hile the mainstream media politely waited for the chads to settle and the belated concessions speeches by defeated US Senators George Allen [R-VA.] and Sen. Conrad Burns [R-MT] before proclaiming the demise of the Republican Revolution, GOP pundits were forced to conclude that the Republican Party, led by President George W. Bush, squandered the trust of the American people. In his first concession to the far left, President Bush accepted the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The concession to the new majority was based on a White House decision that was made on Sunday, Nov. 5. Rumsfeld's job was conditionally offered to former CIA Director Robert Gates—based on the outcome of the election. If the GOP held the House and Senate, Rumsfeld would have kept his job. To this president, loyalty is job one.

The nation took a giant step backwards on Tuesday, Nov. 7. While everyone—including the diehard conservatives who joined in the willful execution of the GOP—were forced to agree with the talking heads that it was a good day for the Democrats—in particular the socialist "cut-and-run" far left that now controls Congress and will be responsible for bringing the war on terrorism to a neighborhood near you—it was not a good day for the nation. Before the Election of 2008 comes upon us, the Christian and non-religious conservative voters who chose to sit out the Election of 2006 in order to protest of the policies of President George W. Bush will ultimately regret their decision.

Moderate, family-values swing voters have decided every election in this nation since 1906. The 20% in the true political center are the most powerful voters in the nation. They decide every election although there are not enough of them to elect their own candidates. These are the voters who, in the aftermath of the elections of 1992 and 1996 said, "Don't blame me...I voted for Ross Perot." And, of course, the blame for the co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton—and the largest tax increase in the history of mankind—rests squarely on them since they elected the Clintons by voting for Perot. Nothing changes even when, politically, everything is suddenly different.

This year, of course, there was no Perot. Nor were there that many Reform Party candidates. Yet, third party candidates influenced the outcomes of several Senate races this year. Third party candidates defeated Senators Jim Talent [R-MO], Conrad Burns [R-MT], Thomas Kean, Jr. [R-NJ], George Allen [R-VA], and Congressmen JD Hayworth [R-AZ]. Without the presence of third party candidates in those races, the Republican Party would have maintained control of the US Senate even though they lost the House. Third party candidates generally drain votes effective only in presidential races since third party candidates generally do not attract enough votes to be troublesome to either candidate in House or Senate races. However, in very close federal races, where the major party candidates are separated by 1% or less, a third party candidate can tip the scale and flip an election. While conservative third party candidates played a role in 20 Senate and 138 House races, they actually flipped 5 races.

What caused the devastating defeat of the GOP this year? First was voter dissatisfaction with President George W. Bush's core position on several bellwether issues with conservative voters. Most important was the staggering loss of trust in the president—and the GOP Congress over several issues. Among them was the fence. And Republicans who acted like tax and spend Democrats. And Republicans who appeared more than willing to sacrifice the civil liberties of the American people in order to spy on insurgents around the world, and the Bush Administration's willingness to detain terrorist suspects—even those who were American citizens—without due process. The GOP should have crafted legislation making it clear that the Bill of Rights fully protects every American citizen but denies its protection to non-US citizen insurgents captured on the battlefields in foreign lands, or while committing or attempting to commit, acts of terrorism in the United States or abroad. Congress needed to make it clear legislatively that non-US citizen terrorists are entitled only to the civil liberties provided to the world's citizenry under the UN Declaration on Human Rights—not the rights afforded to natural and/or naturalized citizens of the United States under the Bill of Rights since that document was penned solely to protect this nation's citizens. In that way, the anti-terrorist legislation would not tamper with the liberty the Constitution provides its natural and/or naturalized citizens.

Sadly, the liberal judges appointed by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who adjudicated most of the appeals filed by terrorists held in captivity by the US military outside of the United States have applied the provisions of the Bill of Rights to protect the insurgents. Thanks to these judges, the foreign combatants—who, for the most part, have never set foot on American soil—have more constitutional civil liberties than the US military personnel who guard them. There is something very, very wrong here. Particularly since the insurgent combatants who have been released from American custody return to the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq to kill more Americans.

In every war fought by every nation in the world for at least the last 100 years (except the Islamic nations), the enemy's captured uniformed combatants were confined in prisoner-of-war detention camps until the hostilities ended. Non-uniformed combatants in all of the nations' wars are treated as spies and executed. In the case of the world's contemporary Islamic armies, they regularly violate the Geneva Convention and butcher uniformed captives and civilians to weaken the collective will of their enemies to resist. Yet, the US media (controlled by the invisible money barons who profit from Muslim oil and need peace at any price to create world government) have chosen to categorize the Islamic insurgents who planned and executed the attack against America on Sept. 11, 2001 as "freedom fighters"—and the US and British troops that liberated the Afghani and Iraqi people from harsh totalitarian regimes as "occupiers."

Since the Election of 2004, the liberal media has craftily managed to hammer this illusion into pseudofact. (When the Founding Fathers wrote a free press that was out of the control of government into the Bill of Rights, the citizen-legislators never envisioned the day when a handful of powerful bankers and industrialists would, or even could, control and manipulate the media for treasonous purposes. Or that the federal judiciary would protect, under the mantle of the 1st Amendment, powerful seditionists who, protected by the courts, would use the media to commit treason against the United States for personal profit. The antiwar socialists within the US government (as they did against both Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson and Republican President Richard M. Nixon) have succeeded in painting a war already won as an unwinnable quagmire. If that's so, then Bill Clinton's 1995 war in the Balkan is also quagmire because, after 11 years, American troops are still there. Sadly, Clinton defended Muslims whose friends, family members and allies, are now killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, without looking at the whole picture, the American voters bought the Democratic rhetoric and the "quagmire" became an election issue.

The second issue that convinced almost half the conservative voters not to participate in the Election of 2006 was immigration. While the media claimed the war on terrorism was the dominant issue and that the "quagmire" in Iraq as the reason the voters rejected the GOP, America's dissatisfaction with Bush was not based on his position on Iraq. The American people want Bush to put enough troops in Iraq to overwhelm the insurgents and win.

America became disillusioned with Bush over his immigration amnesty program and his determination to keep the borders open. Conservative America took a calculated gamble to teach the Republicans a lesson on "trust." The liberal media still claims the issue that swung the tide on election day was the war in Iraq. If that was true—which it wasn't—it would justify what will be the new Democratic majority's imminent demand that Bush moderate his position on Iraq—and begin pulling out troops. Where Rumsfeld estimated that US troops would be in Iraq for a decade, the Democrats want a complete troop withdrawal before the 2008 elections. Yet, as it was in 2004, America remains equally divided on the war issue. While the media claimed the exit polls showed that 57% of the voters were opposed to the war this year (against 45% in 2004), 80% of those who identified themselves as Republican approved of the US position in Iraq, while 81% of the Democrats disapproved of the war. Looking at all voters, 49% approved of the war, 48% didn't. Once again, the media lied.

When it came to Bush—who went into the midterm elections with a job performance rating of 34%—the exit polls said that 48% the American people approved of what he was doing and 48% disapproved. Bush's approval was—and still is—tied to his position on the border and the amnesty or deportation for illegals. The majority of the American people want the borders sealed, the illegal aliens rounded up, arrested and deported. And where the president angered his constituency by wiretapping suspected terrorists and those they communicate with in the United States and around the world without—they thought—authorization from a judge, the Democrats assumed the role as public advocate of civil liberty, chiding the Bush Administration for not securing a warrant before wiretapping conversations between known terrorist organizations in Europe and Muslim extremists around the world.

The far right, fed misinformation by the far left, turned on Bush because they were convinced he was undermining the civil liberties of the American people. The Democrats who just took control of Congress are even more determined to dilute the Bill of Rights. They always have been. They started by attempting to legislatively abolish the 2nd Amendment in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. When the US Supreme Court vacated the law in 1935, the Democrats enacted the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and began regulating gun rights out of existence one nibble at a time. In 1951 the Democratically-controlled Congress took the second bite. The third came in 1968. The fourth and fifth came in 1972 and 1990. Bill Clinton tried twice: in 1994 and 1997. Clinton not only tried to abrogate the 2nd Amendment, but under his legislation—written by the same Democrats who once again control Congress—the entire Bill of Rights would have been gutted under the guise of protecting the American people from domestic terrorists. House Republicans elected in the Republican Revolution of 1994 defeated both attempts. Most of the Republican congressmen who defeated the attempt to unconstitutionally legislate the Bill of Rights out of existence were themselves defeated on Nov. 7. The Democratic Revolution of 2006 returned to power the antiwar communists who seek a socialist world government. Nothing changes—except, I can promise you, it will get worse.

Within 100 days the Bush-43 Administration will look like the administration of another Texan—Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson, history notes, authored the first "quagmire." In reality, the actual quagmire was created by the antiwar liberals in the US Senate who leaked damning information about the military's mistakes in Vietnam to the antiwar media that committed sedition by publishing the reports. The same cast of characters are doing to the same thing today to paint Iraq as a quagmire. Winning the peace has always been harder than winning the war—particularly when the far left leaders in the US House and Senate are constitutionally-shielded as they lend aid and comfort to the enemy by publicly denouncing the administration and, by their words and deeds, telling our enemy that if they persevere we will quit—just as we did in Vietnam.

A new audio tape, recorded by Egyptian-born Iraqi al Qaeda leader Abu Hamza al-Muhajir who replaced Abu Musah al-Zarqawi, was released on Nov. 10. In the recorded message al-Muhajir ridiculed the Bush Administration, adding that he hoped the Democrats would not turn tail and run too quickly so his group would have the opportunity to kill more Americans. "We haven't had enough of your blood yet," al-Muhajir said, adding that "...[w]e call on the lame duck not to hurry his escape the way the [Rumsfeld] did. We will not rest from our jihad until...we have blown up the filthiest house—which is called the White House." If anyone believes that al Qaeda will not follow departing American troops back to the United States in order to continue their Islamic jihad against America, al-Muhajir's words speak his intent to do just that clearly enough that even a couple of Harvard-educated antiwar liberals from Massachusetts should be able to understand the message. After all, both of them—John F. Kerry and Edward T. Kennedy—have been stuck in the 60s most of their adult lives. Both believe the America military establishment is incompetent and that the American soldier is a brutal savage. That's why Sen. John Kerry made his infamous remark a few days before the election: "If you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Kerry and the antiwar liberals that now control Congress are trying to make the American people look at the war on terrorism through the prism of Vietnam. This is a unique characteristic of the antiwar liberals. Making America view war through the specter of what they view as their only military success—America's only lost war.

Tragically, the antiwar Democrats will compound this political sin with another even more tragic because the invisible overlords of banking and industry who are behind the transnationalist efforts to create a borderless global state demand it. The White House, aided and abetted by the new Democratically-controlled Congress, will push an illegal alien amnesty bill through Congress disguised as an immigration control act.

Buried in that legislation will be a provision that forbids the States from enacting any laws that requires voters to produce photo IDs to prove they are eligible to vote in federal elections. Such a law would violate the Constitution since Article I, Section 4 provides the States with complete authority to determine the time, place and manner in which elections are conducted. The States will be allowed to require photo IDs from voters in State and municipal elections. The problem is that for the most part State elections are tied to congressional elections. That means your city can require voters to have photo IDs when they cast their ballots in mayoral races but not in congressional or presidential elections. This will open the door wide for even more vote fraud as the Democratic Party—which needs a new lackey it can shackle to the federal feeding trough to replace the African Americans who escaped from the welfare generation—will use the votes of illegal aliens and, of course, the votes of the Daley Dead who helped elect every Democratic President since 1960—and who almost elected Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

On January 8, 2007 everything on Pennsylvania Avenue will be different. Strangely, even with Congress turned upside down, nothing will change. Most of the conservatives that fought to enact legislation to build a fence on our Southern border were defeated. In several of those races, conservative third party candidates contributed to their losses, aided by illegal alien and "dead" votes. Constitutional conservatives who helped kick the GOP out of power may have done irreparable damage to the Bill of Rights because the restrictions on civil liberty found in the Patriot Act—which were watered down versions of the abortions found in the original version of the Anti-Terrorist Act of 1997 (HR-666)—will be back on the table when the next terrorist attack hits a city near you.

Who would you rather have in Congress? Those who believe that we have an inherent right to liberty? Or those who believe that government is the caretaker and circumscriber of liberty? We all believe we have an inherent, God-given right to liberty, yet we continue to elect those who believe Big Brother has the conditional right to reinterpret what liberty means. Sadly, nothing changes. The road we travel has become a one-way lane that leads to socialist Utopia. Since Nov. 7, everything's different—but, nothing changed.