Many believed this day would never come. Most of us hoped and prayed that it would, but few of us actually believed we would live to see it. Racism is an ugly thing in all of its forms and there is little doubt that if this man had moved into this house fifteen years ago, there would have been a great outcry – possibly even rioting in the streets.
Today, we can all be both grateful and proud that no such mayhem will take place when this man takes up residency in this house.

This man, moving into this house at this time in our nation’s history is much more than a simple change of addresses for him – it is proof of a change in our attitude as a nation. It is an amends of sorts – the righting of a great wrong. It is a symbol of our growth, and of our willingness to “judge a man, not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character”.

There can be little doubt now that the vast majority of us truly believe that this man has earned both his place in history and his new address. His time in this house will not be easy – it will be fraught with danger and he will face many challenges. There will be many times when he asks himself how in the world he ended up here and like all who have gone before him, the experience will age him greatly.

But do not waste an ounce of worry for his sake – because in every way a man can, he asked for this.
His whole life for the past fifteen years appears to have been inexorably leading this man toward this house.
It is highly probable that that in the past, despite all of his actions, racism would have kept this man out of this house.
Today, we should thank the lord above that we are Americans and that we live in a nation where wrongs are righted, where justice matters and where truly anything is possible.

The man being discussed:

Inaugural Fun Facts:
George Washington’s was the shortest inaugural address at 135 words. (1793)

William H. Harrison’s was the longest inaugural address at 8,445 words. (1841)

Abraham Lincoln was the first to include African-Americans in his parade. (1865)

Women were included for the first time in Woodrow Wilson’s second inaugural parade. (1917)

Lyndon Johnson was the first (and so far) only president to be sworn in by a woman, U.S. District Judge Sarah T. Hughes. (1963)

Ronald Reagan’s second inaugural had to compete with Super Bowl Sunday. (1985)

The first ceremony broadcast on the Internet was Bill Clinton’s second inauguration. (1997)

All but six presidents took the presidential oath in Washington, D.C.The exceptions were:
• George Washington-1789, New York City; 1793, Philadelphia
• John Adams-1797, Philadelphia
• Chester Alan Arthur-1881, New York City
• Theodore Roosevelt-1901, Buffalo
• Calvin Coolidge-1923, Plymouth, Vt.
• Lyndon Baines Johnson-1963, Dallas

Theodore Roosevelt’s 1901 oath was the only one not sworn in on a Bible.

Only four retiring presidents have not attended the inaugurations of their successors. Those who were absent:
• John Adams missed Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural.
• John Quincy Adams was not present at Andrew Jackson’s.
• Andrew Johnson was not at Ulysses Grant’s ceremony.
• Richard Nixon was not present at Gerald Ford’s inaugural.

Here we go once again America. Game on.

The people voted. The people’s will was decided.

California: 2004:From February 12 to March 11, under the direction of Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, officials of the City and County of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to approximately 4,000 same-sex couples, in apparent defiance of state law. During the month that licenses were issued, couples travelled from all over the United States and from other countries to be married.

The people’s will and vote was ignored… by a city mayor.

On August 12, the state Supreme Court releases its decision, exactly six months after the first same-sex marriages were performed in San Francisco. The court rules unanimously that the City and County of San Francisco exceeded its authority and violated state law by issuing the marriage licenses. In a 5-2 decision, the court also declares all same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco to be void, while expressing no opinion on the constitutionality of marriage restrictions.

The people’s will and vote was respected and defended… by the California Supreme Court.

California: 2005. When California State Legislature opened the 2005-2006 session, Assembly member Mark Leno introduced Assembly Bill 19, which proposed legalizing same-sex marriage. The bill enjoyed the support of then-Speaker Fabian Núñez among others. Leno had introduced a similar bill in the prior session, but it died in committee. Assembly committees reported out Assembly Bill 19 favorably, but the measure failed on the Assembly floor on June 2, 2005. Later that month, Assembly member Patty Berg amended the text of her fisheries-research measure, Assembly Bill 849, which was already in the Senate, to the text of Leno’s failed bill.

On September 2, 2005, the California Senate approved the bill 21-15 and on September 6, the California State Assembly followed suit with a vote of 41-35, making California’s legislature the first in the nation to approve a same-sex marriage bill without court pressure.

The people’s will and vote was again ignored… by the State House and Senate.

The next day, September 7, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger indicated he would veto the bill, citing Proposition 22, which had passed with the approval a majority of voters five years earlier. Like the statutes amended by AB 849, Prop 22 prohibited the state from recognizing same-sex marriages, but as an initiative statute, it was not affected by AB 849. The legislature avoided physically delivering the bill to the governor for over two weeks, during which time advocacy groups urged Schwarzenegger to change his mind.

Ultimately, the bill was delivered on September 23 and vetoed on September 29, 2005. Schwarzenegger stated he believed that same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts or another vote by the people via a statewide initiative or referendum

The people’s will and vote was respected and defended… by the governor.

Shortly after the newly elected Assembly was sworn in, Leno resubmitted a similar bill on December 4, 2006. AB 43 was passed by the legislature in early September 2007, giving the governor until October 14, 2007, to either sign or veto the bill. Schwarzenegger had stated months before that he would veto AB 43 on the grounds that the issue at hand had already been voted on by California by way of Proposition 22.

The people’s will and vote was once again ignored… again by the State House and Senate.

The governor followed through on his statement and on October 12, 2007, he vetoed AB 43. Schwarzenegger wrote in his veto statement that to solve the issue of gender-neutral marriage, the California Supreme Court needed to finish its rule on the challenge which had been made to Proposition 22.

The people’s will and vote was respected and defended… by the governor.

On May 15, 2008 the Supreme Court of California overturned the State’s existing statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples in a 4-3 ruling. The judicial ruling overturned the one-man, one-woman marriage law which the California Legislature had passed in 1977 and Proposition 22.

The people’s will and vote was again ignored… by the Supreme Court of California.

After the ruling, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement repeating his pledge to oppose Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would override the ruling.

The people’s will and vote was being ignored again… by the governor.

California: November 2008. Proposition 8 is a proposed constitutional amendment titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act, whose proponents intend to override the Court’s decision. The measure appeared on the 2008 California general election ballot in November 2008.

November 4th, 2008: The amendment was passed by a margin of 52.2% in favor and 47.8% opposed with a remarkable 68.6% voter turnout.

The people had gone back to the polls to regain their will and vote. The people had already previously voted on this… but had the victory taken away from them by the very court that had defended them back in August of 2004.

Interestingly, 70 percent of African Americans voted to ban same-sex marriages in California.

The vote coincided with the overwhelming support among African Americans for a black presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. In the aftermath, some Proposition 8 supporters are viewing the black vote as proof that same-sex marriage is a moral rather than a civil rights issue.

Religion was just as pronounced. Prop. 8 found support among 81 percent of white evangelicals, 65 percent of white Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics and 84 percent of weekly worshipers. In the exit poll’s only nonwhite category involving race and religion, 58 percent of nonwhite religious voters supported the measure.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8.

The people’s newly-regained will and vote is already being ignored again… by the governor.

He urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first, “I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done.”

California continues to allow domestic-partner registration, a right similar to civil unions found in other states. This grants “same-sex couples all state-level rights and obligations of marriage – in areas such as inheritance, income tax, insurance and hospital visitation” but does not apply to “federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states”.

November 4th 2008: Arizona Proposition 102 – a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Arizona defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The amendment was passed by a margin of 56% in favor and 44% opposed.

November 4th 2008: Florida Amendment 2 – a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Florida that defined marriage as between only one man and one woman and banned the creation of similar unions, such as civil unions.

The amendment was passed by a margin of 62.4% in favor and 37.6% opposed.

The people voted. The people’s will was decided…

…until a city mayor, governor, state house, senate or Supreme Court decides otherwise.

The sheer roller-coaster ride the will of the California people has taken is astounding. Regardless of the issue at hand… this alone should be a major concern and focus. Authority and the rule-of-law have to not only be defined… but enforced by checks and balances. Is it fair to say that the California processes could use some tightening up?

Too bad the Hall of Justice is a fictional cartoon facility. Where are the original Superfriends when you need them? (The current ones are tools)

So the Democrats are riding out the rush of victory. Not just a victory… but an ASS WHOOPIN’. And congrats to them for enough of a win that we don’t have to experience months upon months of whining and freakin’ recounts.

And the Republicans (as usual) are trying to figure out what the hell happened.

For what it’s worth Mike Duncan, what your party has done wrong (among other things) is insisting upon chasing the lame. The center. Hell… most the time it’s been left-of-center. And when you chase and desire the devotion of the lame… it’s all about mass marketing to them.

And there is already a party that’s got that down better than you guys and gals EVER will.

The definition of “lame” is: poor, weak, unconvincing and ineffectual

That focus and priority (I think the term was “bi-partisan”) left a huge mass of conservative-leaning independents that you’ve burned time & time again through lip-service and non action. For a multitude of reasons… you’ll have to wait at least an entire generation to even THINK about attracting back whatever piece of THAT pie you thought you had.

For the conservative-leaning, there are at least two very exciting aspects of the Obama Presidency to consider.

1. The landscape is more fertile than ever for true change. Specific change in the form of a movement (or new party perhaps) that represents an enormous mass of the unrepresented. We live in a world where brands can go from zero to 100mph in very short periods of time. We’ve just proven politically that branding is everything. Again… the landscape of the political marketplace is very different and fertile these days. It is a very real possibility. And that’s exciting.
2. There will soon come a day (likely 2 years from now) when there will be enough distance from where we are currently. There will be no more Bush Administration to absorb eternal fault. Liberal success will depend on foresight, strategy and execution. And the entire process will be documented and monitored beyond comprehension. It will provide a bounty of subject matter to-be-sure. And few case studies (ya think?) that will no doubt support non-liberal agendas.

There is another aspect that is both exciting, frightening and sad… all at the same time.

What Obama did brilliantly was tap into the “entitlement” mentality.

Sure… there is the enlightened hipster, academia crowd who supported the guy. But those people have always been there. And they were already engaged and on-board. They were there last time around. And the time before that…

The secret-sauce was engaging and exciting that other mindset. Because there is no shortage. And like government itself… the entitlement crowd is timeless and self-perpetuating.

There are no-doubt legitimate needy people in society who need assistance. And thank goodness we live in a country that makes attempts to take care of its own. There are occasional examples of the country falling short… but for the most part we strive to take care of our own.

There is another demographic. Separate from the true needy. That demographic is angry and unfulfilled. They need help too. Life is hard man. They’re owed something and gosh darn it… they want theirs. This demographic is significant enough to warrant having on your side. And man did Obama do a great job of rallying THOSE troops.

It could be argued that this demographic is where it’s at socially AND economically largely due to self-inflicted lameness. Again… to be clear to the enlightened academic hipster… the intended targets here are not the actual needy. Let’s all agree that we should all have compassion for the truly needy.

But…
*Note to the enlightened academic hipster: Like it or not … you share an ideology with the not-so-brights and their close cousins the not-so-motivated.

Again EAH’s, you are not being targeted or discussed in an unfavorable way. You have very legitimate and well thought-out reasons for supporting Obama. Got it. Understand it. Much respect for it.

The right has their rednecks..
The left have those people who go to Renaissance Fairs, watch 30 Rock and have a discarded DVD of “The Secret” laying next to their Lil’Wayne CD. They’ve got crappy credit too.

Hopefully can wrap your head around the attractiveness of Obama to this other demographic. Granted and acknowledged that they are attracted to Obama for very different reasons than the EAH’s.

But they’re unhappy too. And damn it… they’re gonna get theirs. And Obama’s schpeel sure sounded good to them as well. So it will be interesting for both sides to watch the inevitable “pay-up” thresholds that Obama will have to face. Also in line are several far-left elements that sank millions of dollars into support for the man.

They’ll expect favor at some point.
What is troublesome is the enabling of this mass of people. They are significant enough in size to influence the election of a President. Good or bad.

What happens if they really, truly get what they think they have coming to them? That’s a fair question correct?

More realistically… what happens if they don’t?

Obama will soon find himself being pulled into several opposing directions, all-the-while knowing the reality that he’ll have to govern close to center or he’ll find himself with approval-rating issues. It’s an interesting dynamic when compared to who he’s in debt to.

No serious candidate to vote for.

And arguably more than any election in modern history… an election where the media and pure marketing have replaced actual mass debate and discussion.

Perhaps the silver lining along the way to US Socialism is that as the Government gets more powerful and intrusive, the masses will eventually become wiser, more informed and angry.

It’s simply hard to fathom the vast majority of the US population sitting back and allowing the Government to tell them whether they are sick or not.

It’s hard to fathom the vast majority of the US population allowing the government to manage their money.

It’s hard to fathom the vast majority of the US population allowing the government to tell them what they can or can’t eat.

And remember… it’s the vast majority that will NOT be voting.

Is it too much to hope that the sleeping giant of the silent majority raise its mighty head and declare that enough is enough?

Maybe this time around it is. Or maybe not.

The following are two items to inspire your voting experience in a few weeks. While the video below is titled “Democrats on an Escalator” – the title short-changes the intent. It’s not exclusive to Democrats whatsoever. Let this video serve as a tribute to all who bow at the altar of big government. Enjoy:

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper. He’s written a piece that should hit home and ring true to all Americans:

“545 PEOPLE” By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.


Have you ever wondered why: If both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why: If all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget.  The president does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices, 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.  I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?  Nancy Pelosi.

She is the leader of the majority party.   She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted by present facts, of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.  When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it’s because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy”, “inflation”, or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They and they alone, have the power.

They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

*NOTE: The last line of this piece is perhaps the most powerful:

What you do with this article now that you have read it is up to you.