Hey fellow Hall members, I bet you didn't know it but you are talking to a big time lobbyist! Yup, that's right...little old Flagwaver has hit the political BIG TIME!!!

See, according to Nancy Pelosi I should be treated like a K Street lobbyist because I have a politcal blog that has more than 50 readers. That little gem is in the proposed legislation that Jay Sekulow wrote about in a Townhall article recently. His take was on the outrage of the G trying to claim that any church that met a spending threshold for broadcasting and had an expressed view on political matters is to be treated as a grassroots lobbying group. For many, when it was churches that seemed to be the target, there was no problem with that. Hey, if churches wanted to take on political topics, then they should be treated as lobbyists, right?

But I bet no one stopped to think that the Democrats would use that same legislation to come after bloggers, did they? Well you should have, because we all know how much the left hates free speech; speech is only free when it agrees with their point of view!  Now they have me in their sights, and Cynewulf, BrianR, Celticdragon, and many others just like us simply because we have blog readerships over 50 people and espouse political views. If the Democrats get their way, we will have to register as lobbyists or face fines and monetary penalties. Anyone besides me feeling that chill wind blowing?

Folks, we are starting to reap what we sowed in the last election. When we abandoned our Party because of unhappiness with the actions of some Party members in D.C. we allowed the Democrats to take power. Now we are seeing just the type of devilment the Dems will get into when given power to play with.

So congrats to all of my blogging friends, as we have hit the big time together. Now just hope that our voices aren't silenced  or regulated because of a fit of pique we had in November.

Ya know, being BIG TIME ain't all it's cracked up to be!

Hello folks! Since I have a passion for sports like my passion for the subjects I cover here, I have started a sports blog and would like to invite any of my readers to visit. It is located at http:www.sportingnews.com/blog/89falcon and is called The Spade on Sports. Check it out and tell me what you think!

With the King holiday just past, and Black History Month looming I started to think about some of the illusions that we hold of historical figures. Too often we look back at our forebears and see them with a halo and wings ensemble that we all know is not justified. That doesn't mean that the people were not good people, or that their accomplishments should be diminished; it simply means that they are more than the saintly veneer we put on them.

Likewise, there are those that we look back on and immediately apply the devil's horns to, whether or not they deserve it. We take the word of "experts", "historians", or common knowledge about them and judge them falsely. We do not take the time to take a real look at what the people really stood for, who they truly were, or give them any credit for evolving over time.

For example, take Martin Luther King Jr. According to our rosy historical lenses, Dr. King was all sweetness and light and damn near deserving of sainthood. After all, he was the leader of the civil rights movement and he was assassinated while advocating for racial justice. While all of that is true, it does not mean that King was a saint...not by a long shot!

Now, I may lose my ghetto pass for saying this out loud (so to speak), but Dr. King was...shall we say...less than saintly. He was a known adulterer, had some serious leftist ideas about the role of the central government,  is on record as saying that capitalism would fall and be replaced by communism, and had his doubts about the reality of Christ's second coming. Now, I know the familiar refrain when it comes to his being taped cavorting with his concubines is that the FBI should not have done it, and of course you would be right in saying so. But the fact remains that if he had simply been faithful to his wife there would have been nothing to tape!

My point here is not to destroy the reputation of King, but to point out that he was just a man with human foibles like everyone else. His personal shortcomings do not diminish the great work he did in the Civil Rights Era; in fact they magnify them in a real way. It takes something special for a man, who makes mistakes just like all of us, to be willing to take a leadership role in a movement that was fraught with such danger. I think that makes King all the more special because he was able to overcome his own problems and help lead the way to America beginning to live up to her ideals of justice and equality. Maybe he was just a little more Moses than Jesus.

Then there is the flip side that is personified by Malcolm X. Most people hear the name and immediately conjure images of an angry, white hating, antisemetic Muslim bent on destroying American society...an American Bin Laden, if you will. The brief mentions he gets in textbooks reinforces that image and the conventional wisdom does as well. But is that all there is to the man, or is there more?

While Malcolm as a member of the Nation of Islam did embody the most hateful aspects of NOI "theology", he was much more than the caricature that is usually painted of him. Even during his time with the NOI, Malcolm counted as one of his closest personal friends Mike Wallace...yes, that Mike Wallace; intrepid reporter, father of Chris, and a well known Jew. So how antisemetic could Malcolm have really been to hold Mike Wallace as a dear friend?

And does anyone know that after being expelled from the NOI after the assasination of JFK, Malcolm became an orthodox Muslim and it was through his faith that he came to see the unity of mankind? His hajj to Mecca with people from the world over, of all different skin tones, languages, ethnicities, and nationalities woke him up to the fact that all people have the same basic needs...food, shelter, and a relationship with their God to nourish their spirits.

Surprised? I bet some of you are, because you have never had anyone offer this type of information to you. You have all just gone along with the flow and not stopped to think about whether the whole story was being told or not.

All of us need to lose our illusions about our historical heroes and villains. We need to look harder and deeper at what is true and what is not. We need to embrace the whole story as opposed to embracing only that which we want to believe. That way we can make honest judgements on our history and not be held at the mercy of those that tell us just what they want us to know.

Let's all lose our illusions so that we can step into the sunlight and see what's really going on!

 A few years back, there was an excellent movie starring Diane Lane, George Clooney, and Mark Wahlberg that was called "The Perfect Storm". It was basically a movie based on the story of the sailors on the fishing boat Andrea-Gail that was caught out at sea and lost when a couple of fierce storm systems merged, creating the so-called "perfect storm" that sank the boat and lost the crew at sea forever.

Looking at the "Duke Rape Case" is an eerie parallel to that movie, but instead of a convergence of storm systems, there was a convergence of P.C. sensibilites that have sullied the names of Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty, and David Evans for the rest of their lives.

When these three men were accused of rape in the liberal haven of Duke University, the gates of PC hell were thrown open and the hellhounds were unleashed on these young men. First came the apparently false charges, and in quick succession came the predictable campus marches, the pious response by the administration, the coming of the PC cavalry, and the professional hate mongers.

Je$$ie Jac$on came blowing into town to show his support for the "victim" and offering to pay her tuition to North Carolina Central University, the New Black Panthers came into town to disgrace the name and legacy of the real Black Panthers with their racist rhetoric, and the campus marchers  came demanding that the three men admit they were guilty. Mind you, there was NO evidence that a crime had even been committed, much less that these three were involved in anything more than a loud party; they were being told to claim guilt simply on the strength of an allegation!

Then there was the media that led the charge in branding the Duke Three as rich white boys that were guilty because, well, they were rich white boys. For the media and their PC sensibilities, being rich and white was all the evidence of a crime they needed. It mattered not that the alleged victim had more stories than the Arabian Nights; all that mattered was that they stood accused. Nancy Grace( who always looks like she just sniffed a warm, wet one) was the most shrill in her denunciations of the Duke Three. But she was closely followed by the people at ESPN, their parent ABC, CBS...you know, the usual litany of liberal media outlets. The only people that actually did a good job reporting this story, who actually went to Durham and interviewed people other than the usual suspects was HBO's  Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel;  for simply doing a solid job, they deserve kudos.

Add to that a prosecutor that sold his soul for a chance to be the elected DA of Durham county, and a police force that broke its own rules in order to get a suspect identification and you have the makings of the perfect storm. Add a liberal dose of the moralistic who act as though the fact that these guys were at a wild party was in some way a justification for the hell they have been subjected to and you have the final piece to make the perfect storm.

But just like in a physical storm, people have lost their view on what is really important here. While all of those that comment on the ethical lapses by the prosecutor, the shoddy police work, and the problems of the legal system are making valid points, they are missing what is most important.

At the end of the day, in the middle of this storm are three young men that have been smeared in the worst way imaginable. Seligman, Finnerty, and Evans stand accused of one of the most vile crimes that we have in our society. They stand accused of raping a helpless woman, of forcing themselves on her, and of holding her against her will. And though the rape charges have been dropped, these men will always stand accused of that crime in the eyes of the world...that charge will never leave the minds of the people.

So while you argue back and forth about what, if any changes, need to be made to the system, or what should be done to Mike Nifong, or what should happen to the accuser, don't forget about the Duke Three. Because this is about them, not us...and we would do well to remember that.

Hopefully, they will will not be ultimately lost like the Andrea-Gail, but will come out clean on the other side of this situation. They have been tossed about by this perfect storm, but by God's grace they will see a rainbow after the storm.

They deserve nothing less.

for more information go to http://www.slate.com/id/2148546/

The tyrant is gone! Last night the Iraqi people were finally freed from their long, national nightmare known as Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti. He finally got his just desserts for the hell that he personally dragged the Iraqi people through, and the pain and anguish he poured out on his neighbors.

But before he could even get to the gallows, to take his long drop at the end of a short rope, the media and it's ideological allies were already trying to create some controversy. All day yesterday I watched news outlets trying to determine if Saddam had been given up to Iraqi custody, and if so should the Americans have done so. Then there were the reports about how his trial was conducted and how his appeals were denied, as if that really mattered!  And then there were the "This is going to cause a spike in violence" stories that the networks started to run. So what if a spike in violence comes at the death of Saddam; we are in a war, and violence is a part of war. But you know the media...they just don't get that part of the whole war situation.

Then this morning, I tuned into to CSPAN and they have the idiot director of CAIR on to tell us all about the problems of executing old Saddam. According to CAIR, the timing was wrong because it fell two days before some Moslem holiday celebrating the end of the Hajj-you know, when they travel to Mecca to walk around the Dome of the Rock-and that allegedly sends some type of anti-Moslem message. And if that didn't grab you, then Saddam should have been kept alive to stand trial for the atrocities committed against other groups, instead of being executed for his crimes against the Shia. My question is: Who cares about that? Saddam was tried for the case of slaughtering a bunch of Shia, convicted, sentenced, had his appeals, and then got what was coming to him; that, my firends, is the definition of swift justice! And as far as I'm concerned, dead is dead! Everyone knows the crimes he committed against his people, other trials will be held that makes it clear to the world what he did, and the truth will be out there for all to see. So what purpose would it have served to leave him alive for all the time it would have taken to be tried for everything he did...then be hanged? He'd still be dead, and his defenders would still be outraged. So, you may as well cut out all the waiting involved and get him gone now!

Then there were the predictable libster callers who called in to say that Saddam's trial was a farce, that he did not deserve to be hanged, that his death would cause problems for America all over the Middle East, and that this is not what America stands for; you know, the Phylo/Kimberley/Tanabear viewpoint.  The thing about all of this is: We didn't try him, the Iraqis did! They wanted him gone, and had it not been for us keeping him in our custody, I will venture a guess that we would have already heard about his death months ago.

And I can guran-damn-tee you that the Kurds aren't shedding any tears over Saddam's demise, the Shia population was out celebrating, and the people of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are probably rejoicing over the fact that the man that launched brutal wars against them has gone on to meet his Maker. Those who suffered under his evil regime and those attacked by him aren't shedding any tears, so you can bet that I'm not going to either!

So last night, a little after 10 p.m. EST the closing of this deal was finally completed. After months of searching and haggling the closing was completed. Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti officially bought the farm somewhere in Baghdad.

Good riddance to bad rubbish!

Most of us in the South know the saying "American by birth and Southern by the grace of God" and all of us knows what it means. And I am one of those that feels that he is Southern by the grace of God!

I love being from the South; it's history, tradition, and values have helped make me who I am. I love the fact that I hail from the Confederate state of North Carolina, and I appreciate the role that she played in the Civil War. You see, most North Carolinians were not fighting to preserve slavery, but to preserve their idea of freedom. Only about 30% of the citizens of the state owned slaves, but 100% believed that it was the right of the states to determine the way the states decisons were made...so they decided to stand up for their rights. What is more American than defending your individual rights against an increasingly far reaching federal power?

I love the Confederate battle flag for the same reason; I may not agree with the principles of every man that carried that flag, but I can admire their willingness to sacrifice their comforts, conveniences, and very lives to defend their freedoms. So to me, the battle flag is no more a symbol of racism than an American flag is. Both flags, and the Cross, have been appropriated by hate filled men...but that does not make them symbols of hate in my book!

I love the way we in the South treat one another, too. I love the fact that we all, black, white, or other are willing to greet one another in a cordial manner. It doesn't matter whether we know you or not, if we see you we speak to you! Men seem to be more chivalrous in the South, women more feminine, and childen more well behaved than you will find most anywhere else. That may just be my bias showing, but hey, that's how I see it!

Hell, I'll even take our racists and bigots here in the South over any from anywhere else in the nation! See, our racists and bigots here are honest about who and what they are; they don't spend a lotof time putting up phony fronts for anyone. You know who they are, where they are, and what they think so it's easy to deal with them. They don't make any pretense of liking the groups they have turned into the "other", and the "other" does not pretend to like them either. They are who they are and it's easy to deal with them!

And those are just a few of the things I love about the South! I also love the food, the weather, the sense of family, and the comraderie of the South. Because all of us, black or white, rich or poor, all believe at least one thing in common: I am American by birth, but Southern by the grace of God!

To all of the regular visitors to the Spade, and any who just happen to stumble by, I would like to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! May God keep all of you safe and secure in His arms in the New Year!

To most Christians Matthew 7:15-20 conjures up images of people like Jim Jones, Syung Yung Moon, Joseph Smith, or David Koresh; wildeyed prophets, mystics, and poseurs claiming to be the Christ. And this type of charismatic leader that willingly leads people to destruction, both spiritual and physical, is to be considered a threat. But there are other, more subtle threats to the Body of Christ that we let into our lives and never think twice about them, but they are just as destructive as the aforementioned charismatic deceivers. They are the feel good, inspirational preachers that have come into vogue in recent years.

I am talking about people that have huge mega-churches, claim to be pastors for 5000 member congregations, and only tell people that God is going to give them something. You all know the type, and most of you have probably felt the same twinges of disgust and dismay that I have as you hear them speak. They are the ones that never alert their flocks that sin actually exists, or that man is fallen and in need of redemption. They are loathe to tell their flocks that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23) or that not everyone that cries "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of God (Matt. 6:32).

No, these preachers are more concerned with singing some Pollyanna song that in Christ all is sweetness and light. They are preaching the message that everyone is supposed to be rich, and if you're not then there is something wrong with your walk with God. They have turned God into a heavenly ATM...just walk up, say the magic words, and God will make all your dreams come true! Need a job...call on Jesus! Need a new car...call on the Lord! Need a mate...just dial up God's dating/marriage service! No waiting, no lines, operators standing by!

They refuse to tell their flocks the truth, which is that walking with God is a hard road. Don't believe me, then go read Matthew 10: 34-38 and see what Jesus had to say on the matter! We are going to be persecuted, hated, reviled, and despised by this world because we have put on Christ; life does not get easier for the Christian...the reward just gets sweeter!

But too many preachers nowadays will not say this to their flocks. I suppose they are afraid that they will lose members, and in so doing lose some prestige...and maybe even a few dollars. Too many mega-church preachers glory in the riches of the world so much that they have lost sight of the Gospel they are supposed to be preaching. They enjoy jetting around the country, living the high life, writing books, selling tapes, and basically living the lives of successful businessmen. Now, don't ge me wrong here; I have no problem with a person that makes money doing what they are good at. I do have problems with those that are making a profit on the Word of God!

Bear with me here, because I am about to start stepping on some toes. And I am sure that I am going to mention some people that many of you like, respect, and probably have bought some of their merchandise.

I am tallking about people like Bishop T.D. Jakes. Now, I cannot say that he is not a man of God; as a matter of fact I believe that he is a gifted preacher. But when was the last time that Bishop Jakes did anything for free? Bishop Jakes always has some inspirational message, "Woman Thou Art Loosed" or some such, and he is always willing to share it...for a small fee. Maybe it's just me, but I have yet to read the passage in the Bible where the Lord tells his prophets to give this word to the people...for a small fee! If you have a truly inspired word from God that is going to benefit the Body of Christ you have a duty to SHARE it, not charge your brothers and sisters to hear it!

And I am talking about my least favorite, Mr. Pollyanna himself: Joel Osteen! This character, as far as I can tell rarely even mentions Jesus when he gives his inspirational messages. I say inspirational messages because I have never heard him preach the Gospel to anyone. I have heard him talk about how God is going to make you rich, how you should always smile in the face of problems, and how you should have a positive outlook on life. Maybe, maybe this is true, but what does that have to do with the Gospel?

This is a man that just last year could not say that non-believers would not go to heaven! He was so interested in being P.C. and nonthreatening to the world that he denied the very words of God! John 14:6 says quite simply, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through Me." Now take a look at what Osteen said to Larry King at this site: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/20/lkl.01.html.
Any man that would deny the truth of Christ cannot be trusted to lead a church full of impresionable people!

I do not mean to just rag on these gentlemen, because there are more out there just like them. They just happen to be the biggest names in the game right now. And that is the whole problem; preaching the Gospel has become more of a hustle to these people than a calling. And that is why I chose to write this particular entry at this particular time...someone had to call this spade a spade.

Folks, the Gospel of Jesus is very simple and can be neatly summed up thusly: Jesus was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, was crucified on a tree to redeem men from sin, He took the power away from Death, Hell, and the Grave, He rose after 3 days, He ministered to his flock for 40 days, He ascended into Heaven, and He is coming back. Simple, succinct, and powerful.

So the next time you find yourselves listening to Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, or Ken Copeland, listen to see if the Gospel is being preached. If it is not, I suggest you turn off the tv, open your Bibles, and reacquaint yourself with the Gospel.

That is the best way to combat and avoid the influence of these ravening wolves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's not so funny, is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surrender.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless, and do your duty!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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