The Obomination begins

It is finally over. The inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama is done. I have been so tired of hearing about Obama and the upcoming inauguration. Because it is a snow day and we have a good amount of it in our region, most of the area is shut down and I got to catch the inauguration.

Let me get this out of the way. I do not have a hatred for Barack Obama or racist feelings towards him. I do, however, despise his character, his lack of experience, his playing the race card, the racist (almost cult like) following he has, and his views. It is all about the issues and principles. I could not care less about the color of his skin. His supporters, however, apparently do.

I know decent Christians who abandon their belief system in supporting the "Black man", regardless of the fact that he is antithetical to their espoused belief system. I have heard so many well meaning people say that Obama is the realization of Martin Luther King's "dream" of racial equality and advancement of the Black race. Well, keep in mind that Obama is only HALF Black. Of course the half Caucasian ancestry is irrelevant to those who wish to self promote.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I despise the racism that got Obama elected and his socialist views. What amazed me was the benediction given by the Rev. Joseph Lowery. All I could do when I heard it was to raise a middle finger at the TV. Here is the end of the benediction speech.

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen

Now THAT was blatant racism. "...and when white will embrace what is right." Sorry, but that is a very racist assumption that all whites in America are inherently racist and will work to suppress all other races. That is just wrong and in itself racist. I despise racism, and I do not care from whence it comes.

Making online cowardice illegal?

I stopped allowing anonymous comments on my blog a while ago, since I have found that there are cowardly people in this world who want to have their say but do not want to take responsibility for their actions. I have also seen where people have posted comments then deny doing it. I have been a webmaster and a moderator on message boards, as well. I see anonymous posts from ubiquitous user names and hidden identities. It emboldens the cowardly to pick on others and take part in discussions that they normally would avoid.

I personally have no problem owning my commentaries. That is why I do not post anonymously and usually use my real name as my user name. If I am ashamed to write it, I should not post it. I hate the cowardly actions of some who have smeared me and bullied others. However, should the government have any say in this? No frickin' way!

In Kentucky, they see it differently.

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal. The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site. Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

There is no excuse for being a nanny to the world. This sort of garbage is exactly why we are losing our freedoms. Just because something is rude behavior does not mean that it must be legislated away. The very ones who say that you can not legislate morality are usually the ones who wish to do so, as in this case. Damn liberals.

So what about private property rights?

You know that you have no private property rights when a court rules that someone can be on your property in order to exercise their free speech rights. One mall in California (no surprise there) found out that very thing.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that shopping malls can't stop protesters from urging the boycott of stores while on mall property.

In a 4-3 decision Monday, the justices ruled that the Fashion Valley mall in San Diego violated California's free speech laws when it kicked out demonstrators in 1998.

Members of a workers' union at the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper were forced out of the mall for distributing leaflets urging the boycott of the Robinsons-May store.

The union was involved in a dispute with company management and wanted to hurt Robinsons-May's business because it advertised in the newspaper.

The high court ruled that California's free speech laws protect such demonstrations.

This is just plain wrong. A company should be able to determine who gets to be on their property and who does not. It is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of private property rights and this court is just wrong in their decision. Free speech does not mean total access to any private property upon which people wish to trod and exercise said speech. There is no guarantee of freedom of speech on private property, only that the government shall not infringe upon that right. The 1st Amendment certainly does not guarantee a right to be heard or that your speech rights trump the rights of private land owners. I do not know California laws, as stated in the article. However, if their laws can be interpreted so as to squash the rights of property owners, the laws are wrong and need to be either repealed or declared unconstitutional.