President Barack Obama made a major gaffe when he recently said that we are owned, or "belong to", government. In the United States the government is supposed to "belong to" the people instead of the other way around as he suggests.

We the people are supposed to own the government and tell it what to do. Obama and other elitists believe that government exists to control our personal lives and even tell us how much we can eat or drink.

Some government controls are necessary to prevent people from harming others. Government needs to restrict sale of some substances that can adversely affect physical or mental health or can cause people to harm others. However, there is no reason for government to regulate the size of soft drinks or treat all school children as if they had the same nutritional needs. Active children need more calories than those who spend all their time playing video games.

Too many officials at all levels of government think they are better than the rest of us and have some special right or knowledge to make decisions for us. Government officials who believe themselves superior will sometimes say "if you only knew what we know" when they really mean "if you knew only what we know."

One of my favorite movie quotes is by Glenn Ford's character in "Teahouse of the August Moon". Ford plays an American military officer helping the Japanese develop democratic government after World War II. He tells them: "Democracy is where the people have the right to make the wrong decisions."

All humans can make mistakes. I read a book review several years ago about some incredibly stupid things done by the high IQ members of Mensa. During President Lyndon Johnson's administration men who were considered to be the best and the brightest put half a million of us in Vietnam for no apparent reason other than that they didn't want to lose the war before the next election. They had no idea what victory meant and thus didn't know how to win.

President Thomas Jefferson once said: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."

"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from its Government."- Thomas Paine

If Democrats want to win next year's presidential election, they need a new candidate. President Barack Obama has very little chance of being reelected in the current economic situation because he is clueless about how to deal with the economy.

His so-called "jobs bill" is just more of the same approach that hasn't worked. Then there is the ticking time bomb in the deficit proposal he foolishly agreed to.

The election laws in 1968 allowed potential presidential challengers to wait until the primary season had begun to enter the race. Sen. Robert Kennedy had the opportunity to reconsider his decision to not run for president in 1968 after it became obvious that fellow Democrat President Lyndon Johnson was unlikely to win reelection. Kennedy decided to run after Johnson's poor showing in the New Hampshire primary running against largely unknown Sen. Eugene McCarthy. Many of those who voted for McCarthy falsely believed that McCarthy, who opposed the War in Vietnam, wanted a stronger war effort

Two weeks after Kennedy announced he would run, Johnson dropped out of the race because of the situation in Vietnam.

Kennedy was well on the way to winning the nomination when he was stopped by an assassin's bullet. Had he won the nomination, it is very likely he would have defeated Republican candidate Richard Nixon. The assassination of Kennedy caused the Democrats to nominate Vice President Hubert Humphrey instead.

Obama's consistently low approval ratings indicate he has little chance of reelection. Democrats shouldn't let themselves be misled by worthless public opinion polls showing how he would supposedly do against potential Republican candidates. Most voters aren't paying close attention to those running for the Republican nomination and their final decisions may be influenced by whatever ads the Republican candidate and private groups run next fall.

Democrats need a dynamic candidate who knows how to appeal to independent voters. Considering the low opinion voters have of Congress, the strongest candidate would be someone from outside of Washington.

Barack Obama who ran on a platform of ending his predecessor's wars has apparently decided he wants his own war. As candidate Obama, he felt Congress should have a role in such decisions. As President O'Bomber, he thinks he can ignore Congress.

Like his predecessors O'Bomber is starting out with a bombing campaign. He hasn't said whether he will send Marines back to the shores of Tripoli if the bombing campaign fails to cause a surrender. Bombing didn't produce a surrender in Vietnam and Iraq. Muammar Gaddafi doesn't seem any more likely to relinquish power because of a bombing campaign than Saddam Hussein was.

Barack O'Bomber claims he is acting because the Libyan government has attacked those protesting the government, but Libya isn't the only government to use violence to put down protests.

Syria has been accused of using violence against protesters. Will O'Bomber also attack Syria? It would be easy considering we already have troops in neighboring Iraq. They could be moved out of Iraq and into Syria.

Will O'Bomber attack Iran which reportedly has been putting down mass protests? He could use it as an excuse to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Prior to the election O'Bomber said he considered Iran a "tiny country" even though it's the 17th most populous nation in the world with a population is 78% that of Nazi Germany, a country which conquered Europe. from the Atlantic's to near Moscow.

China has killed protesters before. Does that mean the U.S. should consider attacking China?

I'm worried that if Gaddafi does give in to the bombing campaign, O'Bomber and the other Western Imperialists will think they can do the same thing in any country with a form of government they disapprove of. That is if they are really motivated by Gaddafi's treatment of his subjects rather than his oil.

If NATO is really concerned about injustice, why didn't it intervene in Darfur?

If O'Bomber succeeds in destroying the Libyan military will he or the Europeans spend years reestablishing order setting up a new government? Or will they let it become a lawless country like Somalia"

The most disturbing aspect of O'Bomber's action is his failure to consult Congress like Lyndon Johnson did before bombing North Vietnam and George W. Bush did before bombing Saddam Hussein. Both of those presidents took the lead in getting the U.S. involved in a war. O'Bomber seems to be following the orders of the European governments who get their oil from Libya.

Regardless of whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, he was born a British subject because his father was a British subject. Unless he formally renounced that citizenship he may still be a British subject and may be following the orders of his Queen in determining how to respond to Libya.

Those who like to protest America involvement in foreign wars need to start protesting now instead of waiting until the Marines land in Tripoli.