Here’s my take:

Dan Rather quit being a good reporter years before this case ever came up. He was a political hack, with a huge national following, who had degraded to a point where his liberal partisanship was obvious.

Now, I don’t mind political hacks. Sean Hannity is one. Keith Olbermann is one. Chris Mathews is one. That’s just a small list. But we’re not talking about them. We’re talking about reporters and reporters today can’t seem to grasp the concept of attempting to make thier stories unbiased. Nor do they seem to understand the difference between a reporter and a commentator. Even Chris Mathews recently said his job was to help ensure a successful Presidency for Barack Obama. Lord knows he helped get him elected. (Is Mathews a reporter or a commentator?)

So, it comes down to the focus of the individuals media job. David Gergen is expected to have an opinion and express it. Alan Colmes, Hannity’s partner, is also expected to have an opinion and express it. They are commentators. That’s what they do.

Dan Rather on the other hand, was a reporter/news caster. He can have an opinion but he is expected to keep opinion out of it. And he certainly isn’t supposed to use unvetted forged documents simply because it’s a silver bullet with which to wound his Republican foe.

Dan Rather screwed the pooch on that story and he was called to account for it. The price he had to pay was his job.

There is no reason to feel any pity for the man with tripe like saying it was just a simple mistake. Rather is too old a hand to have make a mistake like that. He knew better.

He lost his job. Big deal. It doesn’t make up for the hundreds of times he slanted his stories to be unfavorable to Republicans for over 20 years. Just because he didn’t use forged documents all those times doesn’t make it any less unprofessional.

Rather got what he deserved, and good riddence. The judge should dismiss the case.

Cynical Optimist

This is the time we honor our veterans for their sacrifices on our behalf. Take the time throughout the day to say “thank you” to any veterans you may meet. Write a letter to the editor. Hang the Flag at your home. Put together a care package and send it to the troops. Hire a vet. Make a contribution to a veterans organization. Say a prayer.

There are many ways to honor our veterans, and should not be limited to one day a year. It’s your choice. Many people fought and died so you could have a choice. Make one.

Thank you veterans. Today and every day.

Cynical Optimist

So I get an email the other day that says my XBox live membership is due to automatically renew in a month. Huh?!?! So I go online to the page for my account and what do you know there is no option to not automatically renew or to cancel. According to their FAQ to do that you need to call. Well here is the dilemma. Believe it or not I have internet access here but no phone access. It’s only every now and then that I get to a phone. So I fired off an email explaining my situation. I was very polite and expected some kind of help. Here is the reply I got.

Thank you for writing to Xbox Live. We are sorry to hear that you want to cancel your Xbox Live subscription. As much as I would like to help you over email, all cancellation problems are being addressed through our phone support line. We at email support line do not have the capabilities to pull up your account, since this issue has a degree of sensitivity. Be advised that by canceling your subscription, you will lose any remaining time on the service in addition to your gamer tag and game rankings.If you still want to cancel, please call our Xbox Phone Support. We may require personal information for verification which cannot be divulged over email. When you call, immediate action will be given to your inquiries or request.

My response

Did you even read my email? I am in Afghanistan! I DO NOT HAVE ANY MEANS OF USING A PHONE. If I can bank over the internet you can cancel my lowly little xbox live account over the internet. Thousands of businesses are capable of identifying me over the internet, I’m pretty sure Microsoft can.Your website will even let me add another credit card or change any other aspect of my membership but it won’t let me choose not to automaticly renew or cancel. Yea right, I’m sure that has to do with “personal information being passed over email.” While you may not have the ability to help me you need to forward this to someone who can. If my membership is renewed and I am charged for xbox live when I have no means of using it then I will never ever purchase another piece of Microsoft software again.

Their response

Thank you for contacting Microsoft online support for XBOX. I am (Name) and I will be helping you today with this issue. I apologize for the inconvenience. I understand that you are from Afghanistan and need to call Xbox Customer Support to cancel your account. You may call any of the numbers listed below that is nearest your region:

My response

Apparently you did not read my message either. I am not from Afghanistan. I am an American serviceman deployed to Afghanistan. I HAVE NO ACCESS TO A PHONE. DO NOT RENEW MY XBOX LIVE MEMBERSHIP!!!!!!!! I AM GETTING TIRED OF REPEATING MYSELF. This is all strangely reminiscent of the whole AOL cancellation debacle. You all have no security issues with me changing a credit card or any other sensitive aspect of my account online yet for me to not want to automatically renew is too sensitive to pass over email?!?! So, (Name) for the last time, pretty please with a cherry on top let me make myself perfectly clear, I WILL NEVER PURCHASE ANOTHER PIECE OF MICROSOFT ANYTHING IF MY XBOX LIVE MEMBERSHIP IS AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED!!!

What is wrong with people! So frustrating.

It reminds me of way back when the only way you could cancel your AOL membership was to call, but the numbers were 1) hard as hell to find, or 2) you were on terminal hold.

Obviously this guy can’t even make the call nor, if he could call, spend any time on hold. If there is anyone out there that can help him please click through to the link and do what you can.

Thanks.

I owned a small franchise food service business from mid 1998 to mid 2002. Two locations, 85 employees, $1.4 mil a year in sales, (up from 700k when I bought it). I worked non-stop, about 15 hours a day. Couldn’t even get away from it on vacations.

I paid taxes out the ass from every governmental organization imaginable. There are taxes and fees associated with owning a business that a novelist couldn’t make up if he tried. I got killed on taxes when I bought it, while I owned it, and when I sold it.

In my business, nationally, the average profit margin was, and still is, 3%. Mine was 5.5%. Do the math. My income never exceeded $80k.

In my business, nationally, prices haven’t been raised to account for inflation and other increased costs in 15 years. You can’t do it. It’s a business killer. Just ask the airlines and car makers. It’s no different for small businesses.

While I personally wouldn’t have been hit by Obama’s tax plan (if I still owned the business) it’s useful to look at what would happen to a business person in the same business who it would impact. Even if you accept that Obama intends to keep his campaign promise to only raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year (which I don’t for a second believe) lets look at what decisions a business owner would have to make.

At a 3% profit margin an owner in my business would have had to have $8.4 million dollars in sales annually to make $250,000. If you increase his tax rate something would have to give in order to maintain that level of income. Or, second option, he can not pass on the extra costs and degrade his/her own quality of life. That’s not realistic and it isn’t fair. That owner has ALL the liability if the business fails and so he/she shouldn’t be penalized for risk taking by the tax code (more than he/she already is). So what are the options to cut costs?

1. Raise efficiency so the 3% profit margin is at the 5.5% rate I had.

Yes, this would do it. If you only looked at it simplistically. Unfortunately, business isn’t that simple. If they could just raise profit margins at the drop of a hat, trust me, they would. They work on trying to do this every day. I had those margins because I had only two stores and was able to supervise them more closely. The business owner in the same line of work making $250,000 wouldn’t have that luxury. He/she would have too many stores to supervise that closely. Business owners already try very hard to raise margins so this idea is out.

2. Take it out of the marketing budget.

Lower the marketing budget and sales go down. If sales go down fewer people are needed. That’s the same way of saying people are going to lose their job. Lower the marketing budget and the companies you place advertising with are going to have lower sales and, again, people at those companies are going to be cut and lose their jobs. If sales go down the business owner makes less money so this idea is out.

3. Raise prices.

Raise prices and you lower demand. Sales go down and fewer people are needed. Again, people are going to lose their jobs. If you don’t believe raising prices is going to lower demand I challenge you to go out and buy a Ferrari at the same price as a Honda Accord. If demand decreases the business owner makes less money so this idea is out.

4. Put off a major purchase.

This is one of the options business owners will choose. In my industry, the business owner may put off buying that new oven he/she has been looking at. So people at the oven manufacturing company lose their jobs. People who supply the manufacturing company lose their jobs. Another option is the business owner may decide to delay moving the store to a better location. People in the construction trades, and their suppliers, will have less work. Again, people lose their jobs.

5. Cut salaries or restrict salary growth.

Another likely choice, depending on the type of business, but do we really want to do anything to encourage this sort of thing?

6. Cut service.

The only way to increase profits with this method is to have fewer people doing the same work. It would result in a increase in profits but it would be temporary and eventually sales are going to suffer. Again, people lose their jobs.

7. Cut Employee Benefits.

Another likely course of action. Again, do we want public policy that encourages this?

8. Last but not least.

Cheat on their taxes. But again, this isn’t something to be encouraged.

These are just a few of the options. Any way you cut it people will lose their jobs.

There are NO good reasons to raise taxes beyond what the government needs to perform its essential functions.

If Barack Obama wants to help poor people do better in life he should focus on those things proven to help people achieve success.

A good education and a good work ethic.

Cynical Optimist

This is very entertaining. No, really!! It is!!

So here’s the background…

Barack Obama has been talking about his tax rates being lower than those that Ronald Reagan had, but, and here’s the thing, no one really knows which tax rates Obama is talking about. Now, this is not that unusual. People rarely ever know what Obama is talking about. He just goes on and on with nice soothing little sound bites and all the little liberal boys and girls swoon and moan lovingly, “Oh, isn’t he just wonderful,” or some such nonsense and then promptly faint from the sheer joy of hearing his voice.

Cavuto is not one of those people. He doesn’t swoon, nor is he the fainting kind. In this interview today Cavuto was trying to find out, from an Obama surrogate and fellow U.S. Senator, just exactly which rates Obama was talking about.

He didn’t have much luck.

This is not surprising because it becomes abundantly clear as the interview progresses that Menendez hasn’t the foggiest notion of the difference between capital gains taxes and income tax rates.

This is a U.S. Senator.

And we wonder why Congress can’t accomplish anything that actually benefits the American people.

Cynical Optimist

So this Democratic Congressman from New York goes down to Florida to try and drum up some support for Barack Obama among the Jewish voters there.

But, you see, they have some concerns.

In particular, they have concerns about why Obama stayed in Rev. Wright’s race hating church for 20 years. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to them.

The Congressman is Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY and he gave an honest answer. He’s to be commended for that.

From ABC News:

“Says Nadler: “I have no personal knowledge of what I’m about to say. What I’m about to say is my guess…”

“My guess,” Nadler said, “knowing how politics works, what I’m about to say is not particularly…”

He searches for the word. Rejects a couple suggestions.

“…not particularly complimentary towards Sen. Obama,” he says.

“Think of the history here,” says the six-term New York congressman. “You have a guy who’s half-white, half-black. He goes to an Ivy League school, comes to Chicago … to start a political career. Doesn’t know anybody.

“Gets involved with community organizing — why? Because that’s how you form a base. OK. Joins the largest church in the neighborhood. About 8,000 members. … Why did he join the church? … Because that’s how you get to know people.

“Now maybe it takes a couple years,” Nadler says, suggesting that soon Obama starts to think of Wright, “’Jesus, the guy’s a nut, the guy’s a lunatic.’ But you don’t walk out of a church with 8,000 members in your district.”

Suggests a woman: “You don’t walk in though.”

“He didn’t know it when he walked in, presumably,” said Nadler.

And then, the line that may haunt Nadler for four years or longer: “He didn’t have the political courage to make the statement of walking out.”

“Now, what does it tell me?” Nadler asked. “It tells me that he wasn’t terribly political courageous. Does it tell me that he agreed with the reverend in any way? No. It tells me he didn’t want to walk out of a church in his district.”

What’s even funnier about this is that the previous time I can recall Nadler talking about Obama was in December 2006, when Jason Horowitz of the New York Observer chatted with him at the Israeli Policy Forum.

Nadler told the Observer that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., “had called him earlier yesterday to tell him that she was leaning towards running for president, and that he said he would support her. His choice, he explained, was a pragmatic one.

“‘I don’t see a lot of other good possibilities in our party,’ said Nadler… ‘Someone like Barack Obama, who is suddenly a real candidate, always worries me, because he is a novice candidate. He hasn’t done it before. Novice candidates, not always, but 95 percent of the time make a mistake. I made some terrible mistakes in office, when I was district leader, no one remembers what they are. I wasn’t in front of all the news cameras.’”

Oy!

Like I said. The Congressman is to be commended for his honesty, even if it was reluctant. He clearly knew his audience wasn’t going to buy any spin about why Obama stayed in that church, so he told the truth.

Think about what a lack of political courage really means when you vote.

Cynical Optimist

“The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know —
Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.”

It’s not too late. Go vote. Get your friends to go vote.

I agree the world won’t end on Tuesday. Probably not Wednesday either, except for a few who get caught in the riots that will erupt regardless of who wins.

As for further down the road though, it’s a more open question. Many people are assuming the normal checks and balances on political power will temper any drastic moves. I don’t agree. The comparisons to Carter and Clinton do not apply.

The world won’t end, but the world as we know it will. It will just take a few years for that to become apparent.

Economically, if Obama wins, the U.S. will, within a short time, no longer be the preemminent economy on the planet. It’s been trending this way for years and Obama will accelerate that. Not intentionally, but because of his ignorance, wrong headed thinking, and the influence of the Marxists/Socialists. His plan to raise taxes combined with rolling back free trade agreements are ala Hoover and we know how that worked out.

Internationally, the bad guys in the world will be celebrating Tuesday night. They know what a weak apologetic little poser he is. His plan to eliminate nuclear weapons is national suicide. Combine that with his plan to scrap missle defense and there is an open invitation to others to launch at will when they have the ability. We won’t be able to respond in kind. Mutually Assured Destruction will become Unilaterally Assured Destruction. His plan to pull out of Iraq regardless of the situation is the national murder of a potentially successful Democracy.

Combine a weak leader with economic chaos and genocide will be the new popular thing. Democracy will be dealt a body blow around the world.

No, the world won’t end Tuesday night, but we will be put on that path.

Will we survive as a nation? Probably.

Worst case scenario is pretty bad. Best case scenario is less bad. We’ll probably end up somewhere in the middle. The American people are easily sold on bad ideas but they are pretty quick to recognise it, and make corrections.

That’s my “Hope.”

Cynical Optimist

ROSE: I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don’t, either.

ROSE: I don’t know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don’t really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it’s an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don’t know what books he’s read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There’s a lot about him we don’t know.

Frankly, it’s astounding. Five days before an election one of the giants of the news media admits we don’t know much about Obama and his worldview.

How can this be?

This is Brokaw’s job! This is the news media’s job!! They are supposed to look into this sort of thing, report it to us and let us decide. Why didn’t they try to find out?

They have failed miserably.

Not only have they failed miserably to perform their basic function in American society, but they have actively worked to ensure Obama’s election.

When you go to vote, consider that what we don’t know can often be more important than what we do know.

You can see the whole interview at Charlie Rose’s website here.

Cynical Optimist

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama’s positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel’s government.

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that *Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate’s stance on Iran as “utterly immature” and comprised of “formulations empty of all content.” *

Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy. At a joint press conference afterward, Obama urged Iran to accept the West’s proposal on its nuclear program, saying that Iran was creating a serious situation that endangered both Israel and the West.

According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country’s policy toward Iran, that would be “very problematic.”

Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might “arrogantly” ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama’s positions on Iran, concluding that they were “not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open,” the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama’s advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment.

According to the Israeli source, Sarkozy plans to begin intensive negotiations with the new American administration, regardless of whether it is headed by Obama or Republican Sen. John McCain, even before the new president takes office in January, with the goal of persuading him to continue the current policy on Iran.

But Sarkozy’s pessimism does not stem only from Obama’s stance; it also stems from the overall behavior of the international community toward Iran’s nuclear program, and particularly its inability to agree on a fourth round of Security Council sanctions against the Islamic Republic. This foot-dragging will make it impossible to effect a change in Iran’s nuclear policy, Sarkozy believes.

The French intelligence community believes that Iran has already obtained about 40 percent of the enriched uranium it would need for its first bomb, and that at its current rate, it will obtain the rest of the uranium it needs in the spring or summer of 2009.

However, French agencies are divided over what Iran is likely to do once it has this uranium. One view is that the Iranians will immediately make a nuclear bomb, in order to demonstrate their capability. The other is that Iran will continue enriching uranium without making a bomb - at least until it has enough enriched uranium for several bombs.

I can’t say that I’m surprised. Those of us who have looked closely at Obama’s foreign policy pronouncements know he is a pie in the sky, can’t we all just get along babe in the utopian woods.

Foreign leaders are going to chew him up and spit him out without a second thought. The sad part is, if he wins, it will cost many American lives to fix the damage.

Cynical Optimist

Now ABC News tried to get him to answer questions, and it was pretty much the same story.

It must be remembered that Bill Ayers is a man who has never before passed up an opportunity to sprout off to the media about his extremist views. Never.

But now he is keeping his mouth shut. Why would that be?

It’s because Ayers knows that his relationship with Obama is much deeper and significant than Obama is willing to admit, and anything he says will only harm the candidate. He knows Obama has lied and anything said will only serve to expose that lie.

We should think about that.

Example: On DailyKos, I leave a comment on a blog post that is anti-McCain saying something like, “Awesome. Maybe they can use this picture of the winning ticket on Nov 5th.”

Then I link this page with this picture.

If you examine that closely you will know there is nothing dishonest about it. It is not a lie. But in the context in which it was said, it is.

And that’s Barack Obama and his stated policies in a nutshell.

I’ll let you know how it goes.

UPDATE:

I began this experiment at 8:30pm, posting on two sites. I made four posts on DailyKos and three on the Huffington Post. As of 9:30pm, my page views (as measured by Google) had tripled. I went back to check DailyKos and within this one hour period, my four posts had been deleted.

Then I checked the Huffington Post. Two of the three didn’t make it through the screening process, but one did. Lets just say the libs who saw that one were not amused.

I was though.

Cynical Optimist

Right Joe. We don’t believe you though.

On Obama’s website he has this blurb:

BARACK OBAMA: SUPPORTING THE RIGHTS AND TRADITIONS OF SPORTSMEN

PROTECTING GUN RIGHTS
Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters and shooters own and use guns each year. Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.

It’s two levels down on his site: Additional Issues - Sportsmen - Blurb about 2nd Amendment Rights.

Excuse me, but the 2nd Amendment isn’t just an “Additional Issue” and it doesn’t just apply to “Sportsmen.” It’s a fundamental right that deserves more prominance than Obama gives it.

What about those who own guns for self protection? Nothing.
What about those who own guns but don’t hunt? Nothing.
What about collectors? Nothing.
What about semi-auto pistols, not used for hunting? Nothing.
What about high powered rifles used for hunting? Nothing.

From the NRA’s website yesterday:

Saturday, September 20, 2008
Obama’s Deceptive Ad

Barack Obama’s out with a new radio ad designed to deceive hunters, sportsmen and gun owners. The ad claims that gun owners have nothing to worry about, that as president Obama would not affect their Second Amendment rights.

Of course, the ad doesn’t mention that Obama supports things like a ban on handguns, an extension of the Clinton Gun Ban, a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition, a ban on the most common hunting ammunition, a ban on gun stores located within five miles of a school or a park, and prosecuting people who use a gun for self-defense in their home.

The ad also doesn’t mention the millions of dollars Obama steered towards gun-control groups when he was a member of the Joyce Foundation’s board of directors, or his lack of support for increased penalties for those convicted of shooting near a public school.

That’s Obama’s real record, and that’s why he can’t tell America’s sportsmen and gun owners the truth.

As you’ll recall, Joe Biden wrote the Assault Weapons Ban and is trying to reimpose an expanded version of it. He also had this to say during one of the debates:

Jared Townsend, the questioner, clearly stated he bought the weapon under the provisions of the very gun ban that Biden wrote. And yet, Joe Biden chose to question the man’s sanity.

Barack Obama supported the gun ban in D.C. When the Supreme Court struck down the ban he supported that too.

So, to boil down his rhetoric. He supports the 2nd Amendment. He also supports community efforts to suppress the 2nd Amendment. OK, I got it.

Make no mistake about this. If Obama and Biden are elected they are going to take away your 2nd Amendment Rights.

Cynical Optimist

There are two things I’d like you to pay attention to in this video. 1) The Red Star on his sweatshirt, and 2) The weakness he displays when he does finally speak.

I’ll address the weakness in his voice first.

It’s pretty obvious Ayers’ voice was about to crack when he finally did get up the courage to say something. The man is a coward, which explains why he chose to use explosives instead of confronting his perceived enemies face to face.

Why doesn’t Ayers want to talk about the extent of the relationship? This is a man who rarely ever passes up an opportunity to sit in front of a camera and espouse his views. Why doesn’t he want to talk about this?

Now about the Red Star.

Don’t think for a second it doesn’t mean anything. Besides being an admitted Anarchist, Ayers is an admitted Marxist Communist. The Red Star is their symbol. We have our symbols, the Red, White and Blue for instance, and they have theirs. The Red Star is one of them. Take a look at this site selling Obama stuff and you see Red Stars everywhere.

Look at this picture:

The image of the man on the left flag is Che Guevara, a Cuban Revolutionary, and this picture is from an Obama campaign office.

Do a little research into the Marxist organizations which are endorsing Obama. The Communist Party of the USA for instance. They don’t come right out and say he is one of their own. Of course they wouldn’t. In fact, they say in the first sentence that he isn’t a “left” candidate. That alone should be cause for asking questions. It would sink Obama if they didn’t say stuff like that and they know it. Disinformation is everything and these are insidious people, working relentlessly under the radar to undermine our country and fundamentally change it. Take a look at the last part of that editorial from the CPUSA.

*“One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.”
*

That was written in mid July, fully a month before the economic crisis hit in mid September and the “Main Street before Wall Street” theme went viral with all the talking heads, and became a major part of Obama’s message.

Committed Communists who want to get elected and in a position of power do not join the Communist Party. They join the Democratic Party. They don’t get elected otherwise.

Committed Socialists who want to get elected and in a position of power do not join the Socialist Party. They join the Democratic Party. Likewise, they don’t get elected.

This is not to indict the entire party, but it’s clear the Democratic Party is being used as cover by the most extreme elements in order to gain credibility. Think about how much further left from Truman and JFK the party is today. If they were still alive, they would be right of center Republicans.

We can say with some certainty that Obama has socialist leanings, at the very least. His own “Spread the Wealth” statements show that.

I’m not suggesting Obama is a Communist. We can’t say for certainty that he is, nor can we say for certainty that he isn’t.

And that’s the point.

The Communist Party is keeping its eye on the prize. You need to keep your eyes on their prize too.

Those on the extreme left say Obama will govern from the center, and hope he doesn’t. Those on the right say he will govern from the far left, and hope he doesn’t.

I would suggest that relying on Hope just isn’t good enough.

Cynical Optimist