Personally, it can be preferable when one says, “I once held view ‘A,’ but evidence convinced me otherwise and I know hold view ‘B’.” Such a person demonstrates thoughtfulness in their views. Rather than regurgitating the view of a parent, teacher, professor or preacher, they think through issues to find the truth. Those who have never changed any views were either very lucky to be spoon fed perfect truth without error, or (most likely) they have put little thought into their beliefs. Why would we automatically reject the thoughtful converted one in favor of someone who shows no sign of thinking through positions? Simply agreeing with us, is not proof of deep thought or even reasonable views.

Several years ago I was discussing with a friend his childhood in a very strict Anabaptist sect which I won’t name. He told me that his father used to say, “Beware the converted.” Though the Christian gospel requires Christ’s people to reach out to the unbeliever, this group became so untrusting of outsiders that even those responding to the message of Christ and seeking membership among them were held in suspicion. This would shock most Christians, but this is exactly how does this differ from how we treat those who change their political views.

When a candidate stands up and says, “Yes, I was once pro-choice, but now I’m pro-life.” We should celebrate a victory and ask what convinced them. It is possible the argument or experience that convinced them would work on others. Don’t forget, even Ronald Reagan—hero of the conservative movement—was once pro-choice. While I cannot attest to Mitt Romney’s credentials as a pro-lifer, I am not going to spend years working to convince others that life begins at conception and then slap a candidate who says he now agrees simply because he once disagreed. There is a certain place for giving the benefit of the doubt.

Kim, the successor and son of North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung, recently died at the age of 69. Upon his father’s death he took the reins in that isolated country and was responsible for policies that led to mass starvation and cannibalism, while continuing his father’s policies of purging political enemies in concentration camps. The elder Kim (the father), whose mother was reputedly a Christian deaconess, instituted the Juche heresy in which the Father (Kim Il Sung), the son (Kim Jong Il) and Juche (National self-reliance) ideology are literally worshipped as a state trinity. Kim Jong Il expanded this into a full-blown cult while threatening to destroy “the Land of Morning Calm” (traditional name of Korea) and enslave of his southern neighbor, while shaking his nuclear fist at the world.

As a Christian, I would hope and pray Kim Jong Il confessed the name of Christ prior to death—the same prayer I said for his father. This, however, does not keep me from celebrating. Few men have caused more suffering and death through their personal actions. If he confessed Christ, then I will celebrate the mercy of God. If he didn’t, the lover of liberty within me feels there has to be a special place in hell for men like him and his father. They are a perfect example of Lord Acton’s adage, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Anyone wanting to understand life under the Kim regime should read Eyes of the Tailless Animals, by Yi Sun Ok.

Now, after fighting hard to get a conservative in the senate seat so long held by Ted Kennedy, those most responsible for the victory are being sold out by none other than their primary darlings. Senator-elect Brown has recorded phone ads for John McCain and Sarah Palin has announced her support for, and intention to campaign for McCain.

While the reaction of the right seems churlish, the reaction of the left is naïve. The North very successfully used this and we should admit it. Yes Bill Clinton helped these two women, but that is small in comparison to the world’s condition. The left is using this as a bludgeon against Bush, though he hasn’t been in office for months. They say this shows that diplomacy works, leaving one to assume that diplomacy should have been tried with Iraq and one can only assume with Afghanistan. First of all, we tried diplomacy for years with Iraq. With Afghanistan we acted quickly because they were supporting those who had killed so many of our citizens on 911. Since the Russians had lost to them in the 80’s they assumed we would lose as well. Of course they forgot that we were on their side in the 80’s. Now, while I have always maintained that we should not have entered Iraq when we did, that part of the discussion is over and we have been much more successful in Iraq than the left will ever admit. So let’s look at the scorecard of freed people. Bill Clinton freed two young women who stuck their necks out too far. George Bush freed two nations with populations of millions. While I am no fan of George Bush, you have to give him credit for some things.

Keith enjoyed a huge following on an earlier version of MSNBC (known in the eighties as MTV). Below is a photo of Keith as a younger man.

Of course the earlier Keith was more natural, warm and friendly, but his views were about the same.

General Stanley McChrystal, commander of international forces in Afghanistan, has made two policy changes that will be sure to get soldiers killed and lengthen the war by years. He has said the new standard for success will not be how many insurgents are killed, but how many civilians are “shielded from violence.” Besides this, he will be issuing orders that troops are to break off fights with the enemy if the enemy are hiding in civilian homes. To have an order that is so blatantly bad from one I can only assume to be a fine, dedicated warrior can only mean it comes from higher up, perhaps the Commander in Chief.

Many of the bleeding hearts out there will be singing the praises of this new order, but I wonder what they say when it turns out to have the opposite effect. It is actually likely to get more civilians hurt because once the enemy knows that civilian homes are a safe place from which to launch attacks they will use more of these tactics. The US is in effect handing the civilians over to the mercy of the insurgents. When you face an enemy who will drive a bomb into a mass of civilians you do not give him a single place of safety. You must be willing to follow him anywhere and root him out. It is true that we want to win the hearts and minds of the population, but if President Karsai wants safety for his people he needs to find a way to strengthen his own army and mobilize them against the enemy.

Is anyone surprised that the military under our current Commander in Chief would limit our ability to win this war? After all liberal democrats are good at getting us into wars that last a long time. People often forget that is was the democrats who got us into Vietnam. I can only hope that our current Liberal in Chief isn’t setting our boys up for another bloody defeat.

For you who adore Mr. Obama, tomorrow he will be president. He will have to make hard decisions—decisions that will get people killed, that will cause economic swings, that will be hard and unpopular. Let us hope he is the man who to make these decisions and not the populist empty-suit we’ve seen so far. This president will have one thing the last did not—an adoring, fawning media making sure everything he does gets the positive spin. He is unlikely to ever deal with scorn and hatred from the media establishment. Good luck Mr. President, you’re going to need it.

One thing to look for, Mr. Bush was hated everyday by a left-leaning media and an outspoken fringe. Yet despite the vitriol, he did what he thought was best to secure this country. Mr. Obama has always been the populist candidate riding the wave of popular rhetoric to power and prestige. I wonder how he will hold up if the limelight turns to a spot light and he faces an unpopular decision. Will he stand straight or bow before the winds of public opinion? Only time will tell.