The political process in the US is a fake and a fraud. The people of the USA ; (it explains there idiocy and gullibilty in terms of religious belief) are just the worlds low IQ misfits, failures and freaks excreted from real nations.

The USA is a dictatorship by Capitalists from Wall street.

The core value of the USA is planetary rape -Which of course is unsustainable and not a value system to force on the peoples of an over crowded resource depleted world.

It is only this core value and a few European intellectuals that maintain US civilisation. Once US resources have run out the US will fall apart and justly revert to being the third world level country it should be.

The despised Cuba is more of a model sustainable society. Everyone can see this but Americans.

Close minded is what you are if your still trying to adopt conservative attitues towards life and politics in general… wake up america and realize that you have a gift in this man. Just look at the respect you recieve from other countries because of this man as compared to Bush the idiot. Strive for peace instead of spending more money on a war you won't win. You ll end up fighting the world.. and loose… we r all in this together.. GOD bless THE WORLD

As John McCain discovered, the “socialism” label didn’t stick during the campaign, and your “socialist takeover” won’t either – at least not with those who know what socialism really means. A question I always ask is, “What is it about socialism that really scares you?” Is it government seeking control means of production? Certainly, you can’t claim that bailout of banks and GM are take-over bids – it was THEY who asked for help, not government seeking to take-over. Only the most severely deluded by the “socialism” scare tactic actually believe the take-over myth because they are as reactionary as McCarthy was during the Red Scare. Perhaps what scares you is that capitalist principles practiced absolutely cannot be sustained in America given the tradition of government’s active role fighting social and economic inequality initiated by the Progressive Movement of late 19th-20th century. Perhaps you’re scared that because principles of socialism have survived in America since the days of that movement, they will persist along with the prosperity and economic growth we have seen generally since then. Perhaps you’re scared that the President has inherited just the right circumstances and just enough political support to engineer the most significant progressive agenda since the New Deal – despite the finger crossing that the 2010 election will reverse things. Or perhaps it is concession that socialism – even communism – don’t really contain the evil you suggest, otherwise they would have been outlawed in America long ago … hasn’t happened and never will. Try as you might, neither you Hannity, Limbaugh, or McCain can scare those who truly understand socialism, in particular the many businessmen and women I speak to … none of which have any fears whatever that government is about to take them over.

The current administration is giving the majority of Americans hope and satisfaction.

'Heritage' used to mean something good. I really resent its misuse.

A lot of energy in name calling and misery here.

If Jesus were the president it'd be the same thing I bet. I really do.

4-5% of GDP on defense will allow Obama room for spending an additional 75% of GDP on his socialist takeover. Of course, his foreign communist contributors will make sure Obama's back is well scratched.

TO: J.C. Hughes, Texas, April 7

TO: Shelpicker, Florida, April 7

Robert,

Along with your recitation of "facts," why don't you just say what exactly should be defense spending as a percent of GDP? Or should we guess from a logical extension of your argument that defense spending should be EQUAL to non-defense spending – 50/50? Or perhaps defense should DOUBLE non-defense: 66/33? Or perhaps you'd like defense spending to be 7.3 times non-defense spending, rather than vica-versa? Since your premise appears to focus on the ratio between defense and non-defense spending, why don't you state as a fact what the ratio ought to be?

And while we are on the subject of "facts," President George W. Bush in 2007 asked for $505 billion for defense, about equal to – in real dollars – to what Ronald Reagan sought in 1988. In my opinion, both those requests are about right — around the 4-5% of GDP.

J.C.,

Let's look beyond your interpretation of what is "general welfare." Through a logical extension of the "general welfare" clause, the Constitution gives the federal government authority to REGULATE interstate commerce. REGULATE. Interference? Hardly. Was it not the Robber Barons during the Gilded Age whose exploitation of laborers was "interfered" with by anti-trust legislation, and later the NLRB – both of which are still on the books, incidentally? As for defense, are you suggesting that a 4-5% of GDP of defense spending is insufficient "to counter any threat"?

Shelpicker,

I'm Dr. Morales, and I've never been to Mexico except while serving in the Navy on the way from east coast to the South China Sea during Vietnam. Also, I've never been on welfare. The rest of your comment was very incoherent – I don't know what welfare has to do with the U.N.

was heading Texas A&M where they're noted for their elaborate deadly

bond fires and dodging blame!