I too think we are moving away from the republic that the founders dreamed of and created, and it is endangered of becoming something else. But I also believe that part of the problem lies not from a "power grab", like socialism, nationalism, or whatever "ism" is out there, but rather an internal division of extremist ideology by a few, and most of us caught in the middle.

The easiest way to conquer a nation as great as the ours is to divide us against ourselves, and I think we are divided to the brink of another Civil War. It will only take a match to light that fire.

SRW - I can find no evidence that your claim that Osama bin Ladin publicly endorsed Bush because he wanted to discourage votes is true. Quite the opposite in fact. He DID lean toward John Kerry because he felt like he "could work with him". (Yikes!) The Bin Ladin tape that came out days before the 2004 election excoriated Bush, which likely caused more people to vote for him. Sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend effect.

Regardless, I believe it DOES matter who a candidate's supporters are. It says a lot about the candidate himself, especially when there is a concerted effort by the media to not reveal much about who Obama really is.

I understand your contention about the rhetoric. It's difficult to avoid when people feel passionately about something. But I will maintain that our government system is moving toward, rather than away from, an all-powerful centralized government. You're right, I didn't go back far enough. It doesn't matter when it started or by whom, and thank you for re-enforcing my point. The point remains, this administration hasn't done anything but move us along faster. Ms. Werthmann was simply stating that, however passionately.

Here is a clue: not much.

Now if you have something of value and relevance to add to the conversation, that is intelligent, then by all means do so. Otherwise, do show some proper manners and let the adults have their conversation without adolescent interruptions.

The federal departments like the EPA, and some others, and the "War on Drugs" were started under President Nixon. The term "Czars" was coined by the media in the late 70's as a way to describe these department heads, due simple because the government seems to love long titles, and "Czars" is easier and shorter to type. And since the 70's every Administration has had many of these Czars, but it doesn't stop the extremist (left and right) from making a big deal out of them.

Also, before you worry too much about what tin-pot dictator says favorably about President Obama, keep in mind the Bin Laden publicly endorsed President Bush for re-election in 2004. Bin Laden hoped it would turn the American people against President Bush, however it did just the opposite. Now, by using the logic of your statement can we determine the President Bush deliberately ignored Bin Laden and did not capture him during his presidency because of the endorsement, or is it just stupid thinking to conclude that these endorsements by these idiots is anything more then an attempt to disrupt our system of free governance. I could careless what Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Vladimir Putin think of President Obama, their motives are only self-serving.

Secondly, the Nazis' and Hitler's rise to power was a "perfect storm" of political, social, and economic turmoil that we are unlikely to ever see here as well.

If you read about Germany from 1900 to 1938, it is easier to understand why it happened then and in Germany, and why comparisons to our elected officials (Democratic or Republican) is not just absurd, but insulting, and should not be tolerated.

I think our political discord has become far to vitriolic, and the wild and untruthful accusations and shameful comparisons only push it further into sewer. The "Shock-Jock" mentality of political pundits has become very obscene.

Neither extremes are interested in working together and comprising with others, in order to find solutions that benefit everyone. Their sole purpose is to impose their beliefs and ideology on the populous, without regard to it's inherent flaws and inability to produce real solutions to the problems of our community and nation.

Mr. Groene demonstrated a common tactic used by extremist groups (left and right); they will conduct themselves in an offensive and/or irresponsible manner, and when the public is offended by the group's conduct they deny any responsibility and attack those who have objected publicly.

Free speech is a very important right, and without it our system of governance would be far different. However, like anything else in life it comes with responsibility. When it is used unwisely, (like in this case comparing President Obama to Hitler), it can have consequences. The WNTA members do have the right to express their thoughts and beliefs. On the other hand; the public has the right to publicly condemn those remarks and statements, if they find it offensive.

If the WNTA wishes to be taken seriously, they should set aside the hateful, inflammatory, and vitriolic rhetoric, and focus on providing detailed and concise information to the public on why they believe their policies are better, and how these ideas will benefit the populous.

Groene provides there a wonderful example of why I consider the WNTA a "crack-pot" group of misfits, who are to absorbed in their own self-importance to realize they are just a joke. I cannot take anyone, or organization, seriously that demonizes anyone who disagrees with, or criticizes, them as "evil".