Bingo Floyd! And the dividing is accomplished by those in minority positions but who make the most noise. The vast majority of this nation's population is not forming-at-the-mouth left or right. Neither are homosexuals. I am a very heterosexual male and have many gay friends and acquaintances. Most just want to live their lives quietly and peacefully. They feel put upon by their radical, unchosen representatives.

With Obama or his ilk at left-center-stage and the zealot, religious (note I said 'zealot' - not all) right at right-center-stange, a huge wall has been erected and we the people are, too easily herded to one side or the other and spend our time throwing rocks at each other over trivial crap.

In the meantime, while we are busy stoning each other more of our freedoms suffer summary execution at the hands of people who want nothing more than to control everything and everybody.

Term limits are the only thing that is going to at least to some extent control the corruption. It would be nice if people were not greedy and corruptible but the fact is, most people are greedy to some degree. If you have someone offering you basically unlimited wealth just to change your vote, the temptation is greater than most people would be able to resist. Fact is the Federal government needs to be pared down and most of the decisions should be made at the State level. That way if you don't like something a particular State is doing, you can move to another one.

Term limits are the only thing that is going to at least to some extent control the corruption. It would be nice if people were not greedy and corruptible but the fact is, most people are greedy to some degree. If you have someone offering you basically unlimited wealth just to change your vote, the temptation is greater than most people would be able to resist. Fact is the Federal government needs to be pared down and most of the decisions should be made at the State level. That way if you don't like something a particular State is doing, you can move to another one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now we are getting somewhere in this discussion. Don't most Americans believe in individual sovereignty? I know I do. Our rights are those promises that are endowed to all human beings, and one of those rights is enumerated:

Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
``````````
I know some of you will disagree with me, but I see individual sovereignty within this Amendment. Innocent life is to be protected FROM government. Yet OUR government has sanctioned the taking of the most innocent life on the planet. Is this not gross and inappropriate? Listen, I am no prude and I am not what most progressives would call a Bible thumper, but I see deep wrong in maliciously and cruelly killing a creature that has no way in the world to protect itself. It is especially egregious when it is done solely for the convenience of the mother. Her failings should not be repairable in the murder of her baby.

Our history does not support your thinking. From the Pago Pago Islands where we built a naval station in 1890 and killed every man, woman and child under the age of 10 to the Annexation of Hawaii where Queen Liliuokalani made Sanford Dole President. You know the Dole Company?
To stealing Puerto Rico Guam and the Philippines.
Do you realize that our use of chemical weapons goes all the way back to the Civil War? By 1917 we had created 124,000 metric tons of 39 different toxic substances to kill anything that got in our way.
Now the banks run this country and with them killing their own how do you think that is going to work out for the common man.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-05/abn-amro-ex-ceo-found-dead
"Ever since World War II, US bankers hadn’t worried too much about their supremacy being challenged by other international banks, which were still playing catch-up in terms of deposits, loans, and global customers. But by now the international banks had moved beyond postwar reconstructive pain and gained significant ground by trading with Cold War enemies of the United States. They were, in short, cutting into the global market that the US bankers had dominated by extending themselves into areas in which the US bankers were absent for US policy reasons. There was no such thing as “enough” of a market share in this game. As a result, US bankers had to take a longer, harder look at the “shackles” hampering their growth. To remain globally competitive, among other things, bankers sought to shatter post-Depression legislative barriers like Glass-Steagall. They wielded fear coated in shades of nationalism as a weapon: if US bankers became less competitive, then by extension the United States would become less powerful. The competition argument would remain dominant on Wall Street and in Washington for nearly three decades, until the separation of speculative and commercial banking that had been invoked by the Glass-Steagall Act would be no more."
This is not the country you seem to think it is.