The contention of the Middle East’s most prized land has been a stalemate for peace since before Christ, not the artificial 1948 or 1967 which is most commonly used in current modern political debate, and one of the staples of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Since his inauguration as President he has continually sided with the Islamic world and it has frightened many Jewish and Christians alike. Please note that I distinguish between secular Jewish and Christians, by name only, from those who actively practice the faith. His first interview as President was with Al-Arabiya network and his first major diplomatic speech was made to Cairo, Egypt. In his speech to Cairo he legitimized the control of the Temple Mount by the Muslims with the following quote: ”…when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer (1). ” The story of Isra is key to this argument.

Last week to the United Nations he called for talks without preconditions while setting forth preconditions, not logical , but typical Obama fashion. ”The time has come — the time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues, security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security; a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.(2)” It is obvious in this situation that the demand for a contiguous state prior to 1967 borders are preconditions, but why would a ‘Christian’ be so adamant to create Palestine to pre -1967 borders?

A day after his announcement he was the first President of the United States to Chair the United Nations Security Council and two days later in unison with the world powers he laid forth a condemnation of Iran for their secret nuclear programme. The Israelis and Iranians have been in a constant war since the inception of the modern state of Israel in 1948. Iran funds Hezbollah from the North in Lebanon and Hamas from the West in Gaza and has openly stated the desire to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. They are currently creating a secret nuclear programme for ‘peaceful’ purposes only and pose an existential threat to Israel. So…, Barack Obama is condemning them, how could he be a siding with the Muslims? This is the point where Barack Obama is playing chess and the current arguments have been unable to address.

By condemning Iran and acting from a perspective that he is hard on the Islamic Republic he will force Israel to make concessions in the peace efforts with the Palestinians. He will then use the peace that he creates with his Islamic brothers to create a contiguous Palestine pre-1967 borders through the new US policy in the United Nations. This will essentially wipe Israel off the face of the earth, without the nuclear holocaust proposed by Iran and in unison with the International community. Checkmate.

Sincerely,
Anthony DeFazio

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Anthony_DeFazio http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Creation-of-Palestine—Barack-Obamas-Checkmate&id=2993629

My recent writings have focused on the problems in the health care system and why the Democrats don’t seem to be making things any better. It seems that despite their large majority and control in both houses of Congress and the White House have not given them the courage to push for the reforms they were voted in to create. What’s worse, is that instead of passing real reform, or even doing nothing, they seem to be allowing and backing many of the issues that the Republicans are bringing to the table. This comes even when the Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in working with the Democrats to make real reform.

The fact that no Republican in the Senate is open to a public option for health care shows that as a caucus they will not help the Democrats, or anyone except themselves.

Meanwhile, in recent days, some of the Republicans’ favorite issues like anti-abortion reform, abstinence only education and guns are gaining momentum.

On the abortion front, while Republicans refuse to pass any meaningful health care reform, they have decided that if any reform passes, it will include restrictions on abortion procedures, even if the person has private coverage. This move is almost as ridiculous as the sudden concern for Medicare from Republicans. For 40 years, Republicans have railed against health care in the same way that they are now criticizing the public option. They don’t want government intervention, and they think the free markets will be hurt. Now with abortion, they don’t want the government involved in health care, but they do want the government to regulate what a woman does with her body. Democratic representatives need to stand up against this move and not allow an abortion issue to affect the ultimate outcome of health care reform. For one, women have the right to do what they want with their body. For another, 45 million people lack health insurance, and 45,000 die every year because of their inadequate coverage. An issue like abortion that doesn’t affect anyone except the woman and possibly her immediate friends or family, should be left to her, not legislated on.

But instead, the Republicans push forward, with support from their base.

To make the abortion issue that much more enraging, while Republicans say that women should not have the right to control their own bodies, they are also saying that children should not have the right to be taught comprehensive sex education. So, Republicans apparently feel that the only way to teach kids about sex is to not teach them anything substantive at all, and then if there happens to be a pregnancy, possibly because of this lack of education, the woman is out of luck.

The Senate Finance Committee, after rejecting two public option proposals the other day, voted to support abstinence only education. Led by Republican Orrin Hatch, the amendment that reinstates $50 million in support of abstinence only education. Two of the Democratic Senators, Blanche Lincoln and Kent Conrad, who voted against the public option apparently felt the need to support this amendment. Apparently, they feel like a person should not be allowed to learn about the realities of pregnancies and STDs, but in the very real chance that there is a pregnancy or disease as a result of sex, there will be no quality affordable health care coverage available.

Once again, the Republicans, without a majority in either House of Congress or control of the White House, are managing to push forward their agenda, and the Democrats are not fighting back.

And if the Republicans have not been successful enough in continuing their agenda in Congress, they are also making gains in the judiciary. The Supreme Court just accepted to hear a case about a gun ban in Chicago. The case has not yet been argued, but if it goes anything like the Heller case did in DC, where the gun ban was overturned, even more guns will be allowed on the streets of an already violent city. Since the Heller case dealt with federal land, the Chicago case would be the first time that the Supreme Court rules on local gun bans. This could open up the possibilities for right wing gun nuts to have more access to dangerous weapons that are responsible for countless murders across the US.

Speaking of gun rights, we are reminded of seven years ago when the DC sniper killed ten people at random. Now the New York Times details how the Congress has done very little to reform any gun laws, and if anything, has further protected the gun industry from any Civil charges that could have come from the DC sniper case.

Despite the Democrats bending over backwards to let the Republican agenda through, even when the Republicans have shown no interest in bipartisanship with the Democrats, there may be at least one Democrat who has had enough.

Rep. Alan Grayson from Florida’s 8th District recently charged that the Republicans’ solution to health care is that people should not get sick. And if someone does get sick, their health care solution is that the person should die quickly. Finally a Democrat has grown a backbone and stood up to the right! The Republicans do not have any true plan for health care reform. They have no true plan to cover the uninsured or lower health care costs or improve quality. Rep. Grayson is finally someone who is calling them out on this point.

Some Republicans were upset by Rep. Grayson’s charges and demanded an apology. Rep. Grayson apologized, but not for what he said, but instead to the 45,000 people each year who die because they don’t have adequate care. He apologized for the Republicans, and once again stood up against any games that the Republicans tried to play.

The Republicans had one more chance at Rep. Grayson when he went on the Situation Room on CNN. Again, instead of backing down, Rep. Grayson stood strong and continued to talk about his beliefs for the need for true health care. Surely the Republicans will come out and attack him more, but it is important for Rep. Grayson to maintain his aggressiveness and his colleagues should join in. This is just what those of us who support health care reform have been waiting to see.

Forty-five million people need health care coverage, the rest of us need better coverage. All of us need less of the Republican talking points, and finally Rep. Grayson seems to be leading a charge against the Republicans. Let’s just hope it is not too little too late.

Sincerely,
Sam Edelstein

Edelstein’s Web site is http://www.randomsamthoughts.blogspot.com

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/stand-up-to-the-republicans-1292278.html

Democrat Representative John Conyers, husband of the corrupt and convicted former Detroit councilwoman Monica Conyers, has actually said something that makes sense. It is a rare moment indeed for the often bumbling Congressman who I suspect on more than one occasion has had trouble dressing himself because someone wrote “left” on his right shoe, replaced the Velcro with actual laces that needed tied and moved his shirt to where his pants usually are hung while moving his pants to the location usually reserved for his shirt. The man just strikes me as that incompetent. But then again, he is a Congressman and I have to keep reminding myself that expecting intelligence from a career politician is like expecting to come home and finding my dog reading Plato’s “Republic” and sipping Cognac.

But hey, even a nut finds a blind squirrel every now and again as the saying goes.

Mr. Conyers, in a rare moment of lucidity, remarked regarding the current monstrosity of a health care bill currently being rammed through the House by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the President Barack Obama, “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” Whether he was making an excuse to not read the bill before voting in favor of it or seriously challenging the culture of insanity that currently presides in Washington is anyone’s guess. I would ask, but shortly after making this statement Mr. Conyers probably became too busy sniffing butts to say hello to others in attendance at the National Pres Club to be bothered.

But I do feel for Mr. Conyers. I indeed feel his pain. And its not a “feel his pain” in a Bill Clinton, how can I use this to my advantage to screw you over kind of way either. Rather I “feel his pain” in a way that only someone that has tried to read the mumbo jumbo, rambling monstrosities that Congress calls bills, filled with so much double speak and legalese that it would take a team of lawyers just to translate one sentence much less the entire thing, could have.

For years I have said that nearly everything that Congress proposes is far too big and complex. Not to mention, these proposals are more often than not unconstitutional as well. These people we elect to represent us compile their master plans into voluminous tomes and expect that everyone should be able to understand them perfectly. Of course we are all familiar with the popular example of the U.S. Tax Code and the fact that year after year people run little experiments where they ask the same question of several different official IRS employees and get wildly different answers.

Most of these laws that they pass are never read by the persons we elect to represent us. Let’s face facts. It is a shame that they would shirk their responsibilities so blatantly and at best have members of their staff read the bills and give them summaries. The reason that many of these bills are not read by our representatives is simply because of their size and their archaic nature of constantly referring to other laws already on the books which means not only do they have to read this bill put before them but often other huge laws just to understand what they are voting on. Then once you tack on all the superfluous crap unrelated to the topics of some of these bills but put in them by other representatives looking to get something for themselves in the end you have a thousand pages of proposed regulation.

So my proposal is simple. And it will help all of our representatives read everything they are going to be voting on. In honor of Rep. John Conyers I am naming it the Help John Conyers Read The Damn Bill Act of 2009 and it is remarkably simple in scope.

Here it is and I propose it be implemented by both houses.

Section I: All bills created by the House of Representatives/the Senate will not be voted on for a total number of days equal to the number of pages in the bill. This procedure begins from the moment any bill is introduced to the full membership and a completed copy is made available to each. The minimum number of days before any vote shall be no less than one and all partial pages will count as one whole page each. All pages of referenced legislation and all references to other legislation within the referenced legislation, etcetera, will add a total of one (1) day per page referenced to the total number of days before a piece of legislation may be voted on by either House of Representatives/the Senate in addition to the number of days required for the new legislation based on its own number of pages.

Section II: No bill will be introduced until it is completely written and a copy distributed to all members of the House of Representatives/the Senate.

Section III: At any time that the bill is modified by amendment or other process, the procedure is reset and the new version of the bill will not be voted on for a total number of days equivalent to the number of new papers in the bill to start from the time that the amended or otherwise changed bill is introduced and provided in full to all members.

Section IV: All bills not voted on by House of Representatives/the Senate by the end of any legislative session will be void, required to be reintroduced, and this procedure will restart again from the moment the bill is reintroduced.

Section V: Before any member of House of Representatives/the Senate may cast a vote on any piece of legislation before their respective chamber they must sign an affidavit swearing or affirming that they have personally read completely and understand the bill they are voting on.

Section VI: The maximum number of pages of legislation that can be required to be read by any member of House of Representatives/the Senate in a given day will be ten (10). If the current number of pages of legislation introduced or proposed to be introduced in either House of Representatives/the Senate requires an elected representative of the people of the United States to read more than ten (10) pages of legislation in a given day, no new legislation may be introduced until the number of pages of legislation required to be read decreases below this level.

Section VII: This legislation may not be overturned and becomes the binding law of both House of Representatives/the Senate for all eternity.

Section VIII: This legislation may not be amended nor may it have any other legislative initiatives attached to it and shall abide by the rules it sets forth for all future proposed legislation.

There you have it. It should fit on about one page and take people like Rep. Conyers a day to go through. I figure our average representative should be able to handle reading a mere ten pages of gobbledygook a day and this will also work to keep bills to reasonable lengths less they would never get voted on at all due to the time and expiration restrictions I have proposed.

Do I think it will ever be adopted and taken seriously? Hell no! Because it is far too logical and simple for those dunderheads leading us down in Washington. And besides, it would make it very hard for them to pass 1,300 pages of massive new regulation and get away without reading or understanding it!

Sincerely,
J.J. Jackson

Jackson is the owner of American Conservative Daily Blog. He is also the lead designer for The Right Things – Conservative Political T-shirts and his weekly articles and exclusive content can be found at Liberty Reborn.

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/the-help-john-conyers-read-the-damn-bill-act-of-2009-1275534.html

According to some in the news media, I might pass for an “extreme right-wing racist”. Well, when I attended a local tea party here in the nearly bankrupt state of New Jersey, I saw men and women, young and old, black and white, middle class and rich, along with Democrats and Republicans.

Our purpose in gathering was to show the nation’s leaders that we, the owners of this democracy, object to unstrained spending, tyrannical government intrusion into our lives, and massive taxes.

We cannot let others fight our battles for us anymore. The stakes for our children and grandchildren in unsustainable debt are too high for us not to act. 

I call on the “silent majority”, those Americans who make this country work and have sacrificed to keep us safe, to be a part of this movement to reclaim the principles of the founding fathers. These concepts are as old but timeless in their application from colonial times to the present. Fundamentally, Government should live within its means and spend only what it takes from the people. Aside from national defense, public safety, such as enforcement of the borders, health safety concerns and such common “promotion of the general welfare”, the  federal government should not interfere in our everyday lives. Lastly, taxes are a legal method of taking of the fruit of someone’s labor and giving it to another who has not earned it. While necessary to provide for basic services, it should not deter intiative and the free exchange of goods and services.

  The American we know and love must be preserved above all else. It is time to LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD.

Sincerely,
James Wolbert

The autor describes himself as “a conservative man of 51 years born and raised in the sleepy town of Garfield, NJ. As my daughter says, ‘Nothing happens in Garfield.’ I have strong religious and political views. I have written some articles for newspapers and thought I would try here.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/tea-parties-1264165.html

With the death of Ted Kennedy there has been an endless amount of gushing over the “Lion of the Senate” passing away. A die-hard liberal, he was known as being concerned for the working class and the downtrodden.

But for all his accomplishments, Ted Kennedy was a lucky man that he did not end up in jail for a crime he committed. In July of 1969 at Chappaquiddick, Mary Jo Kopechne was in an auto with a drunken Ted Kennedy. To recap the story, Teddy crashed the car into the water; left the scene of the crime, called his lawyers, and reported the accident the following day. He left Mary Jo Kopechne to die alone in a car.

Melissa Lafsky, a blogger for the Huffington Post, wrote an op ed piece on Ted Kennedy weighing his achievement and his foibles and came to the following conclusion: “Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.”

To paraphrase, given Ted’s great achievements; Marry Jo Kopechne loss of life, although tragic inspired Ted to be a great Senator. Are you kidding me? This gal has lost her mind!!! Think about the horrible way this girl died: alone, trapped in a car, and drowned.. and Ted Kennedy abandoned her to save his own ass.

Ted Kennedy was not a hero. He was a legislator. Through the force of the law, he took from one group of people to give to another, and in our sick culture that is deemed honorable. And if you somehow did not subject yourself to the laws of the land, the lawyers would come in and pick your wallet clean. Let’s call things as they are, robbery and coercion are how Ted accomplished his goals.

The divorce industry learned the game well because if you don’t follow the guidelines from the divorce industry as it relates to: child support, visitation, restraining orders, alimony, etc.. the legal industry and the government complex will come down on you hard. What the divorce industry has forgotten is that divorce is one of the most painful processes that individuals have to go through. The divorce industry and the Melissa Lafsky’s of the world have no regards for the individual or the greater good.

The fact is that society functions best when individual rights are honored and protected and the divorce industry has lost sight of that fact. The divorce industry is in the business of breaking up the family so as to make as much money for themselves.

Sincerely,
Ron Lasorsa

Go here for the best resources on the web for divorce at: http://www.divorcecures.com

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/melissa-lafsky-and-the-divorce-culture-1254978.html

I will get right to the point; Barack Obama is not Hitler: from the former, who may or may not be educated, such a comparison originates from a misunderstanding of Obama’s fundamental concept of “change”, from the latter, such a comparison originates from a limited fundamental knowledge of history and its uses.

Before I move on to the foundation of my thesis, note that I am not writing to change anyone’s political views. I am writing out of disgust of those who are brazen enough to hold up the picket signs that read, “Hitler wanted ‘change’ too”, and flamboyantly flash the garbage words that make my breakfast bitter as I watch the morning news in my living room. The audience that I write too is unrestricted; maybe I’m the one being narrow-minded and these people actually can back up the messages that they are spreading around.

This is improbable though. My purpose in writing is to shed light to those involved in the happenings of society. I do not seek to influence; In fact, I am a detractor of the concept of “influence”. It is an individual’s responsibility to create his or her own thoughts on certain issues. Now, I’m not sure if republican intellectuals consciously fooled people into categorizing Obama with Hitler, or people truly make this silly comparison, for a word as powerful as “Hitler” can easily sway the mind of a non-intellectual.

As I now set the foundation of my thesis I can only wonder why people would think to compare Obama to Hitler. Certainly not everyone who actively encourages changes in the government is a Nazi. Let me remind you, in case you had forgotten, who Hitler was. Yes, he did want “change”, but not with the respect to the government so much as he wanted it with respect to the German population. He was an evil genius, a nationalist, and a demagogue who was able to convince the German population that it needed “cleansing”. He killed millions of people. Obama on the other hand recognizes a problem with our functional government. He knows that if he does not act as president, if policies were to remain as they are now, our country will fall into shambles! Every democrat and republican knows that this is the truth. It is indisputable, and referencing Obama’s policies to that of Hitler is the most pathetic and desperate attempt thinkable to defame a president who has the best interest of America in mind.

Sincerely,
Rockwell Anyoha

Letter Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/barack-obama-is-not-hitler-1251688.html

President Obama made a great point in a speech to students. He pointed out that some suggest government is trying to take over the healthcare system.  He further pointed out that we have private universities and we have public universities but no one has suggested government wants to take over the university system. Here are some of the GOP leaders who have opposed government health care, making accusations that the program is a move toward socialism.  Yet, they attened public universities.

 Rush Limbaugh – This talk show commentator is constantly accusing the Obama administration of leading us toward socialism. Yet he, himself, got his education from a public program. He attended college at Southeast Missouri State University.

Mitch McConnell – Attended two public universities, the University of Louisville, and the University of Kentucky.

Virginia Foxx – She not only attended a public university, but she attended the oldest public university in the U.S. She attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And to further demonstrate that, in spite of what she says, she does believe in some public programs, she was a professor at Appalachian State University.

John McCain – Senator McCain got his education from a government run University as well. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.

Sarah Palin – One of the most critical of the Obama healthcare plan, calling it “socialism”. This former governor attended the University of Idaho, Idaho’s oldest public university.

This certainly brings up an interesting question. If we think public universities are okay for educating our citizens, why would we feel a public health option would be socialism? Do we have some hypocricy rearing it’s ugly head in this discussion?

Sincerely, Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman has been a freelance cartoonist and writer for over 40 years. His work has appeared in hundreds of magazines, newspapers, books and on the internet. Samples of his work can be seen at his website:
http://www.colemantoons.com

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/gop-politicians-who-oppose-public-programs-but-attended-public-universities-1243204.html

Town hall meetings are one of the most popular formats for political meetings.  Candidates love them because they provide a chance to press the flesh with regular voters, and voters love them because they get the chance to ask their own questions and hear answers straight from the candidate.

While town hall meetings can be a great part of your grassroots strategy, they are not without risk.  Any time you place your candidate in front of unscripted voters, there’s a chance things could take a wrong turn.  In order to hold great, successful town hall meetings, use the following five tips:

1.     Prepare, Prepare, Prepare – There’s no substitute for a well prepared candidate.  During the week prior to your event, your candidate should carve out a significant amount of time to prepare for the town hall, just as he or she would for a debate.  Know the issues, write out pithy quotes and one-liners, figure out what the tough questions will be, and know how to answer them.

2.    Control the Crowd – One of the main reasons you are holding a town hall meeting is to meet voters and be seen in the community, so it is unlikely that you’re going to be able to hold a “closed” town hall meeting with just your supporters in attendance.  (You could, but unless your goal is footage for an upcoming campaign ad, it will defeat the purpose of your event).  Even so, you’ll want to make sure that if things get hostile, you have a clear base of support in the audience.  For that reason, be sure to hand out tickets to the event to your campaign supporters, volunteers, friends and family.  A good rule of thumb is to make sure at least 25-50% of the crowd are known supporters.  That way, if an ugly question or two come up, you’ll have support in the audience.

3.    Make Sure They’re Comfortable – Nothing make s a crowd hostile like an uncomfortable environment.  Have your campaign staff and volunteers ensure that there’s proper seating, that the temperature is right, that lighting isn’t too bright on the crowd, and that there are restrooms available for your audience.  

4.    Take Names, and Give Info – Town hall meetings are great opportunities to reach out to new supporters, people who may not yet be on your campaign’s radar screen.  Make sure you have a registration table to track who comes to them event – get names, addresses, e-mail addresses, etc.  Ask people if they want to sign up for your campaign newsletter (this is a great way to figure out who is a supporter, and thus ripe for additional follow-up) and be sure to hand out campaign literature to every attendee.  After the event, send a thank you letter or postcard (a form letter is ok) to everyone who attended, pointing them to your campaign website for additional information.

5.    Relax and Have Fun – Town hall meetings should be informal, fun events.  The crowd will know if you’re uptight, nervous, and unhappy to be there.  Practice in front of crowds several times to make sure that you’re comfortable with the format… then go and have fun.  You’ll enjoy the event more, and the crowd will see you as a more “likeable” candidate.

Town hall meetings can and should be a part of your campaign’s grassroots strategy.  Be sure to plan for these events well in advance, practice, and remember to publicize them well – the only thing worse than a hostile crowd is when there’s no crowd at all.

Sincerely,
Joe Garecht

Joe Garecht is the founder of Local Victory, a website which offers hundreds of free articles and tips on winning elections.
A respected political consultant and seminar speaker who has been advising campaigns for over a decade, Joe is the author of several books including The Complete Guide to Getting Your Campaign off the Ground. Click here to learn more or get your copy today.
He started Local Victory to make sure that every campaign, no matter how small, had the tools and information it needs to win. Visit the site to download a free copy of Local Victory’s special report How to Get the Press to Cover Your Campaign. Click here to learn more or get your copy today.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/holding-successful-political-town-hall-meetings-1238408.html

As a professional political consultant, many would-be candidates come to me and say, “I want to run for office.”  My response to them is always the same… “are you sure?”

Now, it may seem odd that I ask that question, given that my income is dependent on new candidates running for office and hiring our firm to help them win.  But the truth is, I’ve worked with a number of candidates that shouldn’t have been running in the first place, and it’s hard on them, and hard on their staff and consulting team… and usually, it’s nearly impossible for them to win.

Before throwing your hat in the ring, ask yourself the following questions:

1.  Is my family behind me?

If your family (wife, kids, other family members you are close to) do not support your run for office, you’re going to have a real uphill battle to win.  Campaigns take time and hard work, and are very stressful.  Did I mention they take time?  Your campaign will keep you away from your family for extended periods and make you tired and stressed out.  If your family didn’t want you to run in the first place, well… let’s just say the dinner table won’t be a fun place, and that angst will spill over into your performance on the campaign trail.

2.  Am I willing to work really hard?

Despite what the media would have you think, running for office isn’t easy.  Campaigning isn’t all about being on TV and going to nice fundraising dinners (and even if it was, those get tedious real fast).  It’s about giving speeches… hundreds of them, to groups of 10 or 20 people, day in and day out.  Usually, it’s the exact same speech you’ve given over and over again.  Running for office is about making phone calls… dozens of them every day, to ask for money, hear people complain, thank your supporters, and to just listen.  When you campaign, you’ll be in the car (or on a plane) for hours a day, shake thousands of hands, and nod your head and smile for 30 out of every 60 minutes.  Are you ready to work hard?

3.  Am I willing to ask people for money?

Nobody likes to fundraise, and I mean nobody.  Sure, some people get good at it (or at least comfortable with it), but very few people would choose fundraising for their campaign as a way to spend their day.  Unfortunately, running for office takes money.  If you don’t have lots of money to put into your own campaign, you’re going to have to ask others to donate it to your effort.  The only real way to do that in a local campaign is for the candidate (that’s you!) to ask.  Your staff, fundraising consultant, and wife can’t do it for you.

Are you willing to get on the phone and ask your friends, family, and those guys you used to hang out with in college to donate money to your campaign?  Are you willing to utter the words, “Will you give $2,000?” and really mean it?  Fundraising is an integral part of every campaign, and the candidate is the fundraiser-in-chief.

If you have good ideas and want to change the direction of your town, city, county, state, or country, you can and should run for office.  But be prepared, and know what you’re getting into.  Use the questions above to make sure that you’re ready to run for office, and then get out there and get started!

Sincerely,
Joe Garecht

Joe Garecht is the founder of Local Victory, a website which offers hundreds of free articles and tips on winning elections.

A respected political consultant and seminar speaker who has been advising campaigns for over a decade, Joe is the author of several books including The Complete Guide to Getting Your Campaign off the Ground. Click here to learn more or get your copy today.

He started Local Victory to make sure that every campaign, no matter how small, had the tools and information it needs to win. Visit the site to download a free copy of Local Victory’s special report How to Get the Press to Cover Your Campaign. Click here to learn more or get your copy today.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/are-you-ready-to-run-for-political-office-1238381.html

They say that where there is smoke there is fire. They also say that the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree. And they say that Obamas past affiliations with ACORN is a “troubling issue”. Hey, there have been so many troubling issues with “past associations” that Obama has had, what’s another one going to matter? Here’s the real question though- leaving Obama out of it.  

How has ACORN received so much governmental backing with so many troubling stories?

On the same day that the anti-poverty group ACORN announced the launch of an “internal review” after four undercover videos exposed its workers offering advice on how to skirt federal laws, a fifth video surfaced that purports to show a worker offering to help bring underage girls into the U.S. for the purposes of prostitution.

All the liberals came to the defense of ACORN when a first film was produced.

When the second film surfaced showing ACORN employees giving illegal advice, the liberal community got quiet. Now, with the fifth film having been released, everyone seems to be backing off and questioning how this organization became so influential amid so many scandals over dozens of years and received tens of millions of taxpayer dollars!

Fair questions?

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, bills itself as the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people, with more than 400,000 member families organized within 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the U.S. Originally named the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now, ACORN was founded as a nonprofit, nonpartisan entity in 1970 by Wade Rathke, a follower of George Wiley, founder of the National Welfare Rights Organization. Rathke stepped down from his post as chief organizer in 2008 after it was revealed that his brother Dale had embezzled nearly $1 million of ACORN funds eight years earlier.

The seeds of scandal(s) have been there for 4 decades!

Republicans, who have long criticized ACORN, which is under scrutiny for several voter-registration fraud cases, are urging the Justice Department to investigate ACORN. The Senate voted Monday to block the Housing and Urban Development Department from giving grants to ACORN, and the Census Bureau last week severed its ties with the group for the 2010 national head-count.

For me the question isn’t a Democrat-Republican issue. And, it isn’t even an Obama affiliation issue. And please, lets not call it a “race issue”, Jimmy Carter. The core question here is how long will the American public put up with POLITICIANS (of ever stripe) to continue funding PORK for themselves and allowing rampant greed and corruption to permeate our government?

Sincerely,
Ernie Fitzpatrick

As a spiritual-futurist, I have a BA degree majoring in history. One cannot know the future without knowing the past which holds clues to what is on the horizon. The world is in such a rapid expansion of knowledge that we are close to entering a tipping point that will forever change earth as we know it.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/acorn-smouldering-1241683.html