Well, the big debate today is did Hillary's tears turn her campaign around? Were they real tears, or contrived tears with a purpose? On the "real" side, we have pundits asking why Hillary, a woman, would deliberately make herself look weak when she's running for the most powerful office in our country? On the "contrived" side, we have other pundits saying Hillary is a manipulative woman -- she's always been manipulative -- and women have been getting their way for thousands of years with wavering voices and tears. It makes other women sympathize, and it makes men feel frustrated, mean, and powerless. The important thing here is that people are talking about Hillary ad nauseum! (Any celeb is pretty much dead-in-the-water unless people are talking about them.)

Today Hillary is saying she "found her voice". What voice is that, I ask? I sincerely doubt Hillary has a voice. I believe what she has is a cacophony of voices, depending on where she is, what people are saying about her, and how desperate she feels.

Webster defines cacophony as a discordant and meaningless mixture of different sounds. But, as a musician, I'm well acquainted with a musical cacophony, especially if I'm listening to the oh-so-cerebral genre of jazz. The sound is not pleasant, except to those who like musical noise, it is understood by none, but is appreciated by the pseudo-intellectual.

Five musicians are on stage and they're playing a song we know. Then, without warning to our nervous systems, they begin to play a mish mash of horrible chords that jar us out of our chair. Nothing makes sense! Your nerves are in a wild uproar, and you wonder where you are, what they're doing, and why? Have they all gone crazy? Are they on drugs? Did Alzheimer's hit all of them at the same time, and they forgot what song they were playing?

Hillary's voice strikes me the same way. I'm a person who likes melody, harmony, and beauty. Once I've heard a song and felt moved by it, I appreciate predictability in anyone else's rendition of that song. If Celine Dion made the song famous, I don't want to hear Willie Nelson's version! Hillary's voice sounds different every hour, and her face looks different, too. Who is she really? Is there even a real Hillary that exists?

I have my own little theory about Hillary's voice and her tears. Research over many campaigns in many years has shown that people ultimately vote for the candidate they like the best. So issues become second to likability. Why else would candidates make fools out of themselves by showing how badly they play musical instrument, or chowing down a huge piece of whatever is popular in each state? Why would they spend so much time on late-night-television shows auditioning for such a serious job?

I'm postulating that it went like this: "Hillary, people don't like you! They don't give a tinker's damn where you stand on issues. The men hear their shrieking, nagging wives' voice when you yell. The women are turned off by the abrasive tone in your voice as your face contorts in unflattering views. You scare the children, Hillary! You need to make these people see you as a real woman -- a caring, compassionate, and sometimes vulnerable woman who would relate to their personal struggles. Show your feminine side, Hillary! Look softer! A wavering voice and glistening eyes could turn this whole pony race around!"

Hey, if there's one thing no one can accuse Hillary of being, it's dumb.

By: April Lorier
(c) 2008 April Lorier

April Lorier is an award-winning poet, writer, Author, Christian Speaker, Columnist, and former music teacher.

As a pastor's daughter and a survivor of severe child abuse, April Lorier has an intimate knowledge of child abuse in and out of the church. She founded COPE, Inc, for the retraining of abusive parents. She successfully fought for the passage of The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA), signed by Ronald Reagan.

Her autobiography, "GOD'S BATTERED CHILD: Journey from Abuse to Leader" (2007) is available at Amazon, B & Nobles, Target and at http://gods-girl.com

Submitted by:
Rebecca Thornton
Law - USA

As the presidency of George W. Bush draws to a close, the candidates to fill his position are being examined ever more closely as Election Day draws nearer. One major issue for hunters, sportsmen, law enforcement, and just about everyone on some level, is the issue of gun control and 2nd Amendment rights. The common wisdom is that the more liberal the candidate, the more he or she will be for stricter gun control, whereas the more conservative, the more for gun ownership rights. Below is a look at some of the front runners and the stances they have taken on the issue.

Barack Obama, the Illinois senator, has a consistent record of working to increase restrictions on firearms. He supports banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. He is also in favor of increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms, and believes manufacturers should provide child-safety locks with all firearms. He also voted no on a bill that would have prohibited lawsuits against gun manufacturers (the bill would have still allowed lawsuits for such things as defective products).

Hillary Clinton attributes lower crime rates and gun violence in the 1990's to a combination of policies putting more police in communities and removing assault weapons from the streets. She has supported waiting periods for buying handguns, and also voted no on the bill prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. She supported legislation that would have required anyone purchasing a gun to obtain a "gun license", a state-issued photo identification. She spoke in favor of a national registry to record every new handgun sale and transfer. In 2000 she was quoted as saying, "I realize the NRA (National Rifle Association) is a formidable political group, but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them."

In 1995, Rudy Giuliani appeared on the Charlie Rose show and compared the NRA with "extremists". He stated that the anti-gun control policies of many Republicans are "terrible for states and cities...terrible for America." Giuliani put some blame on lax gun laws for a shooting that occurred from atop the Empire State Building in 1997, saying "It should be as difficult to get a gun in Florida as it is in New York City." He criticized southern states for their permissive gun sale laws. He has also intimated that urban settings should have stricter gun laws than rural or suburban; while he felt tough laws were needed in New York City, "in another place, more rural, more suburban...you have a different set of rules." As a Republican presidential candidate in 2007, he has moved away somewhat from his tough gun control stance, saying that states and cities should be allowed to make their own gun legislation locally.

Mitt Romney has stated his support for 2nd Amendment rights, but also supports an assault weapon ban. He supports the five-day waiting period for handgun purchase outlined in the Brady law. He is a member of the NRA, but has stated that he does not "see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue." In an interview with Tim Russert, he stated that he had the NRA's support in his campaign for governor, and would like to have it again now. He also supports background checks for weapons purchases.

Candidate Mike Huckabee has stated that his position on the 2nd Amendment is as clear for him as most journalists' towards the 1st Amendment. He describes himself as a hunter and sportsman and said that he proudly owns a variety of firearms. He supports laws that allow individuals to use necessary force to protect their homes, and for self-defense. He is in favor of allowing "conceal and carry" and has said he has a permit to carry a concealed weapon himself.

Making an informed decision at the voting booth can be challenging, with all the competing sources of information in the media and Internet. When researching a candidate on this and other issues, it's always wise to look for information from a variety of sources to get the best picture.

For information on equipment and supplies for law enforcement, hunters, sportsmen and others, visit professionalsuppliesforless.com

By: Roxanne Davenport
Roxanne Davenport is a freelance writer and experienced public safety official. For information about personal safety and security equipment visit http://www.professionalsuppliesforless.com.

Submitted by:
Cindi Petrelli
Humor Jokes And Satire

Last week, Mike Huckabee's Christmas ad generated an extraordinary amount of buzz among the national news media when Huckabee wished voters a "Merry Christmas" and referenced the "season of Christ's birth." Presidential candidate Ron Paul implied that the ad represented the first step on the road to fascism, while others in the media speculated on Huckabee's "subliminal messaging" aimed at Christians.

It's unusual for political ads to generate much controversy-after all, the purpose of positive television spots is to portray candidates in the most flattering light possible. However, given that the topic at hand is Christmas, the controversy, sadly, is not so surprising.

As a result of the culture wars, open displays of or explicit references to religiosity draw fire from the proponents of political correctness. In their quest for a more secular union, these self-appointed cultural arbiters find intolerance in everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to a prayer at a high school football game. For seven years, President Bush has been pummeled by the mainstream media and the political left for his unabashed affirmation of his Christian faith.

The fierce opposition that Christians have engendered from the PC police underscores the importance of this issue. Our nation was founded on Christian principles by men and women who called themselves Christians. As the war on terror looms large in the minds of those elected to protect us from outside threats, it falls to us--the American people-to tend to our nation's spiritual health.

As our thoughts turn toward selecting our next president, it's important to keep in mind two things:

The nature of the job means that the president, first and foremost, leads by example

Progress in renewing our culture requires taking on conventional wisdom and the forces of the (often secularist) status quo

Here's a simple litmus test for all of the presidential candidates that can be administered in the amount of time and ink it takes to finish this column: which candidates bucked the PC trend to offer up a bland and patently unoffensive "Happy Holidays"? Who forthrightly acknowledged the season of Christmas by name?

(We already know how Huckabee addressed Christmas-the secularists are still howling about his ad.)

Rudy Giuliani (with the help of Santa) played it safe and wished voters "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays."

Barack Obama and family did the same.

Ron Paul also wished voters a "Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday season."

John Edwards referenced a "season of faith, hope, and love"...and then went right back to his talking points.

Mitt Romney's family distributed a Christmas card which referenced Isaiah 12:5 and wished voters a "Merry Christmas, Happy Holiday season and a joyful New Year."

Hillary Clinton offered up a milquetoast "Happy Holidays" while placing "Universal pre-K" under the tree.

Fred Thompson released an ad which portrayed soldiers serving in Iraq and asked viewers to "reflect on their courage and sacrifice" and closed with "May God bless them all."

John McCain shared a story from his days as a POW in Vietnam about a guard who loosened his bonds and scratched a cross in the dirt floor on Christmas.

Duncan Hunter collected Christmas cards and letters of support and sent them to soldiers serving in Iraq.

Now, it would be extrapolating a bit much from these ads to determine on their basis alone who is and is not fit for higher office. However, in the midst of the scripted world of presidential campaigns, it is often the little moments which betray flashes of a candidate's character or innermost thoughts.

When it comes to selecting one from among ourselves for the office of President of the United States, other qualities are subordinate to the content of the candidate's character. It is character which allows men and women in high office to face difficult decisions without buckling, and where the future of our nation is concerned, nothing less than the best will do.

By: Nathan Tabor
http://www.theconservativevoice.com
http://www.tcvmedia.com
Nathan Tabor is the Founder and CEO of TCVmedia.com and TheConservativeVoice.com. After just eighteen months, TheConservativeVoice.com gets over 250,000 unique visitors a month, 1.7 million page views and has over 150,000 email subscribers. The Conservative Voice has over 100 columnists and features up-to-the-minute news. He is heard daily on over 250 stations nationally with AConservativeMoment.com.

Submitted by:
Josh Truegood
International Issues from Knowledge Is Power

People have asked whom my choice for president is. I was waiting to reveal it until the right time. I feel it is now after what I heard at 7 am Tuesday morning. I had on Joe Scarborough. He was ranting and making a fool of himself over the new Huckabee ad. Joe kept repeating himself in a mocking way, Iowa is done it goes to Mike Huckabee after his new ad, how can you go against baby Jesus, over and over he said it laughingly. Then they briefly had on Rep. Ron Paul who still had sleep in his eyes but it was his moment to become more main stream and galvanize the split with Conservatives going for him and Huckabee. He blew it. His foolish statement of Sinclair Lewis said that Fascism will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. He's done in my books.

I kept plugging him, anytime I mentioned Huckabee, Paul was in the same sentence. I agree with him on the Federal Reserve, the Amero, the Constitution and other issues but he has made a foolish statement that I deeply resent. Huckabee in no way represents fascism and there isn't little green men under my bed.

Face it people the constant attack on religion and God by pushing them out will lead to fascism or Communism.

For this reason I am proud to announce I am a delegate for Governor Mike Huckabee. Thee BEST CHOICE amongst ALL the candidates. Why?

You have to look at all sides when making a decision about a candidate, their past, their statements, their supporters, their ads and negative ads against them. Sometimes the best knowledge you have comes from the negative ads. So far they having been trying to come up with something on Huckabee and its been nonsense. Sort of like when they dug up an old DUI President W. Bush had. Who cares, that was when he was very young.

Against Governor Huckabee they are trying to use a statement he made about 15 years years ago that people with AIDS should be isolated. They are trying to make him look like I don't know what, stupid, uninformed? In the December 10Th 2007 issue of U.S. News there was a small article that said in Washington DC 1 in 40 has AIDS, Nationally 1 in 779. So tell me was that statement by Huckabee so foolish? I don't think so, those numbers speak for themselves.

I decided on Huckabee because of his character, consistency, and positive message. He may not score high in any one category but he scores consistently above average in ALL categories. As for him being positive, no matter how hard Romney or the media tries to drag him into a cat fight he defuse it with wit.

For example concerning his new commercial. When I viewed it instantly it reminded me of something Bing Crosby would of done, homey, Christmasy, family oriented, a positive feel good message. Everyone has come out against it including the ridiculous claim that the window frame was a cross. How did he answer those charges? He said yes there was subliminal messages in the ad and if you run it backwards you will hear Paul is dead! (a reference to the 60's rumor of Paul McCartney of the Beatles was dead) Reaganesque once again.

If I may answer his critics let me start by saying what Holiday is this? And maybe if Mitt, Rudy, Hillary or some of the others would of done a commercial like this you can cry they are using religion to get votes. But with Mike Huckabee what do you expect from the man a commercial of him in drag, him touting more socialist programs? The man has character. Mitt gives a PR speech on religion a few weeks ago and that is ok, Huckabee airs a 30 second ad and that isn't! Hypocrisy at its utmost.

To that I say MERRY CHRISTMAS & a HAPPY HUCKABEE!!

By: Carey Masci
Mom would get so mad and reprimand me as a child when I would talk back to her. She would say.... you have all the answers. My reply.. of course I do otherwise you wouldn't ask. This has carried on in my adult life as I have an opinion about everything. At times I tend to miss the mark in trying to relay my thoughts verbally but in writing, which is a passion, I seldom miss the mark of what I am trying to convey.

I write frequently for the Lake Gop, http://lakegop.blogspot.com/, I am also in the process of adding a blog to my website, http://www.gogobus.cc which showcases my travels. I have contributed small articles to The Lake County News Herald. People have asked if I would write bio's for their on line sites. I have folders filled with short stories I have written that someday will be edited into book form.

The first step in expanding my horizons was attending a class held by Author Mark Barnes (The League and An Ordinary, Happy Man) who led me to this site. My style convers all areas, politics, human interest, sports, travel, to the absurd and funny.

Submitted by:
Barry Arcant
Legal Resources Service.

When the story of the Duke lacrosse case first broke, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP all called for the arrest of the lacrosse players. When the facts came to light (namely, that the students were innocent of rape) neither Sharpton, Jackson, nor the leaders of the NAACP offered an apology or an admission of hasty judgment. Under any circumstances, the rush to wrongfully accuse three students of rape would rightfully be considered slander; when committed by public figures who claim to fight for "racial justice," it is itself an act of racism.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident; Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP have made a practice of using the weapons of racism when it serves their purposes.

In 2000, the NAACP ran attack ads against then-Governor George W. Bush, implying that he bore responsibility for the death of James Byrd, a black man who was dragged to his death by white racists. Bush's offense? While governor of Texas, he refused to sign a hate crimes bill. Never mind that Byrd's murderers had convicted and sentenced by a Texas jury.

In 1991, riots erupted in the Crown Heights neighborhood of New York after a Jewish motorist struck a car containing two children, who died from their injuries. Black residents looted and vandalized homes and stores owned by Jewish residents, all the while shouting "Death to the Jews!" After the death of the children, Al Sharpton delivered an inflammatory speech in which he referred to Jewish residents as "diamond merchants" and organized a protest march. During a spike in racially-motivated violence, Sharpton thought nothing of enflaming racial tension as a "leader of the black community."

More recently, Jesse Jackson has been slamming subprime lenders for "discrimination" against black homeowners. The evidence? Some of the subprime-mortgage holders are minorities. So far, there's been no word from Jackson on how the shortsightedness of the lenders or the foolishness of the homeowners translates to racism.

The NAACP, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are known as the leaders of the black community in America. Yet what have they done for their community?

In the book Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America, Jesse Lee Peterson notes "I don't recall the entire black race in this country taking a national vote to elect Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, the NAACP...yet they've seized the mantle of leadership and claim to speak for all blacks in this nation."

Though these self-appointed leaders claim to speak for the disenfranchised and profess a desire for "racial justice," they continually engage in bigotry against their political foes, as well as their own community.

In the minds of Sharpton and Jackson, blacks are noble and put-upon, whites they disagree with (President Bush, the lacrosse students, the police) are cruel and oppressive, and Jews are greedy and conniving. These crude racial stereotypes are an ugly reminder of the Jim Crow era, a time that the overwhelming majority of Americans resolved to put behind themselves.

Despite the fact that institutional racism in America no longer exists, and it is largely taboo to publicly discriminate by race, creed or ethnicity, Sharpton and his ilk remain committed to the politics of division and hate. These demagogues achieved power by appealing to the worst in people; in order to maintain their influence, they must create new divisions even as old fissures heal. These "heirs to the civil rights movement" make a living by piling fresh discriminations atop old ones.

Worst of all, these heinous practices have done the most damage to those that Jackson and the other race hucksters profess to serve; the black community. At a time when nearly seventy percent of black children are born out of wedlock, Sharpton and Jackson are telling blacks that their problems can all be attributed to a racist system. As the next generation enters the education system, these snake oil salesmen can be heard degrading the concept of excellence; those who achieve and excel are merely "acting white."

A prime example of this is Jackson and Sharpton's treatment of Barack Obama. Obama, an intelligent and accomplished man, could very well be the first African-American to hold the office of president. One would logically assume that the leaders of the black community would be overjoyed to see one of their own in the Oval Office, yet Sharpton and Jackson have been remarkably cool towards Obama. Despite the fact that he holds similar (liberal) political views, Obama diverges sharply from Jackson and Sharpton on matters of race and entitlement. Thus far, Senator Obama has refused to cast categorical blame on blacks or whites, and embodies the ideals of personal achievement and scholastic excellence.

Despite Senator Obama's positive example, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the leaders of the NAACP continue to shape public opinion through their grandstanding and discriminatory politics. This is not mere demagoguery; for twenty years, these toxic prophets have been damning American children with messages of division and despair. I can only hope that one day, they will be held accountable for stranding the next generation in the ghetto.

By: Nathan Tabor
http://www.theconservativevoice.com
Nathan Tabor is the Founder and CEO of TCVmedia.com and TheConservativeVoice.com. After just eighteen months, TheConservativeVoice.com gets over 250,000 unique visitors a month, 1.7 million page views and has over 150,000 email subscribers. The Conservative Voice has over 100 columnists and features up-to-the-minute news. He is heard daily on over 250 stations nationally with AConservativeMoment.com.

Submitted by:
George Snedrow
Free Reverse Phone Directory

Voting is a privilege that we have long taken for granted. It has become subject to the indifference of our entitlement rather than being subject to the scrutiny of our responsibility. The significant work for this next election will not be accomplished by the candidates, or at least it's not supposed to be. The most important and essential work for the next Presidential election will be accomplished by the electorate, the American voter...you and me.

We tend to believe that on November 4, 2008, we will go into the voter's booth, push a button or two, and magically, our candidate , whoever they may be, will be elected to office. When, in fact, the real work should be taking place right now, in the privacy of our homes, as we do the research necessary to make the best possible decision. The alternative is that we continue to spend months on end being dirtied by political mudslinging while we sit on the sidelines and let the candidates "fight it out". Political campaigns have become sport and we have become avid spectators. And, this is what we call democracy?

Political campaigning has become a sideshow, of sorts, designed to distract us from the work we need to do to put forth an honest vote. Candidates for public office, Presidential or otherwise, should not be sold to us like exercise equipment on a midnight infomercial. We have to choose who our personal candidate will be, not told who they will be. Voting is as much an exercise of freewill as anything. Rights come with responsibilities. We, then, need to be responsible in how we make the decision. In order to exercise our right to vote, it is incumbent upon us to turn away from the glitz and glamour of the political "red carpet" back to the organic nature of true democratic process. We are too far afield of the essence of the democracy, and have become far too enamored with the fame and celebrity overshadowing the candidates.

Exercising your right to vote consists of 4 essential steps:

1. Knowledge of the candidates. Who they are. Why they're running. What they stand for.

2. Understanding of your personal values. What you believe and why.

3. Diligence: Which candidate has most closely demonstrated that he or she values what you value. (Tip: This decision should not be party-based, it should be value-based.)

4. Vote using the information you acquired in completing steps 1-3 above.

What we know today as democratic process is long overdue for an overhaul. Voting is a private decision albeit one that has public rewards or consequences, or both. Our individual votes determine who will decide how we will live as a nation and what our position in the world will be. It is not a decision that should be taken lightly or left up to someone else to make on our behalf because ultimately, the choice is ours and we will be held accountable before GOD for it.

We have minds of our own we need to use them to make the right decisions. We must stop the cycle of being influenced by another person's world view. Each of us has a world view, and therefore, each of us also has the responsibility of doing some heavy lifting, pitting value to value, between now and the next Presidential election. We have the inherent capacity of being able to make informed decisions and we need to use it. We don't need celebrity endorsements, multi-million dollar campaign "war chests", special interests, or any such thing.

When you step into the voting booth in November 2008, it should be simply you and your candidate. The only voice in your head needs to be one telling you that you can confidently vote for the candidate that you believe will, based on your own due diligence, best fulfill the spiritual, intellectual, ethical, and physical demands that will be required of our next President. It's your voice and it's your choice. Choose wisely.

By: Michele F. Richardson
The contributor, Michele F. Richardson, is a Business and Personal Consultant who is dedicated to helping others fulfill their GOD-given destiny. Ms. Richardson draws on her own experiences to educate and motivate others. Additionally, she is a motivational speaker who is able to confidently address issues relevant to today's society including GOD, sex, politics, relationships, parenting, and personal edification and enrichment.