I often think about what I would do or say if one of my daughters were to tell me that she's having an abortion. Unlike many people who are sure where they stand in this issue, I am conflicted. I guess the parenting magazines or parenting guides left out this topic.

I believe that abortion is morally wrong, but I also believe in my daughters' rights to make their own decisions when it comes to their life and body. So does this mean that I am against abortion or for it?

I guess the first thing I am going to do when confronted with this issue is to convince my daughter not to do it. I would show and explain to her the sanctity of life. I would provide her with alternative options. I would tell her that her mother and I will raise the baby.

I will keep talking with her but ultimately the decision is up to her. And since she is my daughter, whatever her decision may be, I have to support it.

I envy people who are absolute in their belief and stance about this topic. I envy the pro-life supporters who know for sure that abortion should be made illegal. I envy the pro-choice advocates, who without a doubt, believe that the choice should be left to the woman and not the government.

I wish I could make such a clear stance like these people. However, for me, when the issue becomes more than a political stance and more of a personal issue, choosing either pro-choice or pro-life becomes difficult . It can be argued that as a parent, if I have done a good job in raising my children with the "proper values" then I won't have to worry about having a conversation like this with either of my daughters.

Point well taken, however, even with "good parenting," our children will eventually grow up and develop their own ideals, morals, and values. This is specially true in our society where self-expression and free-thought is celebrated and encouraged.

I pray that I will never have this conversation with my daughter. But if it does happened, I hope that I would have the wisdom to guide her so that she can do what's best for her and her values and not what's best for me and my values.

I guess this is the price we pay for living in a free and complex society. With an advance society, issues like abortion make the daily battle of telling your teenagers to clean their rooms, take out the garbage and close the fridge seem insignificant.

By: Christopher Austria
http://watdawat.com
father, husband, and a teacher

Watch out for the new American government - Entitleocracy. This is a government ruled by those who believe that each and every citizen is entitled to the performance results demonstrated by others. Funding for such a government comes from the redistribution of monetary performance (redistribution of the wealth) results of those who are actively performing and contributing to society.

This type of ruling belief is far more insidious than communism or socialism. For what it does is to create a conditioned response in the majority that they do not have to do anything to receive the benefits of their "unlabors." And these folks use the concept of fair as their guiding beacon. Ever heard of "Life is not fair"?

When Thomas Jefferson was asked to write the Declaration of Independence, he research various forms of government from which to build a strong fundamental foundation for this fledging country. Jefferson aligned with those other forward thinking individuals who no longer wanted a government based on the wealth accumulated through royalty and aristocracy, but rather one based on wealth accumulation through individual merit of performance. Redistribution of wealth was what they wanted to get away from.

Meritocracy emerged as the basic structure for such a form of government. Fairness was no longer the beacon. Individual merit became the guiding light and allowed such individuals as Andrew Carnegie to demonstrate what individual merit could achieve.

Fast forward 200 years later and the U.S. is becoming and probably is one where individuals who fail to take the necessary actions from graduating high school to speaking English to being financially responsible to secure success because others are providing entitlements to supplement and ultimately replace their poor to non-existent performance. Does anyone see something wrong with this picture? Possibly, the total overthrow of the U.S. as we know it today?

Hilary Clinton believes that she is entitled to becoming the next President of the U.S., based upon her experience. What experience? Let us be honest. Governor Richardson had far more experience.

Senator Obama believes that everyone in the world is entitled to not being poor. He just authored a bill redistributing the efforts of hard working American to equalize the pay around the world. Why, because it is not fair that these people live in poverty.

Many children of baby boomers believe that they are entitled to becoming a vice president of the firm two years out of college. You mean I have to pay my dues? Well, that is not fair.

Since the majority (that means over 50%) U.S. citizens do not understand that our country is a republic and not a democracy believe that they are entitled to free health care. You mean I must sacrifice something, take better care of myself? Well, that is not fair when so and so has health care.

Since entitlement cannot be supported on its own merits (remember Meritocracy), it comes from the daily performance or work efforts of others who do not subscribe to this "Fairness Doctrine." In the U.S., this means that the wealthy including many of the middle class are supporting the performance of those who make bad choices and continue to make bad choices.

The middle class is losing ground not because of the wealthy, but because of those who feel entitled to free health care, free education, social programs, etc. However since they have been indoctrinated that the U.S. is a democracy and thanks to President Franklin Roosevelt believes entitlement is part of the U.S. constitution. Think not? Social Security to federal income taxes anyone?

Pretty soon, those who believe in entitlement will want free cars, free homes, and free utilities. Let someone else pay for it because I am entitled to it. Why should they have a big home and expensive cars? That is not fair. And worse yet, these individuals do not even have to be legal American citizens. Health insurance for illegals anyone at the expense of legal U.S. citizens?

And what is even more terrifying, is that those who actually create wealth will be viewed as un-American. Think not? Have you heard anyone sing praises about being independent, about pulling yourself up from your bootstraps? The B in bootstrap has now become the B in Baleout.

Why not? Because you need someone else to help you! And that someone is this new Entitleocracy in the form of those who believe in taking the reward of your hard efforts through taxes and giving them to someone else who chooses not to work, not to perform. and they do this because life is not fair and you need help.

Well, life is not fair so get over it. As a first generation Swede, I cannot feel bad about being born in America. My father's family invested many years of hard work so that they could come legally through the doors of Ellis Island to this great country. I personally resent anyone telling me that I should be understanding and accepting of those who violate the rules. And top of that. my grandparents did not send their income back to support the Swedish economy.

I was born tall, big boned with fairly straight hair. The childhood dream of becoming a ballerina was replaced when my physical build at the age of 12 was much larger than the average ballerina was. So, I decided to dream something else and then took action to make those dreams become real. Practical people learn early in life that life is not fair, get over it.

For years forward thinking people saw the problems of way too much government help. Yet, they have been shouted down as being unkind, uncaring and you guess it un-American. In today's public arena, many of these individuals are on talk radio which has become the bastion for fighting this up and coming, no let me re-phrase that up and here Entitleocracy.

If you truly want to be American, follow the rules, work hard, save your money and do not expect and more importantly demand the government to help you. Our federal government is responsible for basically 2 things: Interstate trade and protecting our borders and our country from those who wish to do us harm. What we need is an educated populace who understands the purpose of government and vote for those who reflect that purpose. Of course, those individuals are considered conservatives and that is another topic for another day.

P.S. The only difference between Entitleocracy and aristocracy is that there is far more wealth on the opposite side, but that too will be short lived because you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip.

By: Leanne Hoagland-Smith
Leanne Hoagland-Smith, M.S. is a writer, motivational speaker and business coach near Chicago and Indianapolis who has written hundreds of articles with a focus on improving individual and organizational performance through excellence in leadership to executable strategic plans.

Like it or not, the Presidential Candidate selection process or picking who might be our next President of the United States of America might not be the true selections of the majority of, "We People of the United States of America."

You see, first of all those candidates are or have been holders of some Governmental Office before it is decided that they should seek election for the job of President of the United States of America. Yes, there are exceptions to that statement, but those exceptions are people who have enough money to finance most of their campaign costs. So there you are.

The King Makers or the leaders of the two major Political Parties select the most electable people to become the next President of the United States of America. So too, some of those people can also be people who are military heroes who are also members of the Political Party in question. So there you have it.

This election year is no different. Those Political Party leaders, together with the support of big money people pick the group of people that will seek election for the job of President of the United States of America. Yes, you can also vote for your personal preference by simply writing in your choice on the ballot.

Guess what? Something is clearly wrong with the above selection process. Believe it or not, the majority has little to say about who should seek election to that most important Governmental Office. Only after that process is completed do "We People" get to vote for whoever will be the next President of the United States of America.

Many people are truly unhappy about those selections and it seems that yet again "We People" are again faced with voting for the hand picked candidates of big money and Political Party Leadership. So too, "We People" will also be voting for the Political Party Platform of whichever Political Party that the Majority of "We People" support.

That Political Party Platform is a list of the issues that the majority of "We People" want to fix, in order to be as safe and healthy as possible. So now the question to answer is: You you really support the Political Party Platform of the person who you support? If your answer is no, well, you better take a good look at those candidates from the other Political Parties before you cast your vote for the next President of the United States of America.

By: Joseph Malek
http://joesliterarydepot.com
As for me, I'll support any person who is willing to stop illegal immigration, stop the sale and importation of deadly, addictive and illegal drugs, put an end to violent street gangs, make our Country a "Green Friendly Nation," provide more jobs to the people and remove illegal aliens for our Country. Who will you vote for in 2008?

Is it possible, that nanny-state advocates have never considered the basic notion that government has no money of its own; that government only has what it takes from hard working Americans, and that the amount it takes from the rich, the middle class and the upper middle class, i.e. the "final net amount" keeps going up as a percentage of the total burden paid.

The amount being expropriated and redistributed in dangerously large amounts, seriously curtails wealth creation for the general good, while rewarding among other things, long-term dependency.

EXAMINING THE DATA ON REBATES VS. TAX CUTS

Since government has no money of its own, these rebates can only come from what it has already collected. Because a budget deficit already exists, the rebates sent back must be borrowed with a resulting increase to the deficit. That action does nothing to create wealth or jobs. It recirculates money, but does not create wealth.

In fairness, a certain portion of the rebate money will go to those who have paid. Unfortunately Democrats will almost certainly get their way and give plenty to those who pay no income taxes, also wipe out all their payroll taxes.

This means, they pay no income taxes for the current expense of running the country, and beyond that do not pay for the social security check they will receive at retirement, despite the fact that that fund will soon go into deficit.

They also do not pay for the enormous cost of Medicare they will eventually use.

Millions who receive the largesse of this massive welfare program get a huge cash rebate beyond that, through the Earned Income Tax Credit. Now with the stimulus package, those recipients are going to get even more of other workers' hard earned dollars.

This Marxist practice, already out of control, just piles it on.

There will be a further unfair element by not returning anything to those who pay the highest dollar amount and the highest percentage amount of all taxes.

Depending on action by the Senate, those earning $75,000 and up will see their rebate diminished, as income rises. Those above that, who really pay through the nose get nothing.

The nanny-state exacts its pound of flesh at collection time, but reneges when its time to repay those who do the heavy lifting.

TAX CUTS DO NOT GIVE ANYTHING TO TAXPAYERS, THEY REDUCE FUTURE PAYMENTS

In the first phase of the 2001 tax cuts, mid to late year rebate checks of $600 were sent out. Spending did go up. The 4th quarter saw a yearly spending rate of 7% but the growth rate (annualized was a sluggish 1.6%) while investment spending dropped 23%.

The economy was sluggish during all of 2002.

In 2003, tax cuts came on individual rates, capital gains and dividends. This simply meant that more of what we earn in the private sector stays there for investment and job creation.

Nanny-state advocates present these reduced tax "payments" as if they were something given to taxpayers, rather than what they are, a reduction of a future payment.

If a merchant sells you a loaf of bread on Monday for $1.50 and that same product goes on sale for $1.25 on Tuesday, does he "give" the purchaser $.25? No, he charges less. Tax cuts are no different.

In the six quarters before these reduced payments, GDP grew at a rate of 1.7%; after the tax cuts, GDP grew 4.1%. Before the tax cuts, investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters; after the cuts, investment expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.

In the six quarters before the tax cuts, the S&P fell 18%, after the cuts, the next six quarters saw an increase of 32%.

JOB CREATION

In the six quarters before the cuts, job losses were 267,000. In the six quarters after the cuts 307,000 new jobs were created. As the effects gathered steam, job increases soared to more than 8 million at last count and are now in their 51st consecutive month, one of the longest consecutive job creation periods in U.S. history.

Ups and downs in job growth, economic factors and the business cycle happen with or without government action. However the sluggishness and negatives we had after the rebates but before the tax cuts, compared to the investment and job growth that followed the tax cuts, seem to remove any doubt over what truly stimulates growth and jobs.

This same pattern took place from the Kennedy tax cuts, the largest in the nation's history, and the Reagan tax cuts. Kennedy's cuts gave us the longest peacetime expansion in history until Reagan's cuts surpassed those of Kennedy.

Had George Bush and the Republican congress controlled spending as congress did very stringently in the 1990"s, we would be enjoying sizable surpluses right now.

Redistribution of the earnings of the middle class and those slightly above and below is out of hand. We must stop electing those who live by the religion of victimhood and elect those who insist on persistence and productivity and the rewards of one's own work, not the rewards of the work of others.

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 is the author of the Ebook REAL WORLD ECONOMICS: For High School Seniors, College Students and Early Entrants To The Workforce, which can be downloaded FREE at his site: http://conservative-politics-infofind.com.