Saturday, May 9, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The media have launched a smear assault on the upcoming tea parties, from Rachel Maddow (who, apparently, is in fact an 11-year-old boy) spending thirteen minutes talking about how much Republicans love teabagging Obama (not kidding, she actually did) to the widespread portrayal of these rallies as for sore-loser Republicans who aren’t happy with the president.
Well, no. That’s not true.
I am not a conservative, strictly speaking; I’m a right-leaning (in that I oppose abortion and like secure borders) libertarian. I am not a member of the Republican party, or even a supporter of Republicans generally.
So why am I going to a tea party? Because of all of them—all the big-government hacks in Washington who are intent on destroying our freedoms, shredding our Constitution, and burdening our grandchildren with an insurmountable debt.
I’m not just mad at Obama and the Democrats. To be sure, they’ve contributed a lot to the problem. But we knew that ahead of time. Democrats have favored a huge, intrusive government with a massive budget for almost a hundred years.
What’s really gotten me angry is the Republicans—the party of responsibility, balanced budgets, and small government no longer. It’s you, George Bush, who tripled the size of government. It’s you, John McCain, for wanting to continue the same thing. It’s every one of you senators and congressmen who go along with big government agendas. It’s every member of Congress who went along with George Bush’s huge government because he’s “one of our guys,” but have now suddenly discovered conservative principles to stand against Obama’s even bigger government. Spare me. If you believe big government is wrong, you believe it’s wrong regardless of what letter is next to the name of the person pushing it.
I’m mad because people are losing their love of liberty. We’ve become a nation of slaves. And the new slavery doesn’t have whips and chains, it’s a nice, happy slavery—but it’s still slavery. The new slavery is government handouts—we can have free housing, free healthcare, a guaranteed job or a guaranteed paycheck, free food. All we have to do is accept the terms of the people providing these things—buy the kind of food they think we should eat, go to the doctors they want us to see…but hey, it’s the least we can do when they give us so much free stuff. Well, no. I refuse to be a slave. I would rather fail as an individual than live comfortably at the will of another. Government dependence is as evil and destructive as the slavery of the nineteenth century, and I will fight it with everything I’ve got. I may not be able to make a difference (at least as far as changing the outcome), but I will be heard.
I’m mad because our leaders think it’s not only acceptable but noble to run over the rights of some, as long as more people benefit. And many people want to go along out of sincere, though misguided, compassion. But they’re wrong. It is never proper to trample one person’s rights. Could you feed an entire city by confiscating all of, say, Bill Gates’ assets? Of course. But it isn’t right: not because feeding people is wrong, but because when you ignore one person’s rights you ignore everyone’s. If you can arbitrarily run over this person, as long as others will be helped, than you can arbitrarily run over everyone. And I reject that outright. I respect the individual. I believe that one person’s rights—life, liberty, property—are sacred. Individual rights are worth more than any public good. People are not tools of the government; the government is a necessary evil that we should tolerate ONLY to protect our individual rights. And when individual rights become a necessary sacrifice for collective needs, there is no more free society.
I’m mad that our debt—not including our massive unfunded social programs—is so massive that every American citizen will owe over $50,000 to pay for it. I’m madder that this fact has produced no desire by politicians of either party to spend less. On the contrary, the rate of spending has accelerated exponentially in the last eight months as one company after another has become “too big to fail”—code for “big enough that we want to control it.” I’m mad that within ten years the deficit—let alone the actual debt—will be almost equal to the value of everything we produce in a year. I’m mad that our grandchildren are being burdened with this massive obligation—the ultimate “taxation without representation” as our habits levy enormous taxes from people who haven’t even been born yet.
So it’s not about the president—he’s just the latest face on this impending disaster of tax-spend-and-let-future-generations-worry-about-it politics. It’s not about party, or being a sore loser—I opposed this when George Bush was doing it, and if I’m more vocal it’s because Obama has condensed eight years of Bush’s government growth into a few months. The issue’s been there all along, and I’ve spoken about it often. I’m going to the streets now only because it’s accelerating so fast that a crisis point we may have avoided for another couple of generations has suddenly been pushed up—a lot. And if we don’t change how we do this now, we may not get another chance.
That’s what this tea party is about.
So in the wake of the lead-painted toy scare, the Omnipotent Federal Government has reached ludicrous heights of nanny-state-ism. Of course, there was the story Glenn Beck relentlessly pursued about banning ATVs and dirt bikes for under-12s, based on unsafe levels of lead in the gears and brakes which could cause damage if ingested (for the record, I agree with Beck on this: if your kid is stupid enough to lick the brakes or gearbox of a dirt bike, they probably deserve whatever happens to them).
But now they’ve gone even further into dictatorial realms. The Imperial Government has decided that “mommy blogs”—sites where parents share personal experiences and recommendations about various products—fall under advertising laws, and anyone who posts a positive review of a product that turns out to be dangerous could be held liable.
These are not professional advertisers, claiming the product is safe despite knowing that it’s not. These are everyday people, honestly relating their experience with something. If it didn’t hurt them as of the time of the review, they had no way of knowing it could have (or would soon) do so. Holding them liable is ludicrous. And it’s dangerous. If expressing an opinion, based on incomplete or faulty information, makes you criminally (or civilly) liable for damages done by someone else’s negligence, there’s really no way to safely express an opinion anymore. McCain-Feingold, Fairness Doctrine, and now this—free speech is dead.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
So I’m sure you heard about the Somali pirate debacle. These thugs captured a US-flagged ship and held the crew hostage. I’ll admit I was worried for a bit—what exactly would the spineless jellyfish in the White House do? He’s so much like Carter, and I can’t help but remember (well, sort of—it was well before my time) how Carter responded to American citizens being held hostage—he said some snivelly, ineffectual things and it took over a year (not to mention the election of a new president who actually had a pair) for them to be released.
Turns out I needn’t have worried at all. You see, these people took it upon themselves to do whatever they needed to do, no matter how hard. I can’t imagine being an unarmed sailor taking on a crew of AK-toting thugs—but these people found the courage to do so. They didn’t demand (or probably even expect) help, they helped themselves—and managed to solve their problems without the government doing a thing.
I’m hoping it’s obvious I’m no longer speaking just about that freighter crew.
There is not a single problem in America that needs the government to solve it. They can all be fixed simply by the American people getting up, steeling themselves, and doing what’s right—no matter how hard or frightening it is. Would it be painful? Of course. Will we be comfortable with it? Probably not. But by tackling the problems head-on, doing the hard but necessary thing, we will actually solve them. By letting the government defy the basic laws of silly things like economics, or basic mathematics, common sense, the Constitution, or even the laws they invented, we make ourselves comfortable today. But that comfort comes at a terrible price—we’re building a massive house of cards that will, someday, collapse—if not on us, then on our children.
Everyone’s running around with their hair on fire screaming about how we have to save the economy. We don’t. Our economy has become a ludicrous shell game—we spend money we don’t have, so banks can loan that money to other people who don’t have it. We juggle our debt, hoping to keep it in the air forever. But because we keep spending, we’re constantly expanding the loop, trying to juggle more things. That’s how the government works, that’s how that average moron with 8 credit cards lives—and eventually we won’t be able to keep up. We don’t need to pump money back into the system to keep it going—the system is built on a lie, that’s why it collapsed in the first place, and if we try to keep it going we’ll just get another collapse. It’s like those moving walkways in the airport—we’ve been running on an economic moving walkway for twenty years, but it couldn’t go on forever and once we reached the end our feet couldn’t keep up. What’s the solution? Build another walkway, knowing eventually that one will end too? Or fall on our face, take the sting and the embarrassment, then pick ourselves back up and carry on a bit wiser? Which one sounds like a better idea? We don’t need to prop the economy back up, we need to suffer through the painful process of completely restructuring it—building a new economy. A new economy like the old one, based on working, saving, investing, and above all producing real things of real value—not another economy based on spending every penny we have and then some, basing our entire life on the assumption that things will get better forever (and we’re royally screwed if we’re wrong).
We may be afraid of that pain, we may not think we can do it—or at least many in the country have been conditioned to believe that—but we can. I honestly believe there is no crisis the American people are not equal to—as long as the government gets out of our way and lets us do it. Don’t be our parent, trying to save us from the pain of making difficult decisions. Life isn’t always unicorns and rainbows, so stop trying to convince us it is. We’re big kids now, and we can handle it.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
So the Messiah has spoken again, saying he has “no intention” of running GM. Of course he doesn’t. He just intends to fire their CEO, set caps on pay, and demand that they come up with a business plan which can be deemed “viable” by Obama and various other government officials, none of whom have a single day of experience in the auto industry. But he’s definitely not going to be running the company.
Anyone else remember the word “doublethink”?
So, here’s what our government has discovered the power to do in the last six months: cap executive compensation; tax executive bonuses at 90%; buy up to 80% shares in businesses; determine what constitutes a “viable” business plan for an industry they know nothing about; fire executives; put aside almost a trillion dollars as a “down payment” on universal health care before the American people even discuss paying for it; and they’re very close to inventing the power to seize ANY private business that they deem “too big to fail.” What happened to my country? This is not America anymore! This is what Mussolini did in the 20s!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
There’s no more “war on terror.” That phrase is unacceptable now. The Pentagon has changed the name to “overseas contingency operation,” while the new DHS secretary refuses to say “terrorism,” preferring the phrase “man-caused disaster.”
What a load of crap.
Even “war on terror” is misleading. It’s a war on radical Islamic fascism. Terrorism is a tactic. You don’t fight a tactic, you fight an enemy; it wasn’t a “war on blitzkrieg,” it was a war on Nazi Germany. “Overseas contingency operation” is even less honest. Having a response team for, say, an earthquake in Turkey or something like that is an “overseas contingency.” And “man-caused disaster”? Some moron drops a cigarette and burns down 20,000 acres, that’s a man-caused disaster. That’s not the same as someone walking into a bus station, wearing a vest containing C4, nails, and rat poison, so they can murder as many children as possible. That’s not a “man-caused disaster,” that’s deliberate, cold-blooded mass murder. So how on earth are we supposed to combat that if we’re too afraid to call it what it is? Terrorism is acts of violence committed to make a political statement. It’s not a “man-caused disaster,” it’s the deliberate infliction of as much death and destruction as possible. And it’s not a “contingency plan,” it’s a war: not against “terror” but against radical Islamofascists who commit acts of terrorism. Don’t be afraid to say what you mean! Do you think by saying “contingency operation” you change the fact that bombs are going off? Do you stop anyone from dying by saying “contingency” instead of “war” or “man-caused disaster” instead of “terrorism”? So why would you do this Orwellian nonsense, coming up with “acceptable” phrases that don’t mean anything?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
So there’s this little group called the Congressional Budget Office that’s a non-partisan, unbiased office dedicated to measuring the economic consequences of government proposals. And guess what they’ve figured out? The Obama budget will create a deficit of $1.8 TRILLION this year alone! That’s new debt this year over 4% of our GDP. By the end of the president’s first term, our debt—not including our unfunded Social Security obligations to the tune of $100T—will account for EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT of the value produced in the country. How on earth do you expect to survive with debt equal to almost nine-tenths of your income? It doesn’t make any sense!
And now we’re getting some of the money we’re spending by borrowing from ourselves. How does that make any sense? If a private citizen or business accounted that way, people would go to prison! Say there’s a company—like, say, Tyco—who spends money from one department to fund another department, then counts it as an asset. How’d that end up? Oh yeah, with the company going out of business and the executives spending life in prison. So remind me why it’s okay for the government to do it?
It’s a colossal house of cards. We’re paying off our debt by borrowing more money—from ourselves. It’s a circle so absurd it would be funny if it didn’t determine the future of our country—the Treasury borrows from the Fed to pay off its debt to the Fed, which uses the payment to buy debt from the Treasury. They’re juggling, hoping to keep this massive debt in the air so that we never have to do the painful thing, change our lifestyles and deal with it. But as they take on more and more debt, it’s going to be the same as a juggler taking more and more chainsaws or flaming torches—eventually there are going to be too many to keep up with, and then they all come crashing down. And what happens when a couple trillion chainsaws drop on the poor juggler?
I’m almost too angry about this to speak. This is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard, bar none.
A Missouri state trooper, concerned with what he was being told to do, just released details of a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. This organization helps formulate police policy by synthesizing information and making recommendations. The most recent MIAC report, though…
This report defines “militia-influenced terrorists.” Here are some of the signs of a violent militia-member:
“Most commonly associated with third-party political groups” and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr. Police are advised to look out for people sporting campaign materials—clothing, bumper stickers, signs, etc.—related to the Constitution or Libertarian parties or the Campaign for Liberty.
Promoting anti-government sentiment, including calling for the disbandment of the IRS.
Opposition to any of the following:
New World Order
The Federal Reserve
The income tax
The Ammunition Accountability Act, which places punitive taxes on ammunition and establishes a registry for everyone who buys it
A new Constitutional Convention to entirely replace the current Constitution
NAFTA or other forms of North American union
Abortion on demand
So you don’t think the entire world should have one government? You may be a terrorist. You don’t think law-abiding citizens should be stripped of any ability to defend themselves against gun-toting gangsters who respect gun-control laws no more than they respect every other law? Terrorist. You don’t want an unelected body, made up of executives from big investment banks, determining the state of the economy by printing money and setting interest rates? Terrorist. You don’t want the government to take a huge chunk of everything you earn? You’re a terrorist. You don’t think killing the unborn is a basic human right? You’re a terrorist. And you don’t want a way to keep drug smugglers, child rapists, and serial murderers out of this country? Terrorist.
And if you belong to one of two political parties singled out by the state government? You’re an evil terrorist.
Let’s see…I’m a Libertarian Party member, a Campaign for Liberty member, I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and Bob Barr in the general election, I want the IRS gone, I oppose everything listed…Wow, I’m an extremely dangerous, violent person. Lock me up, I’m a terrorist. I always thought terrorism involved violent actions or the intent to commit them, not just belonging to a certain political party. Hey, the Nazi Party isn’t even listed as a militia-influenced group, but the Libertarian Party is. (For that matter, even though “third-party groups” are mentioned, only right-leaning groups—Campaign for Liberty, Libertarians, and Constitution Party—are named; the Green Party seems to be an acceptable third-party group.)
In all seriousness, I can’t even express the fury I feel about this. That ANY government in this country can single out a political party or candidate, and instruct the police to watch for their literature as a sign of a violent militia member, is so horrific that it truly defies belief. If a political candidate actively preaches acts of violence, I have no problem with the police investigating that candidate and those supporters who participated in or planned those acts. That’s not what’s happening here. These are mainstream political parties—the third and fourth largest in the country—whose doctrines specifically mention a prohibition on violent acts. If I find myself in Missouri, with my bumper stickers full of Ayn Rand references and LP logos, I don’t want to be pulled over just for those stickers. No one should be okay with that. You don’t have to be a member of any of those organizations, you don’t have to live in Missouri, you don’t even have to oppose the MIAC’s laundry list—this should make everyone angry.
This idea sounds kind of familiar. You know how in Cuba, North Korea, or China, if you’re a member of any religious organization or any political group not related to the Communist Party, you can be considered a criminal? Or in Nazi Germany, if you were a member of a Communist organization, you could be thrown in jail? Or in 1950s America, if you were suspected of being a Communist sympathizer, you could be called before Congress and fined (that one had a little more merit, since the Communist Party actively encouraged sabotage)?
So I'm going to try and organize an active protest on this one. I'm not going to sit back and take being called a "terrorist" just because of who I voted for in November. Details to follow on that.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
So the lovely people of the NAACP are making even bigger asses of themselves. They’re suing Wells Fargo for making “predatory” subprime loans to black people. This is, of course, racism.
Here’s a quick review of how subprime lending came to be: It started with Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, which Clinton heavily reinforced. It used unconstitutional semi-government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to force banks to comply with a liberal vision of what lending should be. See, Carter and Clinton thought it completely unfair, and probably racist, that relatively few minorities were homeowners. The real reason for that, of course, is that poor people, who can’t afford to own a home, are disproportionately black. Banks didn’t make loans to poor people was not because a lot of them are black but because THEY CAN’T PAY BACK THE LOAN. The whole point of loans is that people can afford to pay them back; if you can’t, too bad, you don’t get the loan. I make $7.00 an hour working about 15 hours a week during school, 35 or so over Christmas and summer breaks. That’s not a lot. I wouldn’t expect a bank to give me a $50,000 loan to get a new Mercedes, because there is absolutely no way I could possibly pay it back.
You see the problem here? When the banks didn’t make loans to people who can’t afford them, it’s because they’re racists who want to deny every black person the right to own a home. When they do make the loans, it’s because they’re racists who want to trap black people, take everything they own, and leave them to starve in the streets. If you don’t give people something they haven’t earned and can’t afford, and some of those people happen to be black—well, that’s racism. If you do, and then the whole unsustainable system collapses—well, that must be a vast racist conspiracy too.
I’ve said it before, but I can’t say it enough: victimhood advocates, like the NAACP, NOW, GLAAD, RAINBOW/PUSH, and any other of the Truth to Power alphabet soup, are desperate to keep themselves relevant. They have power as long as they can pretend their favorite brand of discrimination is still alive, when in reality most of us have moved on. I don’t give a flying crap what race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation someone is, or what handicap they have. I don’t want anyone, regardless of their hyphen, to take on debt they have no hope of repaying, to get a job they aren’t qualified for and can’t perform, to earn a living by looting other peoples’ earnings, or to violate anyone’s rights to life, liberty, or property. And if you do start violating those basic rights, I don’t care who you are, you need to face some consequences. I think most people feel like that, or at least close to it.
Monday, March 16, 2009
I absolutely cannot believe the stones on Barack Obama. Seriously. He’s either delusional, openly lying, or just stupid.
First of all, he claims that the “American Reinvestment and Restructuring Act” contained not a single item of pork. That’s the most brazen political lie since “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” The bill was nothing but pork! Almost $5 billion for a power plant in King O’Pork Robert Byrd’s district. $80 million for an icebreaker. $250 million for furniture in the new Homeland Security building, in addition to $500 million to build that structure. Almost a billion to get energy efficiency in government buildings. No, no earmarks there.
Then he claimed that he’s taking the necessary steps to get a tight budget. How? By proposing the biggest budget ever? How does almost doubling the size of the budget help tighten the budget? That doesn’t even make sense! No rational person would believe that! What a load of crap. It’s mathematically impossible, and so obviously ludicrous that it’s barely worth explaining, to cut the budget by spending more.
The president also promised to cut the deficit in half. Not sure how he’s going to do that, since in the last month and a half he’s spent $800 billion on the generational-theft “stimulus bill,” $410 billion on the omnibus pork package, $275 billion on Making Home Affordable (to People Who Couldn’t Afford it in the First Place), is close to another $22 billion for the miserable failures in Detroit, is talking about Stimulus 2 which will cost even more, and Tax Fraud Timmy is talking about a second bank bailout, this one to the tune of $1.5 trillion. So, we’re looking at, just in emergency spending outside the normal range of government functions, almost $1.5 trillion, with another almost $3 trillion on the way. How exactly will you cut the deficit by spending almost as much as your normal budget—itself bigger than any ever proposed—in emergency spending in the space of a few months? That doesn’t make any sense.
So a bill has been proposed in the Connecticut state legislature that would completely destroy the First Amendment protections of the Catholic Church. For starters, the first line of the bill starts “In regards to the Roman Catholic Church…” Right away, that tells you this is going to shred freedom of religion, by naming a specific church. It goes on to give the state legislature complete control of the Church’s finances. See, rather than allow the bishops and priests to make Church financial decisions, it comes up with a government panel that manages the collection and use of Church funds.
This is unbelievable. Un-freaking-believable.
This is what the “separation of church and state” is about. The church is not run by the government, the government is not run by the church. (Note that this does not mean religious people can’t be elected to office or can’t express their views once elected; that George Bush prayed every morning did not make his administration a brutal theocracy.) And you should be furious about this. You don’t have to be Catholic, Christian, or religious at all to have a deep objection to the idea of the government controlling the operations of a religious organization. Because once the government has the power to do that, they have the power to either establish a state Church or shut down the Church altogether. Neither of those two is a good thing—and both are, of course, flagrant First Amendment violations.
In response to massive backlash, the Connecticut lawmakers have shelved the proposal—for now. Does anyone think that it won’t come back once some of the outrage dies down?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
It won't last a week.
Hamas has never, ever honored an Israeli ceasefire. In fact, historically, when Israel offers peace, Hamas (or Hezbollah, or any other Palestinian terrorist group) has mocked what they see as weakness by hitting harder. If Israel attacks the terrorists who murder their civilians, the terrorists hit back because Israel is a vicious racist state. If Israel concedes to the terrorists, they still hit back because Israel is weak and can be bullied.
And the disgusting part of it is the blowhards in this country and many others who insist that Israel is a racist, imperialist, apartheid state. Take Annie Lennox, who saw, "as a mother," the "nightmarish sights" of Gaza neighborhoods burning under Israeli strikes. Apparently she didn't notice "as a mother" that for three months prior, Israeli neighborhoods had been burning under Hamas rocket attacks, and thus couldn't possibly appreciate that most people, faced with constant bombardment for three months (during a ceasefire agreement), would have long since commenced a full-scale war.
So while I admire Israel's magnanimity more than I can really say, I don't believe it will work. You cannot reason with an enemy that swears to "strangle the last Jew with the entrails of the last Zionist." You can't win them over with kindness. And Americans need to realize that and stop condemning the IDF's efforts to protect the innocent civilians of Israel.
Why don't you try what this moron's done: don't pay your taxes for five years, then when the IRS shows up at your door tell them it was an honest mistake, you're sorry--now you want to run the whole department. But before you do that, make sure you get enough soap-on-a-rope for about ten years, so Bubba gets as few opportunities as possible.
The Senate weasels are saying we have to confirm Geithner now, it's a crisis and we don't have time to find a qualified candidate that isn't also a felon. What a load of crap. Because it is a crisis, we shouldn't hurry up and pick someone, we should make absolutely sure we have the best person for the job. And the best person to run the freaking IRS should probably be somebody who pays their taxes. Just a thought.
Some jackass reporter on MSNBC, the day before the inauguration, was talking about how powerful Obama's speech at the Lincoln Memorial was. He said that the image of a black man speaking in front of the Lincoln Memorial was so unbelievably poignant. That's right, moron; any time a black person speaks at the Lincoln Memorial it's an echo of Martin Luther King. After all, all black men in positions of power are basically the same, right? Good God. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what Dr. King spoke about on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. He envisioned a future where it wouldn't matter what skin tone the speaker had. If anyone stands on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and says something that affirms American values, cheer. But don't cheer for "the image of a black man on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."
Then there was Reverend Lowery. Let's all pray for an America where "black won't be told to get back, brown can stick around, yellow can be mellow, the red man can get ahead, man, and white can finally embrace what's right." What a load of garbage. The fact that you're giving the closing prayer for new president Barack Obama pretty much shows that black isn't being told to get back. And what exactly do you mean "white can finally embrace what's right"? You think we're all riding around in our Klan hoods? News flash: it's not 1935 anymore. It's not 1965 anymore. To the overwhelming majority of the white who can't embrace right, race means nothing at all. You know who's keeping racial tension alive in this country? It's leaders like Jesse Jackson who have very lucrative careers based on claiming "minority victimhood." And they know as soon as they admit how much progress has been made, their tone of moral superiority and long suffering--and the millions they rake in with that image--is gone. And it's people like you, Reverend. What possible purpose could that statement have served, other than to divide and incite tension? I've got news for you: I don't give a crap what color Barack Obama, or anyone else, is. I care that every single one of Obama's policies goes against everything I believe, and that's why I didn't support him.
I worked on Election Day in a tiny precinct of under eight hundred people. At least four walked in and asked a poll worker what the black man's name is. They couldn't be bothered learning the man's name, let alone what he stood for. All they know is that he's black. And that's all that mattered to them. And I'm sure there were at least a few who knew Obama's name, and that he was black, but couldn't have told you anything else. I don't know a single person who voted against Obama just so a black man wouldn't get in the White House; I apparently met at least four who voted for him just so a black man would. That is quite possibly the most asinine thing I've ever heard of.
I know someone else who just named their child "Messiah Obama." Others in the public circle have described him as great Biblical figures ranging from Joshua to the Apostle Paul. Many more compare him to Kennedy, Lincoln, even Washington. Leave aside the obvious--Washington definitely did not think that "spreading the wealth around is good for everyone," Kennedy urged people to "ask not what your country can do for you"--has Barack Obama actually done anything yet? I mean, his speeches seem lofty and articulate, and you can compare his speeches to those of figures like Lincoln or Kennedy. But he's been president all of thirty-one hours. He has not accomplished anything yet, beyond getting elected! Shouldn't we wait to see if his accomplishments live up to JFK's or Lincoln's before we call him a new Lincoln? Aside from the fact that he's the first black president (or 44th white president, since he has an equal claim on that), he has not done anything significant yet! He hasn't even, as his supporters contend, united the country. His total number of votes was almost exactly the same as George Bush got in 2004, and that was hardly a unification of the country. If a white candidate with the same level of experience and accomplishments got elected, it would be a nail-biting experience as we wait to see if he's up to the job. But Obama gets elected, he's the next Lincoln, the next Washington, the Second Coming of Christ!
So don't tell me this proves race doesn't matter. Sadly, it does nothing of the sort. It doesn't matter to me. I voted against Obama because of his policies, not his skin tone, and despite disagreeing with him I wish him well and will pray for him daily. Unfortunately, many of his supporters, and certainly the race-baiting pastor he chose, seem hung up on the black president, not the President of the United States. And I'm sorry to see that.