Obama vs Cheney: Judges decision goes to...

Bloggers, newspapers, news shows seem to have the Obama/Cheney fight buzz. I am no different. Let me summarize both speeches since they take a lot of time. Obama continued in his normal rhetoric saturated fluff that sounds great (transcript reads well too), but ultimately had no substance and lacked specific evidence. I'll admit, that if it were different circumstances, and if I didn't have B.S. Meter installed, I would swallow his tall, dark, and handsome oratory ambrosia everyday. But, since the meter went off the charts today, please allow me articulate why.

Here's Obama's summary:

1. America has values, subsequently, I am speaking from a position of moral authority so don't question me.
2. Fear drove the inept decision making that led to abuse of powers and we should not be fear mongers to promote our illegal policies.
3. We [America] went awol on morality and I will bring us back.

I have to admit, the frustration and misinformation that was so draining, I had to stop watching the video and just read the transcript. It was faster and less brain cells had to die in the process.

Cheney's Speech Summary:

1. I just PWNED Obama.

Nice job Cheney. Too bad you could not have been this eloquent during your time in office. I wonder if you were held back, like Palin.

Here's the problem I have with all of Obama's (and those who agree) commentary. What gall does he have to declassify the methods of obtaining information (waterboarding) but is not willing to disclose the information extracted (i.e. the plans of killing and death averted)? By the way, Cheney asked last week to fully disclose everything so that the American people could decide for themselves, but instead, we are kept in the dark by the only guy with the power who preaches transparency. Kind of hypocritical Obama, don't you think?

Furthermore, if waterboarding is torture, and I don't agree that it is (we train our troops with waterboarding), why does Obama still reserve the right to implement it in the future? Does he really believe that it's torture? Answer: No, because if it's wrong, then it needs to be outlawed. However, he does not believe that and I think he reads the results and wants to keep it in reserve. A tool in the back of the shed for special circumstances.

I'm sorry, but intellectual dishonesty Mr. President. Wrong is wrong, not wrong if Bush uses it and right because I may want to. Aaaaaaaaah! It's not relative to the name on the Oval Office door.

Here's the deal, at the end of the day, we were terrorist attack free for 7.5 years. At the end of the day, Bush and Cheney did their job. I don't agree with everything they have done, in fact, I disagree with most of their financial policies except for the tax cuts, but it worked. We were not attacked and I, for one, am very very very very very happy for this.

If you believe waterboarding is torture, fine, we will have to agree to disagree. But I find it completely disingenuous for a follow-up administration to criminalize and consider prosecuting the employees who produced a perfect record when this new administration has not been in office for 6 months.

There is no way he could have taken the appropriate amount of time necessary to analyze the last 8 years in this short amount of time, especially when his first 100 days were spent bailing out companies who should have gone bankrupt, driving our debt mind boggling levels, and firing the CEO's of a major automotive manufacturer. How can he condemn a president for taking unprecedented measures to protect American citizens from death (Homeland Security) and yet be the only president in history to overstep his authority and fire a private company's boss? The only way is through hypocrisy.

If you want to get a hold of the same source material, here it is.

Obama's Transcript of Speech

Cheney's Speech: Part 1 2 3 4

P.S. To California voters...GREAT JOB YESTERDAY! You pwned Arnold and our legislatures. I'm so proud.

Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"

Were you aware of the Earth Hour movement? It started in Australia and is born out of the Global Warming hoax...ahem...excuse me, it's now referred as "climate change." Not to travel too far down this rabbit trail, but it begs the question: When isn't the climate changing? Funny, freaky fact: Obama has just banned the use of the words: "terror," "war on terror," and "terrorists" from terrorist acts. They are now renamed "Overseas Contingency Operations." If I can restate this in non-gov doublespeak. It means Obama wants to change Foreign Policy when we respond to terrorist activities (Contingency = in response to). For the layman, preventing terrorist activities is not an option because we only have operations that respond to terrorists. They kill people first, then we act. How is this good for us?

I digress to more humorous hypocrisy, back to Al. So, Mr. Global Warming himself didn't get the memo that he was supposed to shut off his electricity last Saturday night for an hour. Here's the article.

Let me leave you with these thoughts:
"Do you really believe that what you believe is really real." -Del Tackett

Does Al Gore really believe what he preaches? Or perhaps, maybe he holds to a different belief, one that allows him to be hypocritical. I shall call it liberalism.

Thanks to Jer for the keeping me up on Mr. Internet.

Nice vs. Nasty: The Movement that Is Destroying Critical Intelligent Thinking

This morning I was listening to Armstrong and Getty's Talk show and they read from an article in The Australian, an online newspaper in. And yep, you guessed it, published in online Australia. Everything is going online and pretty soon The Matrixwill become more than a movie. More on Adam's blog about this and the effect of social networking can be found here.

The article was entitled Discipline overthrown by the new-found tyranny of niceness. It focused mainly around the topic of failed schools and the possible causes. Kenneth Minogue states,

"My argument is, then, that the collapse of family and school discipline largely results from a dominant moral sentiment that we may call "the niceness movement". Niceness as a political sentiment has many departments -- political correctness is one, for example -- but I am concerned largely with its sentimental undermining of authority in family and classroom. The selling point of this niceness was, as it were, that pupils would become a nicer, gentler generation, but in fact the disorderly tendencies that teachers soon lost the power to check have spilled over into the playground, where bullying has long been increasing, and from the playground this disorder has spread into the streets. Thus can politicised compassion lead to misery.

Moral vices prosper by dressing themselves as virtues. Niceness presents itself as benevolence but is often merely an evasion of hard decisions that the realities of human nature require. And it has spread throughout our societies because it is often popular with voters. The road to hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions, and so is a good deal of democratic politics."

I couldn't have written this more eloquently, except the spelling error of "politicised." Then again, I can't spell or use a comma, correctly, anyways. Who am I to critize?

But this article did get me to think. It did get me to ponder. Armstrong and Getty's commentary concluded that it comes back to the same argument, a feel good view that the world can be always seen as "oppressor verses oppressed." The political tipping point for the average voter has boiled down to simply this, which party can best portray the other as the oppressor? And this, combined with our inability to critically think, has led to our current debacle in the economy and abandonment of decent morality. Let me explain.

Personal responsibility has been watered down, devalued and subsequently, diminished as a virtue in our culture. It has been replaced with entitlement and a host of "feel good" belief systems. Do not think me to be so naive that I see this as something new, nevertheless, there is continuous evidence leading us back from adulthood to adolescence.

Mr. Minogue puts it this way, "Niceness presents itself as benevolence but is often merely an evasion of hard decisions that the realities of human nature require." What does this mean? We have a jar of M&M shells filled with dung, not chocolate, and call it sweet. Sure it looks like candy. Tastes like candy...at first. BUT, don't dive in too far because you will uncover something unpleasant, therefore, just leave it in the jar and believe it to be candy. Don't throw it away and get something real, just leave crap on the table and call it candy. And in doing this, you miss the greatest opportunity for advancement, the opportunity of pain and difficulty.

This "evasion of hard decisions" has led us to not address problems today with critical thinking. We make decisions based upon how we feel and determine it's goodness from emotion, not sound reasoning. When did America regress? Children do what feels good, and adults do what's right. I believe that America has become like a child, being led by the hand and spoon fed politically correct ideas that in the end, hurt us as a people.

What kind of country allows a woman to sue McDonald's and win, because she didn't have the words "Caution: Hot Drink" on the cup? (Liebeck vs.McDonald's) Answer: An America that believes she is oppressed by the larger oppressor, McDonald's.

What kind of country allows us to murder unborn children upwards in the tens of millions, the equivalent of Canada's population (source), in the name of choice? Answer: An America that believes the adult is the victim, oppressed by the Religious Right.

What kind of country would sit by idly while some call for the execution of AIG executives and their families with piano wire when the very government who caused this problem owns 80% of AIG? Answer: An America that believes people who lied on their loan applications and couldn't afford the home were swindled (oppressed) by the larger (oppressor) lenders who should have known better.

Now, I realize that my sarcasm and pointed articulation is uncomfortable and unpalatable to most people. However, you who read my blogs regularly are not regular people. You are not normal. Dave Ramsey would say, "Normal is broke, so let's get weird." I'm gonna modify it for politics and state, "Normal is a lemming, so let's weird."

I call you to exercise your cranium, muster some courage, and stand for integrity and principle. We cannot sit by and do nothing while the fundamentally foundational freedoms are eroded daily by men and women, who claim falsely, they do this in our best interests. I refuse to believe that another being, other than Jesus Christ, can have something better in mind for me than myself.

So, if being "Nasty" means that I promote individual liberty, expect personal responsibility from all, and stand up to those who believe otherwise...well, I'm sorry Mr. Politically Correct, but you will just have to live with me calling you an ignoramus and a dunce. And I hope that works out for you.

Evangelicals betrayed by a prodigal son.

I came across this video and, if there was a Richter scale (Yes, that is how it is spelled, I checked) in Pangea, I would put this at an 8 for how pissed off I was. And if you know me, it takes a lot to even register on my scale. However, when a "evangelical" starts opening his mouth and only crap comes out...well, I can't help but respond.

I'm going to let you watch the video where he is interviewed on DL Hughley's show and then continue on for my response.

Warning: This video contains intellectual dishonesty and psychological absurdity. Viewer discretion is advised.


Other sources to read:
Wikipedia Entry
Article in Christianity Today
Interview with Frank by John Whitehead from Rutherford.org

Now, let me start by confirming some, yes there is some, truth to his story. Did the Evangelical Right go nuts in the 80's and early 90's? Yes, absolutely they went wacko. Did many preachers, teachers, and motivational speakers become celebrities, daresay, approach demigod status? Yes, many did. Do I believe that is currently valid today? Absolutely not!

After viewing this video, reading opposing viewpoints, and reading Frank Schaeffer's own words I believe that I know too little about his father, Francis Schaeffer, to come to any definite conclusions. The only impression I get is Frank grew up in a dysfunctional family and became disillusioned with who his family was. There was the public and private Francis who existed very differently, maybe in fact, completely opposed. I am not sure, but one thing I know is it was not a life of integrity, therefore, Frank had no example to follow.

With that said, I leave you to your own conclusions or research about this man, the ministry he was involved with and dynamics of his family. I will now only address items in the video I found deplorable.

Video Response:
First, Bush was unqualified? How was he less qualified than our current president? He's getting his executive experience for the executive branch...on-the-job. Do you really want to make that case Frank?

Second, Sarah Palin energized the Republican Party because she actually was a Republican. I know that simple statements are hard to understand for all you educated on television folk, but we down here in little ol' America like simple. And in case you wanted to know why a Republican president wasn't elected? Well, that is simple to. There wasn't a republican to vote in for president. McCain is a moderate. Maw-dur-ett. No, not murderer. Just because he was in Vietnam does not make him a murderer **cough** Kerry **cough, cough**

Third point of notice...You "changed" your mind? I would argue you hopped out of the frying pan into the fire. A.k.a. From hypocritical father to hypocritical president. On one end, according to your own words, you're father lived one life in the public and one life in private. Obama says one thing and does the opposite.

Man this guys audacity and uninformed conclusions astound me and offend my intelligence. The Religious Right is responsible for "8 years of a bad presidency, a collapsed economy, two wars (one of which we should not have been in)." Um, 8 years of Bush may have not been America's golden years, but I'm damned well pleased to have him over Dean or Gore. The collapsed economy is not Bush's fault entirely. He contributed to the government's growth which widened the door for an already ticking time bomb in the housing market (Thanks Clinton and Carter). They are the real originators of this problem. 2 wars, yes two wars. Bush had a very good economy, until the last year, despite the largest attack on American soil ever and two wars.

Furthermore, Mr. Schaeffer, it is your democratic party that also voted the war possible. The executive branch does not have the power to engage in wars. Only Congress does. They are responsible for your two "unjustified" wars. If you want to call terrorists attacking America (Osama, Afghanistan) and 300,000+ murders in mass graves (Hussein, Iraq) unjustified. We won't go into detail about the 14 broken UN resolutions, chemical weapons development, or oppressive regime Sadam was responsible for.

I have to say that this Schaeffer guy really urks me. He uses his background in religion to legitimize his shaky and unfounded political opinions. It is very shaky ground to weave religion and politics together. They exist together harmoniously in very few places and even fewer places, but to use this platform in this way makes criticism especially difficult. For to criticize men who are affiliated with piety, one must tread carefully to separate Christ from the human. He does not do this well, in fact, he does it horribly at the expense of the memory of his parents, those who were involved in the ministry and those of the "religious right" he hopes to sway.

Did you guys catch the phrase, "the greatest miracle of your lifetime...is the election of Barack Obama?" Hmmm, how about the Blacks getting the right to vote? What about landing on the moon? How about the birth of your child? You are telling me that a man who was put into office less than 2 months ago is miraculous? Please. I refuse to allow my judgment on a man's legacy to be determined when a few fortnights haven't even passed.

Here's the last hypocritical statement I'll leave you readers with today. This blatant disregarding of his own words is what current political powers today are echoing. Be on the look out for this fallacy at about 6:15.

"[We] would rather take the whole country down and be proved right, than be patriotic Americans and stand up and do the thing that every American who loves this country would do right now, which is to support the president whether you voted for him or not." Followed by exuberant applause.

Excuse me, Mr. Schaeffer, can I borrow your soapbox so that I can state to liberals across America: WHY DIDN'T YOU SUPPORT BUSH WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT WHETHER YOU VOTED FOR HIM OR NOT?! Hypocritical panderers to masses.

When it's not popular to have your viewpoint, then we'll see how vocal you are. It's only when you stand alone do you realize your beliefs are all that you have. Christ or otherwise. Don't tell me to fall into line like a little American lemming. The government was founded out of a revolution moron! Our country realized it's birth from a mother country that oppressed and abused the writers of the Constitution.

You scoff at the Republican party and Conservatives, call us oppressive and intolerant. Yet it is your party who tried to draft and is still trying to create the Fairness Doctrine to silence free speech. We are the ones who defend your right to try IDIOT! And you stand on your soapbox and tell me I'm a "woman molester." C'mon dude. Really? And I'm the one who is crass and loud.

I'm sorry folks, but people like this who have religious backgrounds and still claim some watered down form of it upset me greatly. I know what it is like to live a hypocritical life where one marries flesh to spirit. It is an unholy abomination to all the is pure and right. I am ashamed of the old life I once lived and if there is anything I don't tolerate, it's a double-minded human.

I am an armchair economist! Nice...

Letter to the Editor in response to "Obstructionists, naysayers abound"

Dear Ms Norine Matteson,

It is with great trepidation and concern that I pen these words in response to yours, “Obstuctionists, naysayers abound,” dated 2/20/09. Although I do not personally know you, your perspective and opinions carry the aroma of a scent that permeates an already rampant sickness. This sickness does not display itself in one’s body, for you, I’m sure, are a healthy and beautiful young woman. No, this sickness saturates the mind of an Obamanation, with a euphoria only witnessed between lovers who blindly think the other can do no wrong.

Please afford me the grace to correct your statements, although passionate, are unfounded with fact. I wonder who you are imagining in your mind when you refer to “armchair economists.” Who are qualified to speak in this area? Perhaps, you, with your many degrees and accolades in economics, sociology, central planning, and finance can speak more firmly than those, but allow me to humbly state, one does not need a degree of higher learning to declare rightly “Shenanigans!” And believe me, this “vocal minority” is, in fact, the silent majority.

You stated we “haven’t any official idea of what the stimulus contains,” intending that we reserve judgment for our congressman and president to see the fruits before we take any stance. The official documentation has been made public and is viewable. I also find it rather humorous and saddening that you blame Bush for the housing deflation, when the only thing we should be upset with is his increase of the deficit to $482 Billion. Look up the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 the seeds of your malcontent. The hypocrisy in America today is astounding when it judges so harshly a man who took 8 years to create the $482 Billion deficit despite the largest attack on American soil in history, yet Obama has tripled the deficit to more than $1.4 Trillion in just 2 months. More on this subject material can be found at RustyPang.com.

Ultimately, my dear Matteson, I am disappointed in your words, not because you penned them, but that so many in America echo them, and the many more who disagree have not rioted over their elected abuse. Your blessed elected president, Mr. B.O. himself, tells you one thing and does another. He passes the largest “stimulus” bill in history, more than double our federal budget in 1982, but more than 65% of the spending is social programs and non-job creation spending and has the gall to tell you he will not allow wasteful spending. He is attempting to nationalize banks, the auto industry, and others just because his socialist and Keynesian economic ideals tell him to do so, despite any real evidence of its successful application. I know you want change, but so does every human being. Life is not perfect and we desire to improve ourselves; this is a great thing. However, blind belief in a man who passes failed laws, in a failed system, based upon failed ideals…Well, such a man will be deemed as a failure.

Benjamin Franklin once stated, “those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” Obama sells security, and you are buying it.

Rusty Pang, Armchain Economist and Vacavillian
"With all thy getting, get thy understanding."

I am surrounded by morons!

Here's what it looked like in Mesa, AZ yesterday when Obama gave his speech promoting his another bailout, this time for $75 Billion for Mortgages.

Rock star entrance for Obama's speech yesterday in Mesa, AZ.


Speech Part 1


Speech Part 2


Speech Part 3


Text of Speech Link

I just want to comment in one area. He ended his speech on "Core Values" if it was some profound truth we somehow missed these past 8 years (Bush Administration). He said that all must share in responsibility and it was broken down like this:

Government: Responsible for making more fair rules and that they are fairly enforced.
Banks: It's your fault for lending poorly and causing this crisis. You will be punished.
Individuals: Take responsibility for your actions, i.e. you borrowed too much.
Everyone: Live within your means.

Um...Mr. President? Can you take your own advice and have this government live within it's own means? What's with the 789 billion increase in deficit, 700 Billion in TARP 1, and now 75 Billion in a foreclosure bailout? That totals to 1.564 TRILLION DOLLARS in less than 2 months that this government is spending. We aren't even in the 2nd Quarter yet.

The part that upsets me the most about this whole situation, government doesn't get a single blame in this whole thing. Let me layout some common sense, and common blame. I'll save the government for last.

Banks: You've are stupid. You lended too much too quick to try and make as much money as possible. You got sloppy drunk on credit and now you have to pay for the headache you caused yourself. This is why I left Travis Credit Union. When my promotion became dependent upon getting members to fill out credit card applications for credit they did not need...Well, peace out to you.
Individuals: You were also stupid and greedy. You bought too much house, spent more than you make and dropped it on credit cards, and then when you realize you couldn't afford it all...You complain. Greed and gluttony. You deserve the foreclosure and bankruptcy, unless you are a Christian, to whom God still expects you to repay the debt. "Poor" people have cars, televisions, cell phones and fat guts to boot. I don't pity you.
Individuals: Grow up. Become an adult. Children eat more than they should. Children spend their money without care. And only children complain they have nothing after they spent it all. Adults say "No" to themselves. Adults, as Dave Ramsey would state, "Live like no one else today, so tomorrow you can live like no one else." It's called delayed gratification. If you want this "crisis" to end, grow up America!
Government: As for you. What non-four-lettered word can I use to describe you? Are there words to describe the level of despicable and abhorrent behavior I have seen over these past 4 years, yes, Bush to. The housing crisis started with Carter's Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. It was expanded during the Clinton years and this is the real agent to blame. Stupid government mandated that lenders have to, not should, but have to lend to poor people. I'm sorry, did I not get the memo? I thought being poor meant you could not afford a house payment? So, why should they have to lend to people who couldn't afford house payments?

The natural result was sub-prime mortgages, which make lenders a lot of money, and then pass them off to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'm not saying people and lenders were dumb for doing this, but Obama, for God's sake, stop blaming everyone else except the government.

Am I the only crazy one here? When I first heard about interest only loans, I thought, "Why would you do this? Mortgage rates are at a 40-year low, which means it can only adjust up. So, if you can barely afford as it is now, what are you going to do when it adjusts?" This is a bad deal for everyone. WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO SEE?

I was 19 and understood this. How can a 19-yr old who never has taken a mortgage out know this, but everyone who took out this type of loan did not? I am not a genius. It does not require a math degree to understand this?

Why do I feel like I am surrounded by morons? I have lost faith in the American people. Someone please tell me we are not this dumb.

If we are so dumb to think that more debt can fix our already overly leveraged lives, than God help us. I think I want to emigrate to the moon. At least real estate is affordable over there. Someone shoot me before I steal the space shuttle, America will be dubbed the Obamanation upon my departure.

Update: A quote by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to reporters yesterday, "This is necessary policy. It’s smart economics. And it’s just and fair." This is the guy running our treasury.

Can anyone teach me how to build a bomb shelter and refine my urine into drinking water?

Obama's speech is now renamed: "I think I have a dream, can I get an interpretation?"

ABC News Transcript

Obama's Speech Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I'd like to give kudos to President Obama, formerly known as President-elect Obama. Well done sir. You have yet to disappoint me in material. Here we are only in your first day and I already have a chest of gold nuggets to cash in. Please, keep doing your thing so that I can keep writing.

Although, I have plenty of content to write about, I honestly walked away from the ceremony disappointed. Obama didn't shine like he normally does when he reads the teleprompter. Feel free to read my blog about Rev. Lowery's prayer for some fun.

However, allow me to bring to light some of the more deceptive aspects of Obama's words. I will try to interject some humor...No promises.

He began with opening remarks of grace for Bush's contribution, which was kind of him. But he then laid the foundation of crisis: bad economy, war, failure to make hard choices, lost homes, failing schools, and expensive health care. Though I agree with the state of affairs, we certainly disagree on the causes. Furthermore, his intended methods are misplaced as well.

He "proclaim[s] an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas" stating, like a father mentoring a young adult "the time has come to set aside childish things." That's nice rhetoric but your speech is just like every other so far.

Now comes the stuff I want to hear.

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

Um...what do you mean the "ground" has shifted. Who moved the dirt from under my feet? Can't they see I'm walking here. Oh, you mean politically. So, you mean that I can't disagree with you? I'm gonna pull from V and say, "People should not fear their governments, governments should fear its people." If being a cynic means you are completely wrong, count me in. Government doesn't work, it's inefficient and that is common knowledge. The only thing government knows how to do well is take, not earn, money from people through taxes and then overspend what it gets.

"then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government." I'm going to call say you're full of crap on this one. I will never trust the government to do a better job for me than I can do for myself.

"a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous." Socialism? I could have sworn "HE'S NOT A SOCIALST!" Economies only thrive when it favors the successful. In other words, it only works when it benefits the prosperous. They are prosperous because they provided a service, or product to many people who needed it.

"Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions." Do I sense a measure of appeasement? Yeah, that worked really well for Chamberlain.

"What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task."

What difficult task are you referring to? Bigger government? More taxes? Naw...

I implore you to watch or read the transcript. There is more non-information to soak up. I tried to put myself in the place of a liberal democrat and I would find it hard to be inspired.

The whole event had an air of solemnity rather than celebration. He spoke of hope but what are we supposed to place our confidence in? This speech parallels every other speech and this is the reason why I can only resort back to his voting record. And his voting record is extremely liberal.

Just words. Just speeches. No substance.

Would MLK turn in his grave?

Today, we have a national holiday dedicated to the progress Martin Luther King made with how black folk are viewed. Ironically, he was able to accomplish ten-fold more in his death than while he was alive. Assassinations tend to create martyrs for movements, often causing, or at least accelerating, the very thing their death was meant to prevent.

MLK was known for his calls to non-violent protesting through moving and powerful speeches. Pulling from his Baptist minister's experience and the success of Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent activist methods, he was able to bring to light many of the injustices of a society struggling to live out the principles of the Bill of Rights.

His most well referred to speech in 1963, "I Have a Dream," (transcript) he states that, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

I was talking with Jer this morning about the hypocrisy that our nation celebrates a man who wants all to be judged equally by qualities interior to the neglect of the exterior, but votes based upon his race, not the issues. Translation: Obama's color should have no bearing on why he was elected. But, as we all know, this was not the case. In fact, this is so not the case, I'll boldly state he was elected becausehe was black.

Check my note on facebook concerning his lack of qualification.

Now, that I've punched your pride in the face, let me provide you with some text I read from The Reporter, dated 1/18/09, reprinted from David Early, San Jose Mercury News.

"To be black in America on Jan 20,2009...A blizzard of giddy emotions will envelop the souls of millions of black folks in America and all over the world...So before Obama comes under attack from the many remaining forces of ignorance and bigotry, I will revel with my family." Full Article

Although, I don't believe it wrong to identify with any candidate you share an ethnicity with, that does not mean that the state of the country has changed or somehow we have gotten past the issue of race, as Mr. Early believes. Let me elaborate:

If Obama was elected because he was black and America has now gotten over it's historical racism, what would be the natural conclusion if he was not elected president? You can only conclude that America is still racist, under this line of thinking, because we were unwilling to elect a black person. However, what if I disagreed with the man's political point of view? Am I a racist? If American discrimination is solved by electing people into office, then we should have found a black woman, Condoleeza Rice maybe, and get two birds with one stone.

Hmmmm...On second thought, that isn't enough of a representation. How about a black woman who is lesbian minister? Did I miss any minority groups? Oh wait, she needs to be a black, native american, chinese lesbian transgender minister.

Do you see why this is getting ridiculous? Where does one draw the line? Here's the reality.

My generation has experienced a level of affluence and opportunity unprecedented in all of human history. I grew up in a country where no one racial group was killed or denied their basic human rights laid out in the Constitution. Sure, we "heard" of the injustices, but my generation has either no personal experience or a very limited amount of discrimination. Even if there are valid incidents, they are isolated and rare enough to not be considered remotely systematic. My peers are unaware of any real oppression resulting in crying wolf over trite and immaterial things. Watch Crash and you'll see the hypocrisy and abuse reflected in the movie.

So, Rusty, what are you trying to say? Give it to me in a nutshell? All right, here it is...

Obama used his blackness and charming charisma to get elected on the backs of a failed Conservative message. I don't blame him for using everything at his disposal. I blame the American people. He did not get elected because of any real change. He is not the black FDR and even if he becomes one, the New Deal did not save this country from depression. WWII did.

Obama, if he continues to act in line with his voting record, will be the most liberal, socialist president we have ever had in history. The sad part, David Early would call me a member of this society who is "bigoted and ignorant."

On the contrary, a man who doesn't understand his vote is either ignorant at best, and at worse, a hypocrite. For anyone who tells me that I cannot disagree with our Democratic President, enjoys the protection of the untouchable race card, a luxury the blind elite exercise to defend their right to be a bigot-a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Summary: Today we celebrate a man's dream for equality that envisioned a colorblind society. Tomorrow, we spit on the concept, because the nation will celebrate the inauguration of a president who was elected by the color of his skin, rather than the content of his character.