What did President Obama do wrong today?

[Guest]

Here's your chance. Try to keep it pithy.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

Some would say, "he woke up" But Not me.

[Guest]

Some would say, "he woke up" But Not me.

LOL I wish he would "wake-up" and stop spending our great grand children's future.:yuck:

[Guest]

Is the President spending our children's money? Or is it the 435 members of the House of Representatives? The President can't spend what the House doesn't give him. They can always tighten the pursestrings and bring a lot of this nonsense to a halt.

Let's blame the right group. The President can't spend what he's not given to spend. And he can't stop the spending that 261 members of the House vote for.

Do we need a thread, What did Congress do wrong today? (There's little point in adding one about what Congress did right. It would be too mind-numbing to try to find something.)

[Guest]

Some would say, "he woke up" But Not me.

Funny. How dare he!!!

[Guest]

Obama told Muslims over seas that America could be considered a Muslim country.

Did I miss something? :sigh:

[Guest]

Is the President spending our children's money? Or is it the 435 members of the House of Representatives? The President can't spend what the House doesn't give him. They can always tighten the pursestrings and bring a lot of this nonsense to a halt.

Let's blame the right group. The President can't spend what he's not given to spend. And he can't stop the spending that 261 members of the House vote for.

Do we need a thread, What did Congress do wrong today? (There's little point in adding one about what Congress did right. It would be too mind-numbing to try to find something.)

Again: Congress passes bill without reading. How many times must it be said?

[Guest]

Obama said that we are one of the largest muslim countries.

Here is a What-Is-Obama-Smoking? Alert:

Indonesia: 200 million Muslims. India: 156 million Muslims. Pakistan: 150 million Muslims.

United States: 2.3 million Muslims (according to the Pew Research Center).
Now...I don't have the figures on how many Americans are christians but I would guess well over 150 million?

I know he is trying to suck-up to those guys over there, but gee, don't play loose with the facts. No, now that I think of it...he is just plain lying.

[Guest]

Just alittle info I looked up real fast..


http://www.theweek.com/article/index/97223/Is_the_US_a_Muslim_country


"Sure, the president might have stretched it a bit," said Pete Abel in The Moderate Voice. Then again, the U.S. is No. 30 out of the world's 189-plus countries, so we have more Muslims than 84 percent of the planet's nation states. Regardless, the right-wing outrage at Obama's statement is silly—there's nothing objectionable about trying to build bridges to Muslims elsewhere.




http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/06/03/barack_hussein_obama_us_one_of_the_largest_muslim_ countries_in_the_world

[Guest]

What does this tell you? :oops:


CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

During one of Chavez’s customary lectures on the “curse” of capitalism and the bonanzas of socialism, the Venezuelan leader made reference to GM’s bankruptcy filing, which is expected to give the U.S. government a 60 percent stake in the 100-year-old former symbol of American might.

“Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right,” Chavez joked on a live television broadcast."

[Guest]

Just alittle info I looked up real fast..


http://www.theweek.com/article/index/97223/Is_the_US_a_Muslim_country


"Sure, the president might have stretched it a bit," said Pete Abel in The Moderate Voice. Then again, the U.S. is No. 30 out of the world's 189-plus countries, so we have more Muslims than 84 percent of the planet's nation states. Regardless, the right-wing outrage at Obama's statement is silly—there's nothing objectionable about trying to build bridges to Muslims elsewhere.

/blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/06/03/barack_hussein_obama_us_one_of_the_largest_muslim_ countries_in_the_world[/url]

Sounds reasonable to me...

[Guest]

Sounds reasonable to me...

This is the rest of the article that follows, but must have gotten deleted somehow !

"Yes, but mangling statistics is hardly the best way to accomplish that, said Michael Goldfarb in The Weekly Standard. "There are more Muslims in tiny Jordan than there are in the United States, and twice as many in Syria." The U.S. has the largest Christian population—and the second largest Jewish population, after Israel—in the world, so if Obama really wants Muslim nations to "better understand" us he might try mentioning that."

[Guest]

This is the rest of the article that follows, but must have gotten deleted somehow !

"Yes, but mangling statistics is hardly the best way to accomplish that, said Michael Goldfarb in The Weekly Standard. "There are more Muslims in tiny Jordan than there are in the United States, and twice as many in Syria." The U.S. has the largest Christian population—and the second largest Jewish population, after Israel—in the world, so if Obama really wants Muslim nations to "better understand" us he might try mentioning that."

Excellent Bucco. Funny what editing will do.:o

Keedy

[Guest]

Other than the criticisms being leveled on conservative talk radio and among a few folks here, from all that I'm reading the President's visit and speeches in the middle East are roaring successes among Muslims. What's unknown at the moment, and probably will remain so for awhile, is how much help and money will derive from the requests the President made of King Abdullah and President Mubarak.

Maybe even more important will be how Israel responds to the demands made when Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel visited Washington a couple weeks ago. He was non-committal on the issue of closing down the settlements in the West Bank when meeting with Obama, but loudly de-bunked that idea as well as the idea of a "two party solution" among his supporters once he got back to Israel. Looks like we'll have to lean on Israel to get some progress there. I have no doubt that we have an administration that will be willing to 'lean' as much as is necessary without pandering to domestic moneyed political interests.

Otherwise, most of the pundits are saying that we've set the stage for more progress in Middle East relations than has existed for a decade. I suppose if one wants to, words and phrases can be picked apart and criticized. That provides entertainment for some, I suppose. But maybe the overall question should be: does this trip by the new U.S. President seem to be a good first step in accomplishing our national objectives? Most expert observers are saying 'yes'.

[Guest]

Other than the criticisms being leveled on conservative talk radio and among a few folks here, from all that I'm reading the President's visit and speeches in the middle East are roaring successes among Muslims. What's unknown at the moment, and probably will remain so for awhile, is how much help and money will derive from the requests the President made of King Abdullah and President Mubarak.

Maybe even more important will be how Israel responds to the demands made when Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel visited Washington a couple weeks ago. He was non-committal on the issue of closing down the settlements in the West Bank when meeting with Obama, but loudly de-bunked that idea as well as the idea of a "two party solution" among his supporters once he got back to Israel. Looks like we'll have to lean on Israel to get some progress there. I have no doubt that we have an administration that will be willing to 'lean' as much as is necessary without pandering to domestic moneyed political interests.

Otherwise, most of the pundits are saying that we've set the stage for more progress in Middle East relations than has existed for a decade. I suppose if one wants to, words and phrases can be picked apart and criticized. That provides entertainment for some, I suppose. But maybe the overall question should be: does this trip by the new U.S. President seem to be a good first step in accomplishing our national objectives? Most expert observers are saying 'yes'.

Most of what has been said by the "One" has been said by Bush and other presidents. Watch this short video about Jihad to see what we are really up against.
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/

[Guest]

Excellent Bucco. Funny what editing will do.:o

Keedy

There wasnt no editing, I posted that part and the rest of the article is in the link. That is why I supplied it!!!!!!!!!! Was made mention of being one of the largest Muslim Nations. Funny how people read into things. OF course uless it is Bill-O or Fox news reporting it.. Make ya wonder???

[Guest]

Other than the criticisms being leveled on conservative talk radio and among a few folks here, from all that I'm reading the President's visit and speeches in the middle East are roaring successes among Muslims. What's unknown at the moment, and probably will remain so for awhile, is how much help and money will derive from the requests the President made of King Abdullah and President Mubarak.

Maybe even more important will be how Israel responds to the demands made when Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel visited Washington a couple weeks ago. He was non-committal on the issue of closing down the settlements in the West Bank when meeting with Obama, but loudly de-bunked that idea as well as the idea of a "two party solution" among his supporters once he got back to Israel. Looks like we'll have to lean on Israel to get some progress there. I have no doubt that we have an administration that will be willing to 'lean' as much as is necessary without pandering to domestic moneyed political interests.

Otherwise, most of the pundits are saying that we've set the stage for more progress in Middle East relations than has existed for a decade. I suppose if one wants to, words and phrases can be picked apart and criticized. That provides entertainment for some, I suppose. But maybe the overall question should be: does this trip by the new U.S. President seem to be a good first step in accomplishing our national objectives? Most expert observers are saying 'yes'.

Good info as always VK

[Guest]

Just a short break here. I have no idea what the argument is, but I just want to point out a comment about something being deleted from a reference to an article in another publication.

Please be careful of that criticism because it will encourage people to include entire articles in their posts, and we all know that is a copyright violation. We don't like copyright violation, and members have been doing excellently in referencing foreign material on Talk of The Villages.

A short reference is just fine, accompanied by a link to the complete work.

And, too, while I ask members to be careful of the criticism of citations, I also ask that members be fair in what they select to encapsulate the reference.

[Guest]

Just a short break here. I have no idea what the argument is, but I just want to point out a comment about something being deleted from a reference to an article in another publication.

Please be careful of that criticism because it will encourage people to include entire articles in their posts, and we all know that is a copyright violation. We don't like copyright violation, and members have been doing excellently in referencing foreign material on Talk of The Villages.

A short reference is just fine, accompanied by a link to the complete work.

And, too, while I ask members to be careful of the criticism of citations, I also ask that members be fair in what they select to encapsulate the reference.


THIS was TOTALLY my fault !!

My apologies to you Tony, and to GMONEY AND to BOBKAT1.

My intent was to follow up BOBKAT's post where he agreed with the quote suppled by GMONEY but in my feeble mind he was only agreeing with the part that GMONEY had cited in the original post. So, I simply noted that but in a stupid and short way !

I should have been more clearer with my comments and I apologize to all !

[Guest]

Other than the criticisms being leveled on conservative talk radio and among a few folks here, from all that I'm reading the President's visit and speeches in the middle East are roaring successes among Muslims. What's unknown at the moment, and probably will remain so for awhile, is how much help and money will derive from the requests the President made of King Abdullah and President Mubarak.

Maybe even more important will be how Israel responds to the demands made when Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel visited Washington a couple weeks ago. He was non-committal on the issue of closing down the settlements in the West Bank when meeting with Obama, but loudly de-bunked that idea as well as the idea of a "two party solution" among his supporters once he got back to Israel. Looks like we'll have to lean on Israel to get some progress there. I have no doubt that we have an administration that will be willing to 'lean' as much as is necessary without pandering to domestic moneyed political interests.

Otherwise, most of the pundits are saying that we've set the stage for more progress in Middle East relations than has existed for a decade. I suppose if one wants to, words and phrases can be picked apart and criticized. That provides entertainment for some, I suppose. But maybe the overall question should be: does this trip by the new U.S. President seem to be a good first step in accomplishing our national objectives? Most expert observers are saying 'yes'.


I havent seen much criticism on here of the Presidents speech at all !

A discussion about the "muslim country" stuff but have not heard any criticism of the speech or the attempt !

Did I miss something ?

[Guest]

Just a short break here. I have no idea what the argument is, but I just want to point out a comment about something being deleted from a reference to an article in another publication.

Please be careful of that criticism because it will encourage people to include entire articles in their posts, and we all know that is a copyright violation. We don't like copyright violation, and members have been doing excellently in referencing foreign material on Talk of The Villages.

A short reference is just fine, accompanied by a link to the complete work.

And, too, while I ask members to be careful of the criticism of citations, I also ask that members be fair in what they select to encapsulate the reference.

That is what I thought. That is why I just posted a quote and supplied the link. Good Point Tony. Thanks again

[Guest]

I havent seen much criticism on here of the Presidents speech at all !

A discussion about the "muslim country" stuff but have not heard any criticism of the speech or the attempt !

Did I miss something ?

I actually agree with you and VK. I mean you cant step on the wrong toes now a days!!! Maybe he " Obama" is trying to play both sides like a piano. But it seems to be like a piano out of tune. I took ofense at first when I heard the Muslim Country deal, but I kinda think I see what he was talking about and the picture he is trying to paint. Well Ok maybe not!!! I think you know what I am saying.

[Guest]

I actually agree with you and VK. I mean you cant step on the wrong toes now a days!!! Maybe he " Obama" is trying to play both sides like a piano. But it seems to be like a piano out of tune. I took ofense at first when I heard the Muslim Country deal, but I kinda think I see what he was talking about and the picture he is trying to paint. Well Ok maybe not!!! I think you know what I am saying.

The President says and does a lot that bothers me HOWEVER I am willing to give each of these issues a chance. This was a great speech...he always gives great speeches....I will watch what he DOES now.

Most of what I feel about some of this I will keep to myself for a bit trying to give everyone a chance to fix a very serious problem.

I know we have been falling all over ourselves for the last few years to make the muslim nation feel comfortable that we are not at war with their religion. If the only way to convince them of this is to let down our defenses in some way or to be less aggressive in the defense of the US then I say stop the talking..they are not listening.

I do not recall any condemnation of the Bin Laden remarks although I may have missed that, but that would help the way I feel. I am speaking of condemnation by the middle east folks our President was speaking to yesterday !

Again, how can you criticize an attempt to keep peace and fix that mess over in the middle east !

[Guest]

The President says and does a lot that bothers me HOWEVER I am willing to give each of these issues a chance. This was a great speech...he always gives great speeches....I will watch what he DOES now.

Most of what I feel about some of this I will keep to myself for a bit trying to give everyone a chance to fix a very serious problem.

I know we have been falling all over ourselves for the last few years to make the muslim nation feel comfortable that we are not at war with their religion. If the only way to convince them of this is to let down our defenses in some way or to be less aggressive in the defense of the US then I say stop the talking..they are not listening.

I do not recall any condemnation of the Bin Laden remarks although I may have missed that, but that would help the way I feel. I am speaking of condemnation by the middle east folks our President was speaking to yesterday !

Again, how can you criticize an attempt to keep peace and fix that mess over in the middle east !

Point taken, Food for thought!!

[Guest]

Rephrasing the question to read, "What did Obama do Right for America?" And that is the easiest question to answer: NOTHING! How did we become a Muslim Nation? How many Muslims live in the USA, I bet not over 3 million. When did the USA ever bow down to any other country. What about the men and women who gave their lives for freedom in Europe, the sands of the Middle East, and elsewhere? Wake up America. This is OUR country not Obama's. The empty suit in the White House brings disrespect for our flag!

[Guest]

Other than the criticisms being leveled on conservative talk radio and among a few folks here, from all that I'm reading the President's visit and speeches in the middle East are roaring successes among Muslims. What's unknown at the moment, and probably will remain so for awhile, is how much help and money will derive from the requests the President made of King Abdullah and President Mubarak.

Maybe even more important will be how Israel responds to the demands made when Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel visited Washington a couple weeks ago. He was non-committal on the issue of closing down the settlements in the West Bank when meeting with Obama, but loudly de-bunked that idea as well as the idea of a "two party solution" among his supporters once he got back to Israel. Looks like we'll have to lean on Israel to get some progress there. I have no doubt that we have an administration that will be willing to 'lean' as much as is necessary without pandering to domestic moneyed political interests.

Otherwise, most of the pundits are saying that we've set the stage for more progress in Middle East relations than has existed for a decade. I suppose if one wants to, words and phrases can be picked apart and criticized. That provides entertainment for some, I suppose. But maybe the overall question should be: does this trip by the new U.S. President seem to be a good first step in accomplishing our national objectives? Most expert observers are saying 'yes'.

Expecting "peace" in the MidEast brokered by the United States is like hoping there's oil on the moon and it will come to us via the Star Trek Pipeline.

The MidEasters have been fighting, killing, slaving, exploiting and every other "ing" since Cain and Abel. The issues are never going to be resolved by outside mediation, as neither side wants to give an inch - ever - out of fear that one inch will be exploited to 100 miles.

US politicians strolling through the MidEast with "plans" for peace are laughable. The only thing the US provides is a unifying effect whereby both the wrring factions skin the outsider. The Camp David Accords were a great example, as all that happened is that Israel and Egypt were able both to milk more foreign aid from the US on the pretext of "more foregin aid will make things better." It was a great photo op event, but nothing of substgance resulted other than more money going from us to them both.

"The settlements in the West Bank" - who cares? If both sides what to push each other to the wall, why are we sticking our political noses into the middle of it? The last time I looked at a map, Europe has more at stake than anyone in the Americas. Everytime they play brinksmanship, we send more money to both to "tone things down." When will we learn than we cannot solve the world's problems? The world loves to take our money when we in or arrogance try to play Papa to everyone.

We don't need to "lean on Israel" or anyone else. All we have to do is shut off the money stream - period! Or is the money - excuse me, foreign aid" supposed to continue forever? For all MidEast factions, isn't 50 years of foreign aid enough? And what good has it really done in the last 20 years?

Time to let the MidEast neighbors learn to live with each other without US money. We can't keep borrowing from the Chinese and others so that we can give it away to ingrates. We don't "owe" anything here, as we have paid for 5 decades. Or are we expected to pay for 5 more decades?

Forgive me if I don't seem like a big fan of Israel or its Arab neighbors. The fallout since the Kuwait War (Gulf I) is less than stellar. The Israeli action against the USS Liberty (www.usslliberty.com) in 1967 and the subsequent coverup is shameful, yet it still continues.

So, I don't put any of the MidEasters on a pedestal. They don't give a hoot about us, so why should we really care about them more than what he have?

[Guest]

Your insight is right on IMHO Steve.
What did Obama not say in his speech:
In his discussion of the West and the Muslim world, President Obama fails to mention how, in the past two decades, the United States has shed blood and treasure in Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq -- all Muslim-dominated countries -- in an effort to aid tens of millions of people who were threatened by or living under ruthless dictatorships. The impulse to help these countries was not in every instance simply humanitarian; but in every instance humanitarianism was a factor, and in some instances it was the dominant one. Today, more than 50 million Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq are liberated from two of the most sadistic regimes we have ever witnessed. It might be nice for President Obama -- and frankly those in the Arab world -- to say that, even just once.
Nor does Obama mention other efforts to help Muslims -- for example, the extraordinary humanitarian efforts by Americans to aid Indonesia in the aftermath of the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printarticle.cfm/the-not-so-golden-mean-15180

[Guest]

Expecting "peace" in the MidEast brokered by the United States is like hoping there's oil on the moon and it will come to us via the Star Trek Pipeline.

The MidEasters have been fighting, killing, slaving, exploiting and every other "ing" since Cain and Abel. The issues are never going to be resolved by outside mediation, as neither side wants to give an inch - ever - out of fear that one inch will be exploited to 100 miles.

US politicians strolling through the MidEast with "plans" for peace are laughable. The only thing the US provides is a unifying effect whereby both the wrring factions skin the outsider. The Camp David Accords were a great example, as all that happened is that Israel and Egypt were able both to milk more foreign aid from the US on the pretext of "more foregin aid will make things better." It was a great photo op event, but nothing of substgance resulted other than more money going from us to them both.

"The settlements in the West Bank" - who cares? If both sides what to push each other to the wall, why are we sticking our political noses into the middle of it? The last time I looked at a map, Europe has more at stake than anyone in the Americas. Everytime they play brinksmanship, we send more money to both to "tone things down." When will we learn than we cannot solve the world's problems? The world loves to take our money when we in or arrogance try to play Papa to everyone.

We don't need to "lean on Israel" or anyone else. All we have to do is shut off the money stream - period! Or is the money - excuse me, foreign aid" supposed to continue forever? For all MidEast factions, isn't 50 years of foreign aid enough? And what good has it really done in the last 20 years?

Time to let the MidEast neighbors learn to live with each other without US money. We can't keep borrowing from the Chinese and others so that we can give it away to ingrates. We don't "owe" anything here, as we have paid for 5 decades. Or are we expected to pay for 5 more decades?

Forgive me if I don't seem like a big fan of Israel or its Arab neighbors. The fallout since the Kuwait War (Gulf I) is less than stellar. The Israeli action against the USS Liberty (www.usslliberty.com) in 1967 and the subsequent coverup is shameful, yet it still continues.

So, I don't put any of the MidEasters on a pedestal. They don't give a hoot about us, so why should we really care about them more than what he have?

:agree:

Steve we are usually on the opposite ends of the Political views posted here, but on this I agree with you 100%. I was serving in the USN during Gulf I and was stationed in Sicily. I saw first hand what some of our Allies think of us. You can not buy friendship and loyalty, every country does not want our system of Government

[Guest]

Regarding the Middle East, Isreal, Palestine, Sunnis, Shia' etc., there have been all kinds of criticisms of what the strategy of the Bush administration was, and now what the Obama strategy is, even though they are somewhat different. There are prognostications of what will work and far more often, what won't.

But we're left with the same problem, it seems. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It's members are spreading around the globe--to Europe, Africa, the U.S., and Canada. In a few decades, they will be both a political and religious force to be reckoned with. They're already an increasing unsettling force thruout the western world because of their willingness to kill themselves in order to kill many others as a demonstration of their faith. That fact is undeniable.

At the same time, there is serious unrest in the Islamic homelands in the Middle East. The existence of Israel is a canker right in the middle of Islam. Muslims and Jews will likely never get along with one another. The U.S. is hated by Islam because of our steadfast support of Israel. Islamic fundamentalist hatred has exhibited itself in the numerous jihadist attacks on western and U.S. interests and people in recent years. Israel is becoming far less willing to cooperate with the U.S., while still expecting our money and security provided by our military and the weapons we sell them. The ease of travel, the information available on the internet, and very porous borders in most western countries will almost certainly result in more terrorist attacks. It's only a matter of time, it seems.

So if some disagree with the Bush strategy, and others now disagree with the Obama strategy, then what is the correct strategy to begin to minimize the threat of terrorism? The "problem" is not going away. In fact, as I said above, it's getting bigger as Islam grows and spreads.

So, if we don't like the approach taken by our most recent two Presidents...then what would YOU do to address the problem? That seems like a logical question to me.

[Guest]

So, if we don;t like the approach taken by our most recent two Presidents...then what would YOU do to address the problem? That seems like a logical question to me.
__________________


Maybe a new thread to ask this question is in order. :coolsmiley:

Keedy

[Guest]

Good idea.

[Guest]

Regarding the Middle East, Isreal, Palestine, Sunnis, Shia' etc., there have been all kinds of criticisms of what the strategy of the Bush administration was, and now what the Obama strategy is, even though they are somewhat different. There are prognostications of what will work and far more often, what won't.

But we're left with the same problem, it seems. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It's members are spreading around the globe--to Europe, Africa, the U.S., and Canada. In a few decades, they will be both a political and religious force to be reckoned with. They're already an increasing unsettling force thruout the western world because of their willingness to kill themselves in order to kill many others as a demonstration of their faith. That fact is undeniable.

At the same time, there is serious unrest in the Islamic homelands in the Middle East. The existence of Israel is a canker right in the middle of Islam. Muslims and Jews will likely never get along with one another. The U.S. is hated by Islam because of our steadfast support of Israel. Islamic fundamentalist hatred has exhibited itself in the numerous jihadist attacks on western and U.S. interests and people in recent years. Israel is becoming far less willing to cooperate with the U.S., while still expecting our money and security provided by our military and the weapons we sell them. The ease of travel, the information available on the internet, and very porous borders in most western countries will almost certainly result in more terrorist attacks. It's only a matter of time, it seems.

So if some disagree with the Bush strategy, and others now disagree with the Obama strategy, then what is the correct strategy to begin to minimize the threat of terrorism? The "problem" is not going away. In fact, as I said above, it's getting bigger as Islam grows and spreads.

So, if we don't like the approach taken by our most recent two Presidents...then what would YOU do to address the problem? That seems like a logical question to me.

--------

[Guest]

Following is from Donald Wildmon of Americn Family Association

This article is for your information. Please read.

Note from Don Wildmon: For years I have refused to use words such as Marxism, socialism or similar words when describing our current situation. However, it is time to call a spade a spade, regardless of how those who oppose us label us. Rome is burning. The article below was written by Stanislav Mishin, a blogger and columnist for the Russian newspaper Pravda.

American capitalism gone with a whimper . . . . .

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather than the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us (Russia) about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blinds the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox (Russian Orthodox) churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more than another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more than ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin