Bipartisan stupidity. That is the best way to describe the past several years. I am absolutely convinced that our government is in a contest to see which party can become the most hated. Republicans lost control of Congress because they were incredibly stupid. Democrats took power, promising change, only to have Congressional approval ratings at an all time low.

Let’s take a look back. I’m not going to go to far back, just to the beginning of the “W” term. When Bush took office, he couldn’t wait to have the Kennedy clan over for dinner and a movie and a handover of some of the biggest flaws in the federal government. Teddy started writing and Bush started signing. A government controlled by the party of small government and fiscal conservatism got really big and spent a ton of cash. The republicans allowed massive government expansion, education being one example. As we are all aware, the Constitution clearly leaves public education in the hands of the states. But that didn’t stop them. They also expanded Medicare and put in place some really great reforms that we won’t be able to afford in the very near future. The next president gets to figure out how to go back in time to fix this one.

After 9-11, Bush declared a war against terror to go on the offense and defend this country. Not a bad idea, one that most conservatives support. Well, except for that little not securing the southern border that allows gang members who are on al-Qaeda’s pay roll to sneak into our country thing.

Bush took us into Iraq, again, something that most conservatives support. Except for that little issue of not implementing a counter-insurgency strategy years ago which is a large part of the reason we are now fighting an insurgency. Oh, and not take flak jackets from admin clerks and redistributing them to people being shot at on a daily basis.

While this was all going on, we had Republicans going out of their way to send earmarks to their stockbrokers and bookies. I admit that I am exaggerating on that one, but not by much. We had a nice chap who was on some counter-pedophile committee sending IMs to children, obviously because he was running a covert operation. Speaking of covert, the administration allowed a CIA desk jockey and her hubby to spread one of the biggest lies in the history of the CIA. Of course the administration fought this lie by allowing a prosecutor to continue to investigate and ask questions long after he was well aware of exactly what happened which led the people of the country to think that the administration was hiding something.

This allowed the Democrats to jump up with their anti-war signs while yelling “Culture of Corruption” at the top of their lungs. Amazing how the corruption they were yelling about was only wrong when it was on the Republican side, but I won’t get into the double standard thing just yet. They took power promising to end the war and promising to end corruption.

Then came the day after they regained Congress. They put together an ethics reform bill. And by reform, I mean they made certain that they were in complete control of all corrupt activities by ensuring that only their buddies would be able to slip earmarks past the people of this country. Great reform, making certain that earmarks have to go through a rigorous process of being approved by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi during a secret meeting in a sound proof vault.

They did manage to get a lot done to end the war in Iraq. Harry Reid told us that it was lost, that the generals in charge were incompetent, and then tried his best to make sure our troops couldn’t get access to the brand new equipment that Congress was complaining they didn’t have, completely ignoring the fact that the reason they didn’t have it until now was because it didn’t actually exist last year. Was that last one too fast for you? Equipment was developed to help our troops protect themselves from the IEDs we hear so much about. Some of this was so new, that the Pentagon did not have the money to actually purchase it until that bill was signed. That would be the bill that Congress sent to the President that they knew he would veto. The delayed getting them this equipment because they were busy playing politics.

But have no fear. Bush knew how to strike back at the Democrats. He knew how to bring them to their knees and make them quake in fear. He had Ted Kennedy draw up an immigration bill that granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, which was in direct conflict with what conservatives were begging the President to do. The President pushed this bill knowing that it had no support amongst voting conservatives. In fact, polls showed that it didn’t have the support in the liberal ranks either, who said they wanted border security before any reform bill. The President and the Democratic controlled Congress managed to put all of their efforts into a reform bill that was actually less popular than a war in the Middle East that many Americans thought we were losing at the time. I had no idea that something like this could be done until after it happened. If you are crying or even feeling suicidal at this point, I understand. You may want to cheer yourself up by reading something funny at another blog.

While all of this is happening, the Democrats are orchestrating one catastrophe after another. Did I mention that the majority leader proclaimed that the war was lost and that the generals were incompetent? This was so stupid that it didn’t even sit well with people who do want to bring our troops home. Some of the anti-war movement is smart enough to know that you don’t say things like this on television because the enemy watches television. So do the troops you are calling incompetent losers.

In their efforts to end the “Culture of Corruption” the tried passing the above mentioned ethics reform which did nothing more than ensure that they were the only ones allowed to pass illegal earmarks. They also launched countless investigations against the administration, the USAG being one of the bigger examples. Doug Patton said it very well in an article over at humanevents. The president should have simply sent Gonzales up to Capital Hill with a single note card on which were written the following words, which he could repeat over and over to every question: “U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Next question.” That is in fact all he needed to say. This turned into a scandal for two reasons. The Democrats were on a massive fishing expedition. Gonzales, knowing they were going fishing, took the bait. He walked into a trap despite the very obvious signs that said ”This is a freaking trap, don’t walk in here” that were displayed.

The Democrats also took on another huge issue, domestic spying. Pay no attention to the fact that the use of the word domestic is purely political. Pay no attention to the fact that previous court rulings have declared that the program is in fact a power granted to the President by the Constitution and that this means Congress CANNOT pass a law that takes away that power. Also pay no attention to the fact that the President somehow is too stupid to simply point out this fact to Congress while he flips the middle finger at them. The Democrats took on this issue by passing a law giving the President this authority, which is exactly the opposite of what they said they were going to do. Of course Harry Reid informed us that the bill only passed because the Republicans rubber stamped it like they do everything else for the President. You know, the good ole ”Minority Party Rubber Stamp.” You might want to read that last sentence twice if you aren’t getting my point here. Harry Reid is a moron, that’s what I’m saying.

Power in Washington doesn’t change because someone inspires people to vote for them by standing up and proclaiming all of the great and wonderful things about this country. Power changes because the people get sick of whoever is in charge for whatever reason. When the Democrats make everyone angry, the Republicans take back Congress. When Bill Clinton’s presidency is scared by a sex scandal, his own VP can’t get elected. This is pretty much because the people who support the politicians who are screwing up decide to stay home. They are angry, and they protest by not voting, or by voting for a 3rd party scrub with no shot at winning. So what in the world will happen next year when America goes to cast it’s vote? After a horrible Congress is replaced by a horrible Congress, which side will have control? After a supposed conservative President expands the government welfare system, will conservatives risk installing another RINO?  Look around the left wing blogs and you will find people complaining about the Democratic candidates. Look around the right wing blogs and you will find people complaining about the Republican candidates. As a side note, if you happen upon a Ron Paul forum in your search, you will find that he is the only man who can save America and that he will clearly beat any Democratic candidate because everyone in the country wants him to win and his extremely low poll numbers are the result of the massive corporate-media empire controlled by space aliens who are building a one world government. Other than that, you will find that America is sick and tired of the people in Washington right now.

The much-smarter-than-you-and-I people on television who get paid tons of cash to tell us their opinions and predictions that never come to pass will tell who they think will win and they will give you a zillion reasons why. I am going to make my prediction now. Late next year, tens of millions of Americans will go to the polls to vote for a new President and to vote for some Senators and Representative. Much of this will be done on the new touch screen computers that are of course rigged to give the vote to the Republicans but somehow messed up last year. I predict that the combination of these electronic machines and the frustration of the voters will cause a tear in the space time continuum that will cause our galaxy to implode. And to be honest, this is probably the best outcome for all of us. Conservatives need to figure this whole thing out before the other side does.

By Doug Ragan

On September 15th, General David Petraeus, the commanding General in Iraq, will deliver his report to the President and Congress on the progress of the troop surge. Almost immediately after Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be the next commander in Iraq, the same politicians who voted to confirm him started to ridicule and question his ability to lead. The troop surge is the increase of 20,000 new troops being sent to Iraq to provide security in Baghdad and Al Anbar. The surge was initiated in February and just recently the last of the 20,000 new troops arrived in Iraq. The democrat controlled Congress has debated ever since over the outcome of the plan.

In June, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the war is lost and the surge is a failure. Let me remind you that not all of the 20,000 troops had arrived in Iraq, but yet Senator Reid has declared himself a prophet. He can foresee the future. Reid could see in June that we were going to lose. Or was it that he wanted the surge to fail for political reasons? Before the insults start, and I am inevitably called a variety of names, which by the way none of them are new, allow me to complete my diatribe.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has stated that she has already made up her mind that the surge has failed. She has said that it doesn’t matter what the commanding General in Iraq says in September, she believes it has failed. Even after good news was reported in Iraq, Pelosi said that the political situation hadn’t improved, so the military advances meant nothing.

Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin went to Iraq and actually admitted that the troop surge was in fact working. He then decided that he needed to instruct the Iraqi Parliament to remove the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq. He said that the political environment in Iraq had not progressed far enough so Prime Minister Maliki needed to go. Have you noticed a trend yet?

House Majority Whip James Clyburn has said that if the report from Petraeus is good, it could be a big problem for Democrats. He was referring to the 47 Blue Dog Democrats that would then feel compelled to keep the troops in Iraq until victory is ultimately achieved. Many on the left have spun his remarks to say that he was not referring to the Democrats being politically invested in the defeat of our troops. If the Blue Dogs will be swayed by good news from Iraq and the rest of the Democrats will not be, what exactly are we supposed to think? If news that our troops are winning does not change the Democratic policy of surrender and defeat, then one can only surmise that they are only interested in our defeat.

The Democrats have tried to change their strategy of late. As more and more good news from Iraq comes out, the party leadership has tried to shift the focus off of military success to political success of the fledgling Iraqi government. Senator Hillary Clinton has changed her position to one of a hawk that would leave the troops in Iraq for at least 2 years after her hopeful election as President. She has gone from staunch supporter of her vote to send the troops, to Bush lied to me to get my vote, to I would bring them home as soon as I am elected, to now I would leave them there to finish the job. Is it any wonder she has the highest negative ratings of any of the current crop of candidates for President? It is very hard to support a candidate that decides which position to take on an issue by licking their finger and sticking it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

I admit that the news from Iraq over the past few years has not always been very good. I also admit that the Iraqi government has not done enough to help unite the opposing factions. We should not arbitrarily pull our troops out of Iraq, or leave them in Iraq just because it will benefit one political party or the other. I will admit defeat when I see it, but we are not there yet; especially when the report from Petraeus has not even been written up. I must ask a few questions of my friends that oppose the war. Is there any circumstance that you would admit that we have won? If the report from Petraeus comes out in a few weeks with all benchmarks met and the security of Baghdad and Al Anbar is under control; will it be a good thing for the United States and Iraq or a bad thing? Sadly, I believe that the Democratic leadership is anchored to the defeat of our troops and the Iraqi government; and nothing will change their minds.

by Troy Stouffer

Evangelical, fundamentalist, and Christian conservative are all terms that have become a lightning rod for debate and scorn from many on the liberal side of the aisle. The often controversial Rosie O’Donnell has even gone as far to claim that evangelicals were far more dangerous to our country than Al-Qaeda. The very admission that I am an evangelical Christian causes some to start to hyperventilate as they rail against my faith. I would like to analyze a few of the most common terms used to describe myself and others who believe as I do, and try to come to an understanding as to what is so frightening to those on the other side of the philosophical spectrum.

Before we start the discussion, I believe it is only fair to express my beliefs so that there is no doubt as to where my thoughts and opinions are coming from. I believe that the Bible is the written Word of God. I believe that God did in fact create the earth, and everything else, in 7 days. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. He was born of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem. He ministered for 3 years and was crucified on the cross. He was buried in a tomb, and rose from the dead 3 days later. He came to the earth to sacrifice himself for each and every one of us, even those who choose to reject him, so that we would have a way to get to heaven. All we are asked to do in return is to acknowledge that we are sinners, meaning not perfect, and pledge to follow Jesus and his teachings. These are a few of my core beliefs that all of my decisions, morals, and values are based upon.

Merriam-Webster defines the word fundamentalist as a member of the 20th century Protestant movement that emphasizes the literal interpretation of the Bible as being fundamental to Christian life and teaching. For anyone who has read the Bible, I am unsure as to why the very mention of the word, fundamentalist, would conjure up such feelings of angst and sometimes fear. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, not just those who agree with us. He also taught us to live our lives as living examples of Christ. We all fall short of that example, but we continually strive to achieve that goal.

Webster defines the word evangelical as being in agreement with the teaching of the Christian gospel, especially as it is presented in the four gospels. An evangelical also emphasizes the salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual. This definition as well does not portray the vilified portrait of one who seeks to destroy our country.

I realize that there are Christians out there who do more damage than good, by there actions and attitudes about those who do not believe in Christ. I am speaking about the type of Christians like the Westboro Baptist Church. You may recall that this church goes to funerals of soldiers to hold signs that say “Thank God for IEDs”, “Soldiers Die, God Laughs”. Their message is that because of the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles in the United States, God is punishing us with the war in Iraq and terrorism. These Christians are not the typical evangelicals. They do not represent, in my opinion, what it means to be a follower of Christ. I am not a theologian, but my interpretation of Jesus’ teaching shows that he went out to meet with the adulterous woman, an unthinkable act of the time, and helped her to see the error of her ways. I do not see Jesus holding a picket sign outside her house and yelling insults at her from the street. I believe that we could look at any group of people and find a few bad apples. Why is it that all Christians are lumped together with those who blow up abortion clinics “in God’s name”?

Most of the evangelical Christians that I know are ready and willing to share their faith at a moments notice, but they are not the ones that yell and scream insults at homosexuals to try to convert them. No one is ever truly persuaded using strong arm tactics. “A person convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.” I am unsure of who first coined that phrase, but it holds true to Christianity, politics, or anything else you can think of.

I spoke to a local pastor, one in which I look up to with great respect as a man and a teacher, about what he felt Christians should be doing in the secular/political world. He believes that if Christians would truly be followers of Christ, we could make an enormous contribution to our nation. He sees the role of Christians as one of defender of the helpless. Just look at the story of British statesman William Wilberforce, made into the movie “Amazing Grace”. His deeply held faith convicted him that slavery was wrong and that it should be stopped. One man’s convictions started the debate to end slavery in Great Britain. I believe that is what being a Christian in our country and throughout the world is about. By living my life as a living example of Jesus Christ, I will work to end the injustices in our country and around the world.

Many people are terrified of evangelical Christians being in positions of power. They point to President Bush and say that he has overstepped his bounds in his thirst for war in Iraq. We can debate that over and over again, but how is that decision and example of how Christians would work in a position of power? Where did his faith play a role in that decision? In my opinion, he believed that there was injustice under the rule of Saddam and that played a key role in his decisions. Is the President a perfect Christian? Am I a perfect Christian? The answer is a resounding no. There are no perfect Christians. We all fall short of the glory of God, but we all continue to strive to be better Christians. As I become a better Christian, I become a better man, husband, father, friend, employee, and yes even a better writer.

My faith in Christ is my guiding compass. Just because my guiding compass is my faith, does that make my values, morals, decisions, or opinions any less valid than yours? Your compass has been determined undoubtedly by many things throughout your life. It is comprised of your experiences growing up, at work, at school, with your friends, or even the news networks. I do not discount your ideals because they do not agree with mine, I may debate or argue with you over them, but I do not discount them. It is not place to judge anyone. It is my goal to try to show you a tiny bit of Christ by the way I live my life. I pray that it does not offend you, but it will not change my faith or my desire to show you the way to Christ.

by Troy Stouffer