Hilary Clinton is back on the war path and back in the political fight, perhaps she has just had enough of the Song and Dance as she sees it. Barack Obama, has indeed danced his way into the deep pockets of the MoveOn.org PAC and danced into the media's favorite candidate category, but now many are getting tired of the side show and would Barack Obama to answer some serious questions. If you will recall Barack Obama in one of the earliest presidential candidate debates stated that he would very soon after taking office go and visit Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jon Il and the President of Iran, whose name no one in the Western World can spell.

Many who understand the US Diplomacy Policies and the State Department strategies, were completely mortified by his statements and Hilary Clinton stated that such a notion was simply naïve. Indeed, it was a silly thing to say, but it puts question marks out there on Barack Obama's inexperience abroad, which Hilary Clinton once again brought up recently. In fact, in looking at Barack Obama's overseas and abroad travels, it appears to me that Hilary Clinton made a slight error in her accusations for Barack Obama's lack of qualifications and inexperience.

It is not that Barack Obama is inexperienced abroad, but rather he has NO Experience abroad of any true value to running the US diplomacy policies. If we look at his prior statements at the first debate, you have to wonder, did he just make a mistake, slip of the tongue or does he have absolutely no clue as to what he is talking about. Surely, someone running for President of the United States has more experience than that? Well, those are my opinions on this issue, I sure would like to debate foreign policy on TV with Barack Obama, but I bet his handlers wouldn't like the results.

By: Lance Winslow
"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/.

There are 300 million citizens living in the United States. There are estimates that 20 million illegal immigrants are also residing in our nation. When one out of every sixteen people is here illegally, there is good reason to be concerned. But, is this situation as big of a threat as some say, or is it, if anything, an advantage to our economy?

Even living in New York, you can see that there are illegal immigrants taking part in our everyday lives. From construction workers to gardeners, there's a good chance you've seen an illegal immigrant working, even if you did not realize it at the time. Many people say that illegal immigrants are taking our jobs, and causing American unemployment. But, with a 5% unemployment rate amongst citizens, pretty much anyone who wants a job can get it. In fact, one may argue that illegal immigrants are simply taking up the jobs Americans don't want. But, what happens when our country's unemployment rate increases, and many more people are out of work? Then, Americans would be losing jobs to illegal immigrants and the immigrants would lose jobs and go hungry, creating problems for our nation. So, though at the moment, there does not appear to be an economic problem with illegal immigration, we don't know what the future has in store for us.

Every illegal immigrant has broken the law; they came here. Though this may seem like it is not a horrible crime, the fact that they broke the law once has some concerned that they will break it again. But, does this mean that they are destined to have a criminal future? Yes...and no. The majority of illegal immigrants are well-intentioned people who want to earn a living. Some are criminals, but some Americans are also criminals. But, generally speaking, illegal immigrants work in unskilled occupations; the first jobs to go if the economy slows. So, if many illegal immigrants are out of work, and living on the streets, there is a much larger chance that they will resort to crime. Although most mean well, both their economic situation may encourage a few to break the law.

When an American worker earns a dollar, they generally spend it within our borders, in effect helping out some other person. However, many illegal immigrants came here to help their family, which is often still in Mexico. As they earn money, they send a large portion of their income back to Mexico to support family members. This is taking away money from American businesses, and hurting many. Though this impact can hurt people, the size of the illegal immigrant population's income is proportionally smaller than the United States as a whole, so this issue is not as large as some claim it to be, but still harmful.

The economic implications give a mixed, though probably negative, picture of immigration. However there are still the national security issues. To me, this is the main reason why we should crack down on illegal immigration. If a lone illegal immigrant, with no money, can simply walk across the border, into our country, and stay here for the rest of their life, why can't a terrorist, or group of terrorists. It would be much easier for a terrorist to go through Mexico into the U.S. than simply going to our country directly. This is a huge threat. We've seen the destruction which a few terrorists can cause, and must realize how large this threat is. If we do not secure our borders, we are not safe.

Though the economic implications of illegal immigration are not necessarily a significant problem, the threat to our nation's security should make everyone want to secure the border. No matter which party you are in, it is your obligation to do everything possible to protect your nation. If we do not secure the borders, we are slacking on our duty.

By: John B. Phillips
http://www.petitionearth.com/blog/?p=6.

Hillary Clinton is the former First Lady and Current Senator from NY. There is no politician that polarizes opinions in the US more and from my observations that is more misunderstood around the globe and even in a little the US. The reason why Hillary tends to be understood outside the US is really the media's fault and the way she is portrayed and the limited access to information. Most average people know her as Bill's wife who was the victim during the sex scandals of the 90s and now as strong woman Senator who has the best chance yet of a female leading the US. In some ways this is true but in reality Hillary more resembles Mitt Romney on the Republican side as someone who is very calculating and changes opinion based on situation and polls (her Iraq positions and current stance on Iran and voting in Senate about Iran).

In 90s unsuccessfully tried to bring a universal health care campaign to US under Bill's reign and now has put forward a new plan under her current campaign. However she is the only major Democratic candidate who receives massive donation from Drug and Health Insurance companies (more than any Republican actually even) and these are the people she lampooned in the 90s and she must fight and essentially take away billions of dollars in profits from to bring any universal health care plan forward. She has a carefully crafted PR image a strong decisive woman not afraid to make tough decisions and that she can operate in a male dominated world, but has stayed with Bill despite 20 years of documented infidelity with numerous women essentially for political reasons.

In fairness to her she has to operate in a system where a single man let alone a single women on any side would probably be unelectable. She has been re-elected as a senator with a massive majority in NY and generally performs well in debates and also has improved her public speaking delivery (you have to feel sorry for he as she is compared to Bill and rival Barack Obama who are both dynamic on the big stage making her look awkward by comparison as most people would). She is the consummate politician with her vague answers and has strong experience on the global stage and would have an amazing advisor in her corner in Bill.

However if elected would represent at least 24 and potentially 28 years of presidency passing between 2 families and most likely more of the same if not more vicious bickering that occurred in the 90s. She would represent a giant leap forward showing that a women is electable but as I said the reasons why people seem to hate her are largely unfounded as as the reasons that people like her as they are based on misinformed assumptions and inaccurate facts. She is the candidate that many Republicans are hoping for as she could energise their base better than they could themselves and she is also despised by the hardcore left of her party as drifting to far right and conservatively economically. Is the overall favorite and the candidate talked about the most on both sides by far. (expect a lot of documentary Michael Moore style movies anti-Hillary to come out next year if she is the Democrat nominee which are in production now in anticipation).

By: Chris Jacob
We provide real Economic Choices in this crazy political and financial climate allowing you to make the best decisions for you and your family.

In the United States for the most part there are two prevailing political parties one of them being the Republican party (which I mention first because I am one) and the Democratic party. This holding true even though there are several other parties as the United States is a democracy that allows other parties though it does not really do much to encourage them. These other parties being the Libertarians, Communists, Socialists, Independents and others. As for the primaries they are basically what could be classified as an internal election within the Republican and Democratic parties (among those voters who are registered in the party) to chose which of their candidates will represent the party in the "General Election" which is the one that actually determines who will occupy the "White House" for the four years to follow.

This for the most part is a great thing about the American system that it actually allows the people or in this case the registered voters of each party to vote for the candidate they feel they want to represent their party in the general election as opposed to having the candidate picked out for them by a small group of people within the party. This system in a way even guarantees that the person chosen to represent either the Republican or Democratic party will at least enjoy the support of most of his or her party and therefore stand a better chance of winning in the general election then a candidate who is chosen by the party leaders. However I always ask myself can there be a downside to this system?

I believe there to be one flaw in all this and that not being so much in the system itself but in the way in which Americans tend to vote. If people vote for a candidate who has the same political views as they do or the one whose views come the closest out of all the candidates to their own then an errant choice can never be made. This if what I have stated happens. unfortunately however in many occasions this does not because party rivalry in America is so strong that it often occurs that when choosing a candidate to represent their party many an American will chose someone more for the reason that they stand a better chance of winning in the general election then any other reason. Meaning to them it is better to chose someone who will win for their party then someone who upholds their political ideology.

Of coarse I am not claiming that there is no importance in having ones party win the election but does this line of thinking not defeat the basic principle of voting for a candidate in the first place. To my way of seeing things the best and only logical reason to vote for a candidate is because the person whom we are voting for represents our political ideas or at least comes the closest from all the candidates to doing so for what is the rationale of voting for someone simply because he or she stands a better chance of winning? When thinking in this manner we should also not rule out the idea that if enough people refrain from voting for a candidate because that person might not necessarily win then it is almost certain that he or she will not as he or she will have lost perhaps millions of possible votes just because of this philosophy.

However it is unfortunate and sad that in the United States of America the country which in its relatively young history has had more leaders democratically elected then any other country on earth that many people do not vote for someone simply because they do not approve of that person's chances of winning. There is even a sense some people get that they are throwing away their vote if they give it to someone who has "no chance of winning". This as if casting a vote were like betting on a horse at the track where the object is just that, to pick a winner.

I even remember back in 1992 when my fellow Republicans (like Democrats alike in 2000 apropos Ralph Nadar) were telling some not to vote for Ross Perot not because he would not be a good man to lead the nation but because he stood no chance of winning. The arguments always returning to the same "why vote for someone who has no chance of winning?" or "don't throw away your vote". I however ask isn't the whole point of voting to do so for the man or woman whom we think is the best qualified to run the country rather then to just to have ended up on the winning side?

When it comes to this issue I have even noticed that in America, it is even a matter of shame at least for some to have voted for someone who did not win as if the point had been to pick a winner which obviously they did not. I for my part do not wish to tell people for whom to vote for or for whom not to vote for but to tell them that we should vote for the candidate and not for his or her chances after all we are casting a vote not laying down a bet.

By: Gianni Truvianni
http://www.new-york-society.com/nyos_salespage.htm
My name is Gianni Truvianni, I am an author who writes with the simple aim of sharing his ideas, thoughts and so much more of what I am with those who are interested in perhaps reading something new. As for the details regarding my life I would say that there is nothing that lifts them above the ordinary. I was born in New York City in 1967 on May 21st and am presently living in Warsaw, Poland because my wife happens to be from this particular country that was also the birthplace for my only daughter. My daughter being the star of "Little Opera Singer" which was my first ever completed story.

Contributed by:
Stan Warner
Attorney Directories - Find An Attorney

Having faced a number of poor voting results in early campaigning rounds, former US Senator Fred Thompson has decided to withdraw from the presidential race on Tuesday.

Thompson withdrew his candidacy after having faced a third place result in Saturday's South Carolina primary. This was a crucial win that Thompson hoped to achieve to bolster his campaign. The loss of this state sealed his fate. Having obtained only 16% of the votes from this primary, Thompson found himself running behind John McCain's 33% and Mike Huckabee's 30%.

A former senator from Tennessee and star of the hit TV series Law and Order, Thompson entered the race for the White House last September. Though a late entrant, he was able to climb to second place in the national opinion polls that were held subsequently in October. However, his popularity plunged shortly after, as critics began to question his commitment to the job. The former senator's woes were founded when he failed to win even one in five conservative votes from any of the early primaries and caucuses. Also, support for his candidature was weak amongst white born-again and evangelical Christians. Thompson's third place finish in Iowa did not make matters better.

As Thompson failed to gain in popularity, his campaign started to face financial constraints. As the losses from his campaign begin to pile up a strategic retreat seemed to be the best option for him. Fellow competitor Mitt Romney commended Fred Thompson's efforts by stating, "Throughout this campaign, Fred Thompson brought a laudable focus to the challenges confronting our country and the solutions necessary to meet them. He stood for strong conservative ideas and believed strongly in the need to keep our conservative coalition together."

In the short statement that Thompson released to the press he stated, "I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort." Thompson's exit leaves the Republican race wide open ensuring a face off between the remaining contenders at the Florida primary on 29 January.

By: Emma A Johnson
Author is an expert in politics related topics. To visit her articles related to us presidential elections 2008, please visit: http://www.electionspeak.com/USElections/.

Publishers note: At the this time the Florida race is over. John McCain won and Rudi Giuliani dropped out and endorsed McCain.

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