing the vast majority of his countrymen to death by starvation he deserves a ghastly, brutal death.

The ruling mullahs of Iran and their most recent puppet president Ahmejinidad hold their citizens captive to their mad dreams of Middle Eastern dominance. They have also supplied, financed, and given safe haven to a whole host of terror organizations since the early 1980's. They are the primary backers of Hezbollah and are the chief proponent of wiping Israel off the map. For the subjugation of the wills of their people and for their complicity in untold numbers of murders, they deserve to pay with their lives.

Now some of you may catch the vapors when reading this post and start to talk about how unchristian all of this wishing death on people is, but I don't believe that there is anything wrong with what I'm expressing here. As a matter of fact, I believe that the Bible supports the notions that I am giving voice to, because these men have done exactly the things that God has condemned men to death for.

Exodus 21:14 says, "But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him with guile, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die."  Zechariah 7:9-10 says, "Thus says the Lord of hosts: Execute true justice, show mercy and compassion everyone for his brother. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. Let none of you plan evil in his heart against his brother." And Romans 6:23 tells us "For the wages of sin is death..." The Bible has given us specific acts for which men deserve death and all the men I am writing about are worthy of death. They have oppressed the poor, they have not executed true justice, and they have all acted with premeditation to kill with guile. And so, according to God's word they are to be taken from His altar to die.

My eldest brother, who was a minister, once explained to me that it is not wrong for Christians to want to see justice done to wrongdoers; it is only natural that Christians chafe at seeing the unrighteous prosper and the evil  exalted. God has given us an understanding of what justice is, what true justice demands and we long to see it executed on earth. So it is not at all wrong to have such thoughts as these as they are the natural longing of our spirits to see God's justice done. We simply have to differentiate between our longing for justice and a thirst for revenge so that our carnal minds do not pollute the workings of justice.(Easier said than done, I know.)

So the next time you find yourself longing to see Osama's head on a pike, or Kim Jong Il stretched out before us in a coffin, don't give in to the guilt feelings. Recognize that it is just a righteous longing for justice, and realize that some men deserve to die for their crimes. And maybe soon we will get to say good riddance to some bad rubbish!

We should all be more like kids! I know that sounds like some type of psycho-babble about getting in touch with the 'inner child', but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm just saying that we adults may be able to take some valuable lessons in life from our kids.

Take honesty, for example. The most honest people in the world are little kids, because they haven't  learned to 'shade the truth' or tell 'little white lies', or any other type of lie yet. Little kids just call things as they see them and let the chips fall where they may; if something's ugly they say so, if it's dirty they say so, or if it's wrong they say so. No shading, no coloring, just blunt, brutal honesty with no reservations.

How much better off would the world be if we adults were as honest as little kids? We would be better able to fight the foes we face worldwide if we could just be honest enough to call a terrorist a terrorist, not an 'insurgent' or call a dictator a dictator, not a 'leader'. We would all be better off if we took the cue from our kids and called the Islamists by their true name, evil, and cast our fight in it's true light; because we all know that we are engaged in a an epic good versus evil battle with the fate of Western civilization in the balance. If we were more willing to tell it like it is, then maybe we could rally the intestinal fortitude it will take to win the war.

Another thing that kids have that we could learn from is the fact that they see the world clearly.  A kid sees a bully and recognizes him as such, adults see a bully and start trying to make excuses for his bullying behavior. Kids see the bully and know that they will have to either take him on or be his victim. Adults see a bully and try to find ways to appease him, so that he isn't such bad bully all the time.

Look at how the adult leaders have handled international bullies like Iran under the mullahs, and North Korea under  Kim Jong Il. If we had been a bit more child like we would have stood up to Iran and put a stop to their fomenting terrorist actions and funding terror groups all over the world, and we would have taken North Korea on head up to stop their dreams of nuclear proliferation early on. We would have done just like our kids and realized that we needed to stand up to them early, and if we had we would not be looking at these two rogue, international bullies being able to threaten us with nuclear weapons!

But one thing that we really need to emulate our kids in  is their view of the world as a simple place. Kids don't get caught up in 'nuance' and they don't make things more complicated than they need to be; they see what's going on and they instantly analyze it. And they're usually dead on in their analysis, even if lacks a certain 'nuance' and is relatively straightforward.

For example, one night my ten year old son and I were watching the "O'Reilly Factor" and he had some antiwar protestor on the show; this lady says that she supports the troops, but is against the war. So my ten year old son looks at me and asks "How can she say that?" and I, being the enlightened, sophisticated adult start trying to explain to him that it is indeed possible to support the troops but oppose the war. So he again says to me, "How does that work? How do you support the troops, but not what they do?'" And at that moment it hit me...you can't actually support the troops and simultaneously oppose the very job they do, you just can't! That would be like saying that you support someone's choice to be a drug dealer, but you oppose the selling of illegal drugs...that type of reasoning makes no sense at all!

Now I fully understand that there are situations in this world that are more complicated than the way a child sees the world, and that there are situations where a child's solution wouldn't work. But I firmly believe if we were just a little more like our kids, we could make the world around us a  lot  better place where our kids can continue to teach us their lessons in peace and safety. We owe them that much.

When Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity last week, the conservative world exploded in righteous anger and indignation. Mike Gallegher wrote an opinion column at Townhall that not only denounced the jury's findings, but went on to compare Mrs. Yates to Islamic terrorists, and Rush Limbaugh (one of my faves on the radio) coined a new term..."Oprahfication", to explain the mindset of the jurors. And just like clockwork pundits began talking about changing the judicial system; Mike Gallagher's first lines were to announce that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. But I think that all of this is a giant overreaction, and just a tad hypocritical on the part of us conservatives. You see, we always like to trumpet our belief in the rule of law, right up until there comes a verdict that we think is wrong; at that point all thoughts of defending the jury system goes out the window and the calls for change begin. But we cannot have it both ways; either our judicial system is good and needs to be defended, or it's broken and in need of overhaul. Either way, we conservatives have to choose what we think about the system and be consistent in our beliefs, and not change our positions about the entire system based on the outcomes of individual cases.

The reason that I say that we are being a bit hypocritical is that it seems to me that when one of our own is in the dock for some real or alleged offense, we tend to wax eloquent about the rule of law and the entire nature of our system of jurisprudence. But, when there is a verdict that we disagree with, we savage the system, the judges, and even the jurors in our anger over the verdicts. Let me give a couple of examples of what I'm talking about: When Tom DeLay was being charged by Ronnie Earle down in Texas with a bunch of (in my opinion bogus) criminal charges, we conservatives fell all over ourselves reminding everyone who would listen that Mr. DeLay was to be seen as innocent until proven guilty. We also extolled the jury system because we all believe that when the case against Mr. DeLay goes before a jury, the jury will do the "right thing" and acquit him. But let something like the O.J. Simpson verdict come down, where it is obvious to us that he's as guilty as sin is wrong, saying that Mr. Simpson is not guilty we have a conniption and demand that the system be torn down because of it's failure to deliver the verdict we want. See the hint of hypocrisy I'm talking about now? I thought you would!

Which brings me to the cause du jour of reasons for tearing down the system, Andrea Yates. I think we can all agree that the crime Mrs. Yates committed is one of the most heinous, barbarous acts that we could imagine. And in a perfect world, Mrs. Yates would be confined to a mental health facility until she was well enough to serve a along sentence in a prison, because that would be justice in this case. But the jurors in Texas, because of the Texas penal code, did not have this option so they had to either find her guilty of first degree murder, or not guilty by reason of insanity. After hearing all the testimony and evidence the jurors decided that because of Mrs. Yates' mental condition that she was not guilty of murder and sent her to the loony bin. And that is when we conservatives went crazy ourselves; some ripped the jurors, some attacked the defense attorneys, and still others went after the Texas Court of Appeals for allowing a new trial. And in all of these attacks, I saw conservatives actively trying to subvert the rule of law that we claim to love so much. In going after the jurors, the fact was consistently ignored that they did the best with the laws they had to work with. They could not take into consideration the fact that Mrs. Yates had been previously convicted, and should be applauded for doing their job in as unbiased a manner as they could. Those who attacked the defense attorneys were in effect saying that a person accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent, and acting as though a defendant does not have a right to a vigorous defense. And those that attacked the Texas Court of Appeals were saying that people who are convicted with the use of false testimony should not be given a new trial to remedy the miscarriage of justice in their original trial. According to those people, the defendant should be kept in prison, irregardless of any misconduct by the prosecution because they're probably guilty anyway. I just can't believe that this is where we want to take our system of justice to, because if we do we may as well set up a star chamber where no one has any rights, and their guilt is automatically assumed. I know that that is NOT  where we want to go with our system.

Ultimately, we conservatives need to be consistent in our views on the judicial system and the rule of law. We must recognize that even when there are verdicts that we feel are just plain wrong, that our judicial system is the best, and most fair, in the world. Advocating massive changes to the system on the basis of individual cases would put our system at risk by undermining the confidence that people have in the system. If we are truly to be a nation of laws, we need to focus on changing the laws that are onerous to us, not tearing down a system that has served us well since the nations founding; if we constantly try to dismantle the system we will end up destroying any vestiges left of the rule of law, and instead will have the rule of the mob. Now that is a scary proposition, and one that we would do well to avoid at all costs.

As many Townhall readers may remember, a few months ago there was a lively discussion about what the role of the Christian church is in our political structure. At the time I wrote that I believed that the church really had no role in politics, but rather it is to be about the business of saving souls. I also wrote that I am of the firm belief that it is a fools errand for the church to spend so much time and effort trying to redeem the culture, and that the church was in danger of becoming too entangled in the world to actually do the work of the Father. For that I was accused of trying to shut Christians out of the public square, trying to keep Christians from exercising their voting rights, etc., etc. Of course, I was not saying anything like that but emotions began to run high and what I was trying to get across was lost in the shouting.

Well, yesterday I saw something at AOL news that brought that situation up for me again, and I felt compelled to share it, and my thoughts about it with you. A news story in the New York Times by Laurie Goodstein (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?) told the story of Pastor Gregory Boyd of the Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood, Minnesota. It seems that Pastor Boyd caused such a stir with his sermons that 1000 members of his 5000 strong congregation were compelled to leave the church. And get this, the problem they had with Pastor Boyd was not theological, nor doctrinal. All who were members at the church agreed that Pastor Boyd preached his sermons and ran the church according to biblical principles. So what was the reason that one-fifth of the congregation felt the need to leave this Bible centered, theologically and doctrinally sound church? Pastor Boyd did not want to engage in partisan politics! That's it! He did not want his pulpit to be used as a megaphone for the Republican party, so 1000 "Christians" left his church because they had put politics before God!

Pastor Boyd's 'controversial' remarks included, "When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses. When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross", and "America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ." Now tell me, are these words something to leave your church over, are they controversial, or are they perfectly in keeping with the Bible?

This is exactly the type of thing I was warning about when we had our last debates about this issue, specifically the entanglement of the Body of Christ too deeply in politics. The 1000 members of this church that walked out because of a pastor's decision not to cheerlead for the GOP is what I was trying to speak about. When the church gets too deeply involved in politics, the politics take control of the church; political action becomes more important than praying, campaigning takes precedence over conversions. The church is supposed to be sharing the Gospel of Christ, not using the pulpit to spread political doctrines. It seems to me that too many Christians have thrown aside their duty to hold up Christ to the world to involve themselves in political fundraising, campaigning and the like. I said it before, and I'll say it again...the church is to be about winning souls for Christ, not winning the election for Bush!
Too many Christians seem to be bowing not before God, but making partisan politics a god for themselves. That can only bring the church to ruin and disrepute. What I mean by that is, when a church becomes linked to a political party or movement, the entire Church is then seen in that light. People will no longer see the church as the Body of Christ, but will see it as a political organization; when that happens the church cannot carry out the function it was given in the Bible to preach the Word to a dying world, because people will view the Church with suspicion and wonder if it is sincere in what it is doing. That is the danger that the Church faces today as it continues to allow itself to get drawn deeper and deeper into the workings of this world. How can Christ come back to a church that is free of spot or wrinkle, if the church is constantly getting itself willingly soiled with the dirt of this world's political intrigues?

Like I said once before, I have nothing personal against politics. It interests me, I like to discuss politics, and follow politics as much as anyone which is why I am a member at Townhall, and it's why I do my little blog here. But, I make sure that politics takes its proper place in my life, that I maintain the right priorities with God first, family second, and everything else falling in there somewhere. But I fear that too many individual Christians, and too many church congregations and pastors have let things get out of balance. There seems to be a lot of lip service paid to Christ on Sunday, but Monday through Saturday is devoted to pushing the GOP agenda, not God's agenda. The Church as a whole, and believers individually, must recognize where we are going wrong, get our priorities in order, and get about the service of the King of Kings because that is what we have been called to do. By all means, continue to vote, make yourself heard when something wrong is being forced on us, become active politically if that is what you must do; just don't let that become your god instead of Christ. We all have a place in the system, just make sure to guard against letting that system overtake everything else in your life. We believers are the ecclesia, the called out ones, make sure that you stay that way and let the Light of the Son always shine through you, for that is the purpose that God has called us out for!

As everyone knows, President Bush paid a call last week on the NAACP for the first time in his 5 years in office. Network newscasts covered it, columnists wrote about it, and pundits of all stripes commented on what it all meant and wondered if his appearance would help the Republican Party's outreach efforts to the Black community. I saw it and two questions immediately came to mind: Why go speak at to an organization that vilifies you both politically and personally, and why go the NAACP thinking that they can help you reach the broader Black community?

What the President and the Republican Party seem not to understand is that a great many Black folks feel that the NAACP no longer represents them. The NAACP often times seems to spend all of its energy protesting the number of Black characters in movies and on television shows, or complaining about there not being enough Blacks in corporate positions of power to suit their tastes. Maybe that is important to some people, but the 'rank and file' Black folks are more concerned with having safe neighborhoods and good schools for their children, not whether Halle Berry makes as much money as Julia Roberts! The NAACP is admired for the courageous work it did during the Civil Rights era, for the leadership it provided during its halcyon days of the 1950's and 60's, but to many that is where the connection with the NAACP ends. The reason being, from the 1970's until today the NAACP has basically functioned as the Democratic Party's "Black Auxiliary"; there has not been one part of the Democratic Party platform that the organization has not supported, nor has there been any Democratic Presidential candidates that the group has not supported. From Jimmy Carter to Michael Dukakis, from Walter Mondale to John Kerry, the NAACP has stood foursquare behind them all, with no reservations. And take a look at the people that have been leaders within the organization, and those that the organization has aligned itself with: Je$$ie Jack$on, Kwiesi Mfume, Ben Chavis, Andrew Young, and Julian Bond; partisan Democrats every one! What are the odds that an organization that is so heavily populated by partisan Democrats and is so heavily influenced by Democrat political ideology is a good place for Republicans to go to establish their outreach to the  Black community? I dare say that the odds are so long that not even a Vegas bookie would take those odds!

And even as the NAACP holds itself out as the civil rights watchdog, Black folks are noticing how its rhetoric does not quite match its actions. Where was the NAACP when J.C. Watts was being denied a place in the Congressional Black Caucus, simply because he was not a Democrat? Where were they when Lt. Governor Michael Steele was being pelted with Oreo cookies and called an Uncle Tom for having the temerity to run for the Senate as a Republican in Maryland? And why did they stand mute when Condoleeza Rice was being caricatured as a house slave for daring to accept the position of Secretary of State in the Bush administration? I'll tell you where; they were standing docilely by on the sidelines as these people were mistreated because that was the will of their Democrat Party masters!

If the GOP is really serious about trying to reach out to black voters and establish a rapport with them they are going to need to rethink their current plan. So today, free of any consulting fee, I am going to give the Republican Party a few helpful tips on ways to get a foot in the door with the Black community. Try these on for size and see what you think!       

             1. Don't waste anymore valuable time courting the support of the NAACP. They are a
            wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC, they are never going to like you, so don't waste 
             any more time sweet-talking them. Acknowledge what they have accomplished, honor 
              their place in history and move on. 

            

            

           2. Take a page from the DNC and court the ministers. Ministers have a powerful
            influence in the Black community and showing them that the Republican Party
            platform more closely jibes with what they believe in can only have positive effects,
            and may be key to gaining a foothold in the black community.

            3. Continue to align yourself with groups like the National Urban League. This group,
            and others like it, are nearly as influential as the NAACP and far less politically    
            partisan. Take your message to the more moderate groups, you may be surprised
            by the number of people that are receptive to your message.

            4. Do better grassroots outreach!! Grassroots/local level workers need to do a much
            better job of reaching out to Black voters. Too many see a Black person and just
            assume that the person is a democrat and do not even try to approach that person
            (this is from personal experience). As long as this assumption is being made the GOP
            will continue to miss out on chances to bring new voters into the fold.

            5. Accentuate your history! Let everyone know that YOU are the party of Lincoln,
            that YOU were the difference makers in passing the landmark civil rights amendment    
            during Reconstruction, that YOU were instrumental in passing the civil rights legislation
            in the 1960's. Do not sit back and let the Democrats continue to pass their shameful
            history off as yours. Do not be afraid to let everyone know that what you stood for 
            then is what you stand for now!

I realize that the Republican party has a hard row to hoe in attempting to make headway into the Black community, what with the megaphone of the media shouting out every lie and historical misrepresentation that Democrats put out there, but these ideas are worth at least trying. Like my grandfather used to tell me, "Anything worth having is worth working hard for." If the GOP truly wants to gain a foothold with Black voters it is going to take some hard work and we may as well roll up our sleeves and get after it. If we want the rewards, now is the time to start putting in the work!