Friday, July 31, 2009

Obama’s War On America

    I know that the Beer Conference is all the rage right now, and is a nice (purposeful?) distraction from the health care debate, but I'm not going to talk about either one of them. Instead I want to discuss the war that is waging in our country. If you follow Bill O'Reilly he calls it "The Culture War." Whether you believe it's real or not, you're going to have to pick a side. (Though if you're reading this, you probably already have.) The opposing forces are, in simple terms, those that want to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and those that want to take those fruits, put them in a big basket, and distribute them to the masses as they see fit.

    Before I get into the meat of this issue, let me discuss an interaction I had recently. It's no secret that politics divide people faster than a Yankees-Mets world series would split New Yorkers, but I've never seen it as clearly as I did a couple of weeks ago. I recently posted a video to my profile page (before I started The Coyote fan page) that took a street level view of the Canadian health care system, the point being that emulating this system is not a good path for this country go down. One of my friends left a comment that said people should stop drinking the "kool-aid" that Obama is offering. Another friend responded with the following, quoted verbatim: "Drinking the Kool-Aid? Heck I'm showering in it. I brush my teeth with it. I swim in the Kool-Aid! It is good to see people like yourselves going out on a limb sticking your neck out for the most rich and powerful. way to go guys. maybe dick cheney will taking you hunting one day."

    At first I was stunned. Someone I friended on Facebook, someone I went to high school with, partied with, and had a measure of respect for, essentially just said he hopes that I get shot. Never one to shy away from a debate, I replied, asking him if he had even watched the video – that it showed pretty clearly that the poor are not helped by socialized health care as only the wealthy can afford to go to the private clinics, etc, etc. His response? He de-friended me. He took his ball and went home. See, without knowing it, I had crossed the line in the sand that he had drawn. I can only assume that he has some deeply held beliefs – maybe a relative was denied care because of a pre-existing condition, or is facing bankruptcy trying to pay for a traumatic illness – that have colored his world view. Or maybe, like he admitted, he simply drinks the Kool-Aid. Whatever the case, he was obviously not interested in a debate. He's closed off his mind to any ideas other than those to which he subscribes, and rather than play nice he found it easier to drop me as a friend. At first it bothered me, because I knew him from before any of us even thought about these kinds of things, and I was honestly happy to reconnect with him after 20+ years. Besides, there's something so final about clicking on the "remove friend" button. It was like being erased. But the more I thought about it, the more OK I became with it. It's a free country, after all, and until the government takes over our social calendars no one MUST be friends with another person, either in person or virtually. Anyway, if it was that easy for him to drop me, we couldn't have been that close to begin with, right? This Facebook friendship became a casualty of war.

    This exchange highlights just how serious this war is. Bill Whittle, in a great video piece (1) says that this is a fight to the death between populists and elites. A fight to the DEATH! That may seem like alarmist language, but obviously, since he wants me to be shot by Dick Cheney, people like my erstwhile friend take it pretty seriously. I think it's time that we do the same. In his video Whittle mentions "Rules For Radicals." There's no question that our president is a student of Alinsky. Michelle Obama has spoken (2) about hearing Barack speak, and how his words were so moving. They were almost word for word from Alinsky. In the prologue for Rules, Alinsky writes that the book "is for those young radicals who are committed to the fight" and that "The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away." Let that ruminate for a minute…the original community organizer, who has inspired our president, wrote this book specifically for people committed to the FIGHT to TAKE AWAY from those that have and GIVE to those who don't. Redistribution of wealth? Why not? It evokes images of Robin Hood, standing up for the oppressed, except in Obama's view, the oppressed are a fraction of the population. He knows that government can't make men richer, but that it can make them poorer, thereby shrinking the gap between them and taking power away from the old guard in the process. Once we're made poorer by policies like the stimulus and cap and trade, we'll still have our health, right? Well….not so fast. We could very well be losing control over our very health and well being too.

    It gets better. Has anyone wondered why Obama is so perplexingly pessimistic? Why, within days of his inauguration, he says the sky is falling and as a result drives stocks down to prices not seen since 1996? Why is he going on this apology tour of the world? Why is he constantly telling us that our history is horrible, that we've all been lied to and that we're victims of the past administration, or that we're a racist nation, or that the wealthy are horrible people? Why does he play the class warfare card and lie about CEO pay (3) to get people fired up? Why does he tell us that without his plan, health care prices will double, millions will go uninsured and the government will go bankrupt? (4) The reason why is in Rules For Radicals too: "They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution."

    Why does, in the White House email regarding health care proclaim that "Over the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo"? Go back to Rules For Radicals: "Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical." So we see how effective nationalized health care will be in advancing his radical agenda and we protest; he's thinking a move ahead and predicting the response so he can say "see, I told you so."

    But isn't he looking out for us? He says he is…he says what he does will be better for everyone! Again, look to Rules For Radicals: "Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

    So, fellow conservative thinkers, libertarians, politically agnostic agitators, whatever your stripe is, if you value the freedoms we have too often taken for granted, if you don't want to see the United States made into something else, now is the time to stand up. Thomas Jefferson, a member of a group of men (The Founders!) who would know better than any of us what the boot heel of oppression feels like, said "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." We are there, at that precipice, ladies and gentlemen. It's time to stand and deliver. If you don't think the Obamacrats are going to fight to the death, I will leave you with one final lesson from Rules For Radicals:

    "In war the end justifies almost any means."




  4. White House email correspondence "What Health Care Means To You"

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto – Truth and liberty above all

During Obama's umpteenth presidential address to sell to the public on yet another costly government experiment, he inadvertently said something that may be more prescient than he realized. At one point during one of his rambling, incoherent examples of why he thinks we should have the government control our health care, he said that people will have to make sacrifices like "Giving up paying for things that don't make them healthier." Then he said something about having a blue pill and red pill and if they do the same thing but one costs twice as much, why pay for the costlier pill? I don't know if that was his whole point or not, because I drifted away to a scene from "The Matrix."

For those who haven't seen it, here's a quick summary (from

"The Matrix is a film filled with religious and philosophical symbolism. The plot supposes that humans live in vats many years in the future, being fed false sensory information by a giant virtual reality computer (the Matrix). The perpetrators of this horror are machines of the future who use humans as a source of power. Humans are literally farmed.

The central character of the film, Neo, is presented to us in the opening part of the film as a loner who is searching for a mysterious character called Morpheus (named after the Greek god of dreams and sleep). He is also trying to discover the answer to the question "What is the Matrix?"

Morpheus contacts Neo just as the machines (posing as sinister 'agents') are trying to keep Neo from finding out any more. When Morpheus and Neo meet, Morpheus offers Neo two pills. The red pill will answer the question "what is the Matrix?" (by removing him from it) and the blue pill simply for life to carry on as before. As Neo reaches for the red pill Morpheus warns Neo "Remember, all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.""

How fitting is it that Obama chose those colors the pills in his example? Red – the color attributed to the Republican Party, as in "Red States" is the color of the pill that reveals the truth. The blue pill, for Democrats, carries on with the lie, keeping people in ignorance. Could that be any more appropriate for this debate?

At another point in the movie, when the crappiness of real life is weighing Neo down, another character, Cypher, says to Neo "I know what you're thinking, 'cause right now I'm thinking the same thing. Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here: Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?" Many people ask themselves that every day. I know I was perfectly content a year and a half ago, conservative but not politically active. I couldn't have told you who my senators were, what congressional district in which I reside, or any details of pending legislation (except for what the media chose to tell me). Then I read the book "The Case Against Barack Obama." It was like taking the RED pill.

The Democrats want people taking the BLUE pill. When Obama trots out his numbers, like the 47 million people who are uninsured, he hopes people won't read articles like this one: that cut the legs out from under that argument. When he uses a figure like $700 per month for insurance as an example of the high cost of insurance, then says people are paying "thousands of dollars in hidden costs" in their insurance premiums, he doesn't want us to scratch our heads and say "wait a second…$700 per month is $8400…thousands per year in hidden costs means at least $2000….so 25% is 'hidden costs?' Where do these numbers come from?" He doesn't want us to ask questions like that because we then might question the sources of that data, and of other data like the 'hundreds' of letters he gets from people begging him to help them with their health care costs. What about the hundreds of letters telling him to leave their insurance alone? Do they not count? Suddenly I'm feeling a little disenfranchised. Here are some other BLUE pill moments from his speech and Q&A:

I don't think anyone will argue with the idea that health care could be reformed for the better. But there are myriad other options that are not being considered simply because they're offered by conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, or by Newt Gingrich's Center For Healthcare Transformation. They promote choice, efficiency and keep the government out of the middle of things, and therefore we're asked to take the BLUE pill.

I say resist the urge to keep the blinders on. Take the RED pill, discover the truth, and fight to keep your liberty.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

What "Clerks" can teach us

In the movie "Clerks" there's a scene where a customer in a video store asks the clerk, Randal, if either of two movies is any good. The scene plays out as follows:

Indecisive Video Customer: They say so much, but they never tell you if it's any good. Are either one of these any good? Sir?
Randal Graves: What?
Indecisive Video Customer: Are either one of these any good?
Randal Graves: I don't watch movies.
Indecisive Video Customer: Well, have you heard anything about either one of them?
Randal Graves: I find it's best to stay out of other people's affairs.
Indecisive Video Customer: You mean you haven't heard anybody say anything about either one of these?
Randal Graves: Nope.
Indecisive Video Customer: [turns around, then shows Randal the same movies] Well, what about these two?
Randal Graves: Oh, they suck.
Indecisive Video Customer: These are the same two movies! You weren't paying any attention!
Randal Graves: No, I wasn't.
Indecisive Video Customer: I don't think your manager would appreciate it if...
Randal Graves: I don't appreciate your ruse, ma'am.
Indecisive Video Customer: I beg your pardon?
Randal Graves: Your ruse. Your cunning attempt to trick me.

I submit that we, the public, have been behaving like Randal. For too long now we have allowed our government and our media to perpetrate a ruse upon us. Slowly and insidiously liberal/progressive agents have infiltrated all levels of government (aided and abetted by the media), and in the absence of attention from us, they have come to believe that they can do whatever they want. Go back to Clinton. The general public didn't really pay much attention to him until the sex scandal broke open. Then - and only then - did anyone care what was happening in the White House. End result - he was impeached. Impeached! But what does that really mean? Apparently nothing. He should have been disgraced and forced to leave Washington in shame, one of only two US Presidents to be impeached, but instead he completed his term, wrote a book and made millions. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached, and he is a perpetual punch line, the epitome of evil to the liberal set, but Clinton, who was actually impeached, is a hero and everyone should go read his book. After all, until Obama, Clinton was our first black president. His wrist-slap impeachment emboldened the rest of our government. With no consequences for an actual impeachment, all bets were off. The media realized it could spin anything and people would believe it, and so we arrive at where we are today. Examples:

  • Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) inserted language into the health care bill that will allow for coverage of abortions. When called on it, she fussed and fidgeted and gave an evasive answer. That should be for the opposition like blood in the water for a shark. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) even asked her at one point if she would insert the line "except for abortions" into the amendment so that she could garner more support. She declined. Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania) said he could not support the amendment because she made it so vague. A Democrat said that! The amendment passed anyway.
  • Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado) inserted language into the cap & trade bill that helps provide business to New Resource Bank in San Francisco, the nation's first so called "green bank." The problem is that Perlmutter is an investor in this bank. So is his ex-wife. So is his father. Can you say "undisclosed conflict of interest?"
  • Colorado is on a roll. Governor Bill Ritter just awarded the law firm of Hogan and Hartson a no-bid contract to review the disbursement of Colorado's stimulus money ($40,000 of which has already been paid to the law firm for their many jobs were created from that? I can guess...). The problem is that Hogan and Hartson is Ritter's former employer and several of the lawyers are Ritter supporters. Two of them, who are working directly with the money that has partially gone to them, are direct contributors to the governor's campaign.
  • Sarah Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house." That was Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live (while her impression was nearly spot on, I have a hard time believing that pundits and wags can't tell them apart). However, Palin's original statement has been lost and the country thinks that is what she actually said, thanks in no small part to it's being repeatedly attributed to her by the media. Back to the TOTBL (tactic of the big lie): if you repeat it often enough, it becomes the truth.
  • Maureen Dowd plagiarized a passage from another writer, changing only one phrase from "we were looking" to "the Bush crowd was looking." Aside from that passage, the two paragraphs were exactly the same - more than 40 words, identical, in the exact same order. That has to be like picking a 40 digit powerball winner! Supposedly she was told by a friend to make the point and somehow between the friend telling Dowd to make point and the actual making of the point she came up with the identical thought as the other author, only Bush-bashing for three words instead of using the royal "we." Did she lose her job? Get excoriated by her peers for committing what has to be the worst offense one journalist can inflict upon another? Nope. She apologized - without admitting she did anything wrong. End of story.
  • Bill O'Reilly's column this week dissects a piece in Newsweek where Palin, conservatives at large and Fox News in particular are attacked. O'Reilly's point is that if Newsweek were to openly say "we're trying to build a liberal/progressive base to keep us in business, and this opinion piece by a committed leftist is part of that strategy" there would be nothing wrong with it. But they didn't - they presented it as though the author was a Newsweek columnist. In reality he's a blogger who has an axe to grind against Fox News and lists among his interests "conservative failure."
So you can see the tactics being employed against the American people. As a politician you can do whatever you want with legislation, even if it directly benefits you, and no harm will come you as a result of it. Journalists can repeat lies, misrepresent their status and even steal from each other and that's all OK in today's America - as long as it benefits the liberal/progressive agenda.

You know what? I don't appreciate their ruse.


Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Here's a widget to track the status of H.R.3200 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Note to Michael Bennett

Senator Bennett,

I recently wrote to you regarding my concerns about Sonia Sotomayor. On June 5th you provided an eloquent response. One line from your note was: "Her skill and fair-mindedness on the federal bench has won the praise and support of Americans from all walks of life." Has it not also drawn scorn from people from all walks of life? Indeed, hasn't she had several decisions appealed and ultimately overturned?

You also said:"She brings with her a compelling life story and personal experience that will add to the Court̢۪s diversity and its shared understanding of how its decisions affect the daily lives of hardworking Americans." Are these now the qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice? Justice is supposed to be blind to race and gender - all people are equal before the law. Why then is race and gender - "diversity" - a qualifier for the supreme court? Her cases that have been appealed have been overturned more often than not, she feels that gender and race trump rule of law, and that the courts are where policies are made rather than enforced. Judges have been rejected in the past based on lower rates of overturned judgments, but you seem willing to look past this serious issue.

Activist judiciaries are usurping the power of the legislature, and yet the Senate, including you, seem to be determined to rush to confirm Sotomayor. Your note to me closed by saying that you value the input of Coloradoans. Is that really the case? I wonder only because, based on your response to my note, you seem to have made up your mind on Sotomayor before the confirmation hearings have even begun. I fully anticipate that the Democrat led Senate will confirm Sotomayor. I fear it will be done without a serious look at her record, and generations of Americans will pay the price for that haste.


Richard Baker

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Pride Goes Before A Fall

Obama, if you believe the media, is loved around the world. He's a great leader, a great man, a great orator. He's simply...great. He's greater than great. He's above the world, he's pan-human, like a god. That's all if you believe the media. But I think that's all a thin veneer, a $100 polish put on a $3 pair of boots by the media, which lives by Costanza's Rule: it's not a lie if YOU believe it.

Could it be that people around the world love him for other, less altruistic reasons? Look first at who has been the most hated. George W Bush, of course, was hated by the American left and by people world wide. He certainly had his faults, but he did liberate Iraq and put down the Taliban (though they've crawled their way back). Afghanistan is about to have an election where there will be actual choices for the first time in a long, long time. Iran was so encouraged by the liberation of Iraq that a month after their "elections" the people are still being locked away and punished for expressing their desire for freedom. He may not have protected the economy (not that the current state was all his fault either!) but he did liberate millions of people.

How about Reagan? Sarah Palin was/is absolutely despised after just being compared to him. He was hated world wide as the leader of "The Great Satan" and was called the anti-Christ because his first, middle and last names have 6 letters in them. He too liberated millions of people. He single-handedly led the West to victory in the cold war, proving that Communism eventually ends in bankruptcy and corruption. His call to tear down the Berlin Wall was answered, and people who had not known freedom for two generations were liberated. Those scenes of jubilation can't be forgotten. Unless you're a member of the committed left.

To the committed left, personal responsibility, free markets and individual liberty are all aberrations to be poisoned and killed like insects. For 233 years other nations, and at times our own people, have tried to alter and change the United States. As the most successful constitutional democracy in history, we have endured hard times, been brought to our knees a few times, but have never been knocked out. Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society were no match for Reagan's Shining City On A Hill. He succeeded because he knew what made this country great, and great leaders allow the strengths of those they lead to come to the surface.

Enter Obama. It's my belief that he is loved because he is the anti-Reagan. Carter's malaise brought us to our knees, but Reagan changed that. So for the committed left, and the America haters world wide, Obama represents the best chance in 29 years to knock the US from the top of the mountain. Of course they welcome him! He's going to do what the Soviet Union, Al Queda, the Taliban, the KKK, the Black Panthers, the Secessionists, the French, the English, the Nazis, the Empirical Japanese, SARs, West Nile and Swine Flu could not do. He's going to remake America into a weak imitation of the failed and failing societies around the world. Instead of bringing them up to our level, when he talks of level playing fields, he's bringing us down to theirs. And they don't have to any of the work!

The danger is that Obama views these open armed welcomes as validation of his world view; he sees an invitation to go and lecture everyone else about what we're doing wrong. The Democrats view his election as a vindication of their beliefs and a vilification of conservative values. The truth is far from this rosy interpretation. The left is joining the rest of the world in cheering the death of the things that have made America great, and the media is covering it as though it were Lindbergh landing in Paris, Armstrong walking on the moon and Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate all rolled into one. I think Obama is more like the Trojan Horse, waiting to bring misery to everyone inside our walls. The rest of the world can see it. Why can't we?

Our ace in the hole is that the truth always wins out in the end. As the reality of free market economics proves that you can't spend your way to prosperity and the recession lingers longer than it should, holes will begin to appear in the fabric of this deception. Obama's condescension will start to ring hollow to the less committed of those who supported him. Buyer's remorse will set in, and the pendulum will swing. Pride goes before a fall, and brother, Obama sure is proud.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

4th Of July, 2009

233 years ago the founders of this nation started a rebellion against tyranny. They didn't want glory, they didn't want power, they didn't want all other national leaders to like them or respect them. The wanted to be free. They no longer wanted the fruits of their labors to be confiscated by a government that did not represent them or their interests.

They created the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights specifically to LIMIT the power and size of the federal government and EMPOWER the individual, for they knew well the dangers of too much power residing in one place.

The created the three branches - Executive, Legislative and Judicial - so that there would be checks and balances against abuse of power. They established the free press to keep the people informed about the actions of their elected officials.

Think about this in the context of today's society. One party controls the Legislative and Executive Branches. The most recent nominee to the Supreme Court does not believe that a judge's role is to enforce law, but rather to set policy (the role of the legislature!) and she places race and gender above the rule of established law. The free press nearly unanimously dotes on the president, and the lone network who dares to levy criticism (Fox News) is made the punchline of a joke that isn't funny.

With the stance of the president very weakly denouncing the oppression of the Iranian people, and resoundingly against the constitutional uprising in Honduras, he has placed his foreign policy squarely at odds with the rule of law and constitutional freedom. What does this say about his deisigns for America?

Thomas Jefferson said "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty."

On this Independence Day, in which direction are we headed?

My latest message to Congresswoman Markey

Betsy Markey
US House Of Representatives
July 4, 2009
Congresswoman Markey,
I just received your mailer where you tout how you've been working for me, the taxpayer, by reluctantly voting against President Obamas titanic budget. In support of this claim you listed seven bullet points that show your dedication to bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington. Among these was voting against the release of the last $350 billion of the bailout package. Kudos to you.
However, when I examine your voting record, I'm puzzled. Among the bullets listing your fiscal responsibility and service to the community, nowhere is listed the votes for larger government at the taxpayer expense.
  • You voted FOR the $819 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This bill, which was needed ostensibly to keep unemployment under 6.4% (according to Christine Romer) has failed in that purpose as unemployment has surged to over 9%, but we're still stuck with the tab of this failed legislation.
  • You voted FOR the omnibus spending bill.
  • You voted AGAINST the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (which was intended to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability. Michael Bennet, Senator from Colorado voted for this in the Senate).
  • You voted to impose additional taxes on bonuses received from TARP money (this despite the fact that the TARP legislation explicitly authorized these bonuses). In other words, this arbitrary, confiscatory taxation removed money from American pockets - money the congress put there in the first place - and set a dangerous precedent that the government can take what it wants, when it wants.
  • You voted for the measure that gives federal employees 4 weeks of paid parental leave, adding (at taxpayer expense) to a benefits package that is already better than that of most Americans and adding money to the federal budget
  • And most recently, you voted FOR the cap and trade legislation which some estimates say will DOUBLE the energy costs of many American families, in particular those who get their electricity from coal fired power plants. Other negatives of this bill include estimates of at least 1.8 million jobs lost and a $283 Billion reduction in the GDP by 2030 and $1.1 Trillion by 2050.
So while I appreciate your mailer touting your fiscal conservancy, it seems like many politicians you're handing me a dollar with one hand while plucking two from my wallet with the other. Now, more than ever, the American people are watching our elected officials. How they vote on EVERY issue matters, so I hope you remember that when you go to vote on the next issue and send your next mailer. Happy 4th of July!!
Richard Baker
Longmont, CO

Friday, July 3, 2009

Every Player Has Their Tell

This has been a busy week...people are dying for trying to express their opinions in Iran and our president could care less; a coup in Honduras, executed to preserve their fragile constitution, has been swiftly condemned by our president in a show of unity with Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers; the conservative movement lost the first cap and trade battle in the House, Al Franken was awarded his Senate seat and another celebrity seems to die with each passing day. Whew, that's a lot to process. I think out of all of this the Honduras-Iran comparison tells us a lot more than what's happened on the surface.

Anyone who has any lingering hope that Obama is not a complete leftist need only look at his reactions to world events over the last week to have those hopes crushed. Like a poker player who can't stop smiling when he has four aces, Obama may have unintentionally tipped his hand regarding his real hopes for change in this administration.

While taking a "wait and see" approach to people trying exercise freedom of speech and assembly in Iran (rights we take for granted), he waited until China and Russia - CHINA and RUSSIA!! - spoke against the harsh treatment of protesters before "strongly condemning" the actions.

Yet in Honduras, when the constitution was threatened and a coup was executed to protect it, Obama rallied round the issue with this hemisphere's most notorious dictators to denounce it. Why be so quick to bash one and slow to attack the other? One could postulate what he's thinking:

On Honduras: "Gee, all the president was trying to do was change the constitution so he could continue his rule! What's so bad about that? When I try that I don't want to be arrested and dropped off at the border!"

On Iran: "Gee, all the mullahs are doing is protecting the fraudulent results of a bogus election, and the people are being really unreasonable! I wish we could shut down the internet, arrest people at will and shoot and hang protesters with no repercussions in this country. Why should I condemn them for doing what I don't have the power to do...yet."

But if one were to postulate such thoughts, one would have absolutely no faith in our leader, would one?

Obama has made a career of being sufficiently vague about his beliefs so as to allow people to draw their own conclusions about what his stance on issues really is, and thus far it's worked for him. He'd better develop a real platform of beliefs and make them public soon, or the conclusions people draw will not be to his liking. I don't hold out much hope for that my opinion, he's too concerned about his image to worry about substance or principle. What cards is he holding in this political poker game, and is he a good enough player to win? I guess we'll find out soon enough, but at least now we can see his more of his strategy.