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.

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.