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.

Abortion has long been a hot topic ever since its creation way back in the 1820s. But with so many technology breakthroughs and new abortion techniques, the controversial issue has become more intense and litigious, especially on the political stage with the upcoming 2008 presidential election.

Abortion has been, is, and always will be a deeply ingrained issue in many Americans because of the moral and religious factors it presents. Many individuals firmly believe abortion is just another form of murder since essentially it involves the willful termination of another living being. On the contrary, others think such a decision should be completely up to the woman and is an inherent constitutional freedom since it is her body.

Abortion is a very crucial issue for each presidential candidate and their declared platform; in fact, so much so is that the case, that many candidates lose the votes of certain votes based solely on their abortion positions. Here is a look at the top runners, both democratic and republican, in terms of abortion.

Barack Obama (Democrat)
Obama has been a long-time supporter of a woman's right to choose and the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. He also believes in protecting a woman's decision on partial-birth abortions and voted no on a bill that would obligate minors to inform their parents before they receive an out-of-state abortion.

Hilary Clinton (Democrat)
Much like Obama, Clinton is also against banning partial-birth abortions and wants to protect a woman's right to choose. She does, however, endorse funding education programs and providing contraceptives to decrease teen pregnancy and parental notification for minors.

Mitt Romney (Republican)
Romney has actually changed his position on abortion and steadily defends what opponents have labeled as "flip-flopping." While he has always personally been against abortion, Romney was once tolerant of it while serving as the governor of Massachusetts. However, he claims his anti-abortion view beliefs have progressed and he would support the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

Rudy Guilliani (Republican)
While Guillinani is personally pro-life, he has said on the record that he respects the choices others make in regards to abortion. He fully supports a ban on partial-birth abortions and is a staunch supporter of the abortion alternative of adoption. Guilliani also would support the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

By: Grace Lennington
http://www.theadoptioncenter.com

Democrats will do anything for votes.

For those of us who were Democrats through the period of JFK, LBJ and Hubert Humphrey it is sad to see the gutter politics now fully embraced by the Democratic Party.

Sadder yet how millions fall for this demagoguery, believing that receiving the rewards of the work done by others, and believing these dishonest politicians is the way it should be.

In 1996 when S-Chip was introduced, it was another new entitlement program. Even though there were much better private sector choices available-there still are-the original legislation at least had reasonable limitations meant to restrict eligibility only to children and those of truly low income families. It was also a bi-partisan effort.

Today it has much more to do with political posturing, demagoguery, and turning health care into a fully run government program.

This is the essence of being a Democrat. Keep giving government more and more power, creating more government dependency, expanding the nanny-state. Then when those with some maturity try to keep a semblance of sanity and to contain the $55 trillion dollars of debt we have now committed the nation to (see report GAO-07-510R, issued on March 21, 2007, by the Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker) vilify the grown-ups as heartless or worse, unconcerned about "the children."

This never-ending and disgusting class-warfare strategy has now become the trademark of being a Democrat.

The few remaining adults in congress who are responsible with the hard earned daily labor of those who pay for the onslaught of handouts, are under constant assault for following the constitution, while nanny state advocates practice legalized thievery with reckless abandon.

Redistribution is what gives Democrats power, it is how they hold power.

More and more of the middle class qualifies for a certain benefit, thinking each handout is essentially free, because withholding taxes obscure the daily confiscation.

What their hard earned dollars are actually doing is paying for more government workers and bureaucrats at all levels of government for those bureaucrats to redistribute.

That redistribution-in the hundreds of billions-goes mostly to high school dropouts, unwed mothers and those who have not persisted.

Those recipients do not pay the price like those who have met their work deadlines day after day, week after week for years at a time, along with meeting other responsibilities. Those responsibilities are very costly, including high taxes for welfare benefits, the cost of which is now closing in on one-fifth of the federal budget.

Will we ever pay proper attention to the insidious nature of government. Suggest victimhood, create a limited program, promise low costs, knowing you'll fight to expand it later, watch it spin out of control, do more of the same.

Instead of listening to the U.S. Comptroller General's warning about the unsustainability of the $55 trillion of debt we are now committed to, from entitlements-most of it in just the last few years-another very costly one just pours gasoline on the fire.

George Bush's proposed budget, which became overdue on Oct. 1st already added a hefty $118 billion to last year's budget.

Democrats are trying to add an additional $23 billion, much of it downright pork.

When will this inevitable pattern of government confiscation spur enough adult behavior in voters to stand up to the insecure, nanny state crowd, which is ingrained with the non solutions of monstrously wasteful inefficient, dependency creating, government programs, no matter how much and how often these programs soar out of control.

When will the word insidious be understood?

How much Marxism will we accept before saying enough is enough.

By: Mick McNesby
Mick McNesby is a former tax advisor, consultant and negotiator. He was a frequent guest on political talk shows in Atlantic City, N.J., discussing the benefits of the lower cost of government. He can be visited at http://conservative-politics-infofind.com

Some narcissists who are in positions of power, but believe more power should yet be theirs, seek to make the entire world their stage. But what will they risk to achieve this end? Will they dismantle the world's greatest democracy?

Today, I suspect the founding fathers of this country must be rolling in their graves. For years, we have talked about the wonderful system they put into place, especially because of all of its checks and balances.

I suppose this presented an irresistible challenge to some suffering from pathological levels of narcissism, however. Could the greatest democracy in the world withstand the tinkering of brilliant men like them?

Yes, this was probably a challenge simply too good to resist.

The honorable men who were our founding fathers undoubtedly wanted to believe that only honorable men would lead this country in future times, too. Obviously, though, they weren’t naïve about human nature, especially the nature of the narcissistic, or those men who would be Kings.

Yes, they likely realized some people might be inclined to manipulate our government for their selfish ends. And yes, some of these same people might lie or cheat their way into positions of power, only to display their true colors after much damage was already done to this great nation.

The founding fathers realized this country had to be protected from people who might be inclined to demonstrate that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Except really, don’t most people tend to behave consistently? Thus, as the narcissistic attain more wealth and power, they will engage in even more self serving behaviors—with the intent of gaining even more wealth and power yet. Kind and benevolent people, on the other hand, will likely use their wealth and power for philanthropic endeavors.

While our forefathers would probably be dismayed by what is happening today, I suspect that some of the instigators of these destructive actions are laughing loudly and gleefully. They are probably bursting with pride because they have shown their ability to manipulate a system once thought to be immune to such manipulations.

Like the hacker who might bring a major company to its knees by infiltrating its computer system and data processing, could our country fall because of the games narcissistic leaders play?

No one likes to think of that possibility. But as I watched Ken Burns's powerful documentary on PBS about World War II in recent days, a film told from the perspective of American citizens who fought in the war plus family members at home who prayed for their survival, I was reminded of how the actions of one man led to the destruction of millions upon millions of people.

I suspect when most of us have given thought to this World War, we were inclined to think primarily of the millions that died in the concentration camps. Did we overlook the millions who died trying to rectify what one man had set into motion?

Hitler might have died in the war he brought on. But before he shot and killed himself, did he sit back and bask in the knowledge he had been the cause behind so much havoc, death, and destruction worldwide? I suspect he might have done so. Certainly, he assured himself quite a place in history. And for some people, even negative attention is better than no attention whatsoever.

Certainly, I hope an increasingly destructive scenario doesn’t get played out in this country and other parts of the world. But since the game of narcissistic leaders might well be to see how much more power they can confiscate, including in our country where the founding fathers had tried to ensure this never happened, in doing so, they could destroy our democracy.

Do they themselves seek to be destroyed? I suspect not. However, many narcissists will march forward to the point of self destruction in their quest for more money, more power, or those spoils of war. Also, they really don’t care who or what they take down with them. I also suspect that rather like the suicide bombers, they might believe their lives had ended in glory.

Indeed, we can’t afford to sit back, complacent in the belief that the destruction of our country is an impossibility.

By: Diane England, Ph.d.
Diane England, Ph.D. is a clinical social worker with degrees in family studies and child development. Discover articles about his narcissism, addictions, and abuse plus her likely codependency as well as recovery through personal development and spiritual growth at http://www.NarcissismAddictionsAbuse.com.

I recently heard about a young mother who received an unexpected call from a collection agency for a bill for a medical test that was performed on her infant son two years ago. Certainly, it's a hassle for this busy working mother to go through her records to try to prove that she never received the original bill. But I'm betting this mother is thankful that she lives in a country where she can still choose her children's doctor…where her children can receive prompt medical care…and where she can rest easy at night knowing that competent care from her pediatrician, ob/gyn, and family doctor is only a phone call away.

The issue of children's medical care is now centerstage in our national political debate, due to the controversy over the State Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as SCHIP. President Bush has pledged to veto a compromise bill that would expand the program, calling the plan a move toward "government-run health care for every American."

The draft compromise legislation would mean some 35 billion additional dollars would be pumped into the program over five years. As a result, total spending on SCHIP would be a whopping $60 billion. As you might expect, the growth in spending would be paid for through a tax increase—in this case, an increase in the tobacco tax.

The President further stated, "I believe this is a step toward federalization of health care," noting that the Congressional plan "is beyond the scope of the program, and that's why I'm going to veto the bill."

Keep in mind President Bush is what's known as a compassionate conservative. In other words, he's not against government programs. In fact, he's not even against expanding SCHIP—he himself is asking for $5 billion more for the program. He's made it clear that he wants poor children to have health insurance—he just doesn't want to bankrupt families while doing it.

The Democrats approved this pork barrel plan knowing that the President would veto it. As the President has stated, "Members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they score political points in Washington."

As evidence of that, consider this statement, issued by the Democratic caucus in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives:

"President Bush is about to punish thousands of Pennsylvania children whose 'crime' is that their working parents cannot afford expensive private health insurance. He is threatening to veto legislation that would reauthorize and improve federal support for state children's health insurance programs because, he says, it's too expensive.

"Yes, President Bush, caring for kids costs money. That doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in them. The low- and middle-income working parents who are struggling to meet their kids' basic necessities are what Pennsylvania's Children's Health Insurance Program is all about."

What low- and middle-income working parents really need is for our public officials in Washington to hold the reins on runaway government spending. They need their tax bills reduced so that they can stretch their hard-earned dollars to pay for necessities—including health care for their children.

The last thing they need is for Uncle Sam to determine the course of their children's health care. Yet, that's exactly what the Democratic leaders in Congress are pushing for. Call it what you will—I call it universal health care—another name for old-fashioned socialism.

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.

Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.

Take a break, have some laughs, visit our Lawyer Jokes pages.

For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.

After watching the interview by Chris Wallace of former president Clinton the thing that struck me most was not his self-righteous anger but that people are still buying his act. Those on the left of the political spectrum here in the U.S. are indeed fools. If they are not fools then they are traitors. Either way they should be kept from high office. By high office I mean they should not ascend higher than say, plan review in a local building department. That is as long as they're not structural plans.

By Clinton's own admission he tried and failed to capture or kill bin Laden. If only bin Laden were an obscure Christian sect living in Texas (Waco) or a small child from Cuba (Elian Gonzales) maybe then the full weight of the Federal Government could have been brought to bear on bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

No, all bin Laden did was orchestrate a few terrorist attacks against U.S. Troops: the U.S.S. Cole, the Khobar Towers and launch simultaneous attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa. These offenses were not serious enough to warrant Clinton getting creative with the law (as he is wont to do) and get rounds downrange to kill bin Laden.

I needn't get into the first attack on the World Trade Center. I won't even bring up the fact that September 11 was planned years in advance of its execution, nor will I mention Able Danger or Jamie Gorelick's memo putting up a wall between our intelligence agencies or the incident in Somalia now known as "Black Hawk Down" in which we lost 19 Army Rangers. Following this debacle the military was forced to withdraw by the new president.

As Commander in Chief he was sorely lacking. As soon as he took office Clinton implemented his homosexual advocacy program known as "don't ask don't tell." What possible good came from that is a mystery to me. Before you start whining about discrimination I will remind you that it is an honor to serve in the U.S. Military not a right.

One of Clinton's motives for this could have been his open contempt of the armed services and those that serve therein. Incidentally, Clinton was good enough to put that in writing to a colonel on a draft board during the Vietnam War. While pleading his case to stay out of the military Clinton wrote, "so many fine people find themselves loathing the military". Perhaps he was repaying a debt to far left campaign contributors. Either way it seems a strange way to start your tenure as Commander in Chief. Compounded with the fact that Clinton did not win the popular vote and was elected with a very slim majority of electoral votes he certainly made no attempt to govern from the center. Nor did he win the popular vote in his second term. Do the words, " No clear mandate" ring a bell?

Very credible rumors abound of Hillary Clinton berating Marines and demanding they not wear their uniforms in her presence. She is not fit to carry their water let alone have them serve her. The fact that she is a senator from New York does not escape me. It does astound me however. A very timely pardon of some Puerto Rican terrorists by Bill may have played a role in Hillary's election. The Clinton model for handling terrorists leaves much to be desired.

With very credible allegations of rape (notice it is plural) and Clinton’s horrendous treatment of and taste in women you see where the title “The Louse That Roared" comes from.

If only Clinton could have worked up that much rage over the Chinese stealing nuclear secrets (or was that buying nuclear secrets?) my children could be safe from Chinese nuclear missiles for another 20 years or so. Clinton signed many a waiver for Loral Space to sell very sensitive guidance systems to the Chinese. This technology moved Chinas I.C.B.M. program from 30 years behind ours to as close as 3.

Save your bluster Bill. Hillary will not win. Feigned outrage may work to jinn up some more cash but the folks that were going to donate to you and yours would do it without the sideshow.

By: Dan Doherty
Dan Doherty is the creator, editor and author of http://www.strikebackusa.com. He is a former Recon Marine. Dan served as a squad leader in an infantry company in the first gulf war. After rotating back to the U.S. and recieving an Honorable Discharge from the Marine Corps Dan attended UMass Boston. At UMass he studied political science, psychology, international relations and philosophy as an undergrad. Dan is a journeyman Ironworker out of Local 7 Boston. He is also a lieutenant on a metropolitan Boston fire department. He is also a hazardous materials technician. In the year 2000 Dan was awarded the Medal Of Valor by Governor Cellucci for saving the lives of three people in a fatal fire. This award was given in conjunction with the Firefighter of the Year Award.