The inauguration of Barack Obama -- a/k/a Barry Soetoro

By Michael Bresciani

Twenty two percent of the United States voted for Obama in the general election. John McCain drew a little under Obama's tally so that means that 78 percent of the nation either voted for McCain or did not vote at all. With all the hype about the Obama inauguration it seems safe to say not everyone is perfectly thrilled with the choice the 22 percent has made. Let's see.

The sycophantic gushing of the liberal media goes on in full splendor in spite of the accusations that they threw in with Obama early on and as one commentator often says "the liberal media became the other Obama headquarters." Evidence the recent article by Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post Jan 16, 2009 entitled "The One Was Here" which may just say it all. After warning media bashers that there was no standing ovation for Obama during his visit to the Post perhaps the next paragraph says it best, "The mob scene (while not quite as large as when Pitt was studying the newsroom for a movie from which he later withdrew) underscored one thing: Obama is not just on the verge of assuming the presidency, he is a worldwide celebrity."

At last someone in the media admits that Obama is a sensation on the order of a celebrity. That leaves only one question have the American people settled for a celebrity or do we really have a president?

For the sake of argument let's lay aside that question and for the moment and assume he is presidential material; the next question would be, just what is his real name? We are told it is Barack Hussein Obama. We also know that the liberal media generally objects to the use of his middle name, but does he? Did Roosevelt object to the use of Delano, did Bush object to use of Walker. How about, who knows or who cares. Let's move on to a far more important question.

Is Barry Soetoro his real name and would he object to our use of that name. Apparently he does because he no longer uses it himself. When did he change his name and why, no one seems to know the answer to that; but they are asking.

A prime example of the question about his name is found on the latest legal test about Obama's eligibility to be president based on the fact that his citizenship in the United States is still in question. A retired Air Force Colonel has filed suit in the District of Columbia and the docket title and number is entitled "Hollister vs. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Docket # 08-02254 (JR).

This is exactly the kind of question that is bouncing around in the minds of a growing number of the 78 percent of the nation who either sided with McCain or with no one at all. It raises the question of whether it would be wise to wake up the nearly 200 million non-voters who think America is just doing business as usual. If Barack Obama has no more standing than an American Idol winner when the nation gets the drift wouldn't he be waking a sleeping giant to his own dismay?

Many think it is not a question of if the American people will wake up but only when. No president has been able to withstand his own un-popular and failed decisions while in office. That Obama will make such mistakes is a foregone, it is only how soon and how bad.

Some of the proposals Obama is promising to make right out of the gate already have raised the disdain of huge segments of the society. The sweeping new FOCA (freedom of choice act) Obama is proposing would essential nullify state laws on parental involvement on all partial term abortions. It would force taxpayers to fund abortions both here and abroad. It would also mandate that faith based or religious health care facilities take part in abortions which would obviously force many of them to close. Such a sweeping federal mandate slams the sovereignty of states and the sensibilities of millions of Americans.

Many voices of discontent are ringing out well before Obama takes the seat in the oval office. The conservative Christian church has taken an insult in the form of Obama's choice of a gay minister to lead the invocation at his inaugural. Matt Barber of the Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel said in a quote from World View Times Jan 13, 2009 "It's a shame that President-elect Obama apparently has so little regard for his Christian constituents that he would give such a high place of honor to a self-styled man of God whose only claim to fame is that he abandoned his wife and children to enter, 'loudly and proudly,' a sexually deviant lifestyle expressly condemned by the very Bible he's ironically called 'holy and sacred."

The media has reported that Obama plans to make use of part or all of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in his inaugural address. Here is another slam to anyone who has ever cracked a book on the life of Lincoln. The non comparisons Obama has to Lincoln could fill volumes of themselves so there is hardly room here to list those absurdities.

As a student of the life of Lincoln I can only say as fairly as I know how that the glaring differences between Lincoln and Obama make it almost unbelievable that he would choose the path of comparing himself to Lincoln.

These would be my observations on that comparison. Lincoln would have stood up and left the church where anyone showed racism or dammed America. He would not spend the next twenty minutes in the church; much less the next twenty years. Lincoln would probably get sick to the point of death at the thought of aborting one baby and even now may be turning in his grave at the thought of his beloved America having already destroyed the lives of fifty million un-born children. Lincoln would have not allowed an openly gay minister to pray at his inaugural because of his faith in the admonition of the Bible that says such a lifestyle is clearly an abomination in the sight of the Lord. Did Lincoln believe those admonitions, you can count on it.

One of the most unusual teachings of the Bible is that when the people of any nation want to live apart from God's laws he will allow them to do so and he will allow leaders to arise who will aid and assist them in their quest. It brings the judgment of God in as a surety and it draws a line to make clear who is standing where. Unfortunately it does not excuse those who helped bring in the wholesale perversion of Gods laws. Christ made it clear when he said "Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" (Mt 18:7)

The Bible also warns that not every leader whether King or President who is evil, misleading or just bad for a nation will show up with horns and a pitchfork. In fact they will almost always be very appealing. The Apostle Paul said it this way "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2Co 11:14)

In Theology 101 it is elementary that there are only two basic kinds of deceivers. The first is the hoax, the charlatan, the deceiver who knows he is a fraud and hopes nobody will discover that. The second is the one who is deceived himself. He is convinced about what he says and does and it's hard for him to see another course. The latter kind is by far the most dangerous because he has been thoroughly deceived himself. Naturally the latter kind is most likely to gain the most followers being that the hype or ideology seems so pure and righteous, or at the very least attractive.

Can there be any doubt that Hitler, Mao, Stalin etc., bought their own bill of goods? This is deceiver #2 and they are the most dangerous people in the world. They can fool thousands or millions and sometimes by the time people awaken to the deception the damage is done or the lives have already been lost. Could it be that bad here in America? Of course it can but keep in mind it does not have to be.

The only way to avoid a false path is to both ask and honestly answer the right questions. We might want to start with the simplest of all questions as the inaugural unfolds as in "who are you Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro" and why have you left us to answer this question for ourselves? If we can't be sure of a man's name how can we be sure of something so much more subjective as his true intentions?

© Michael Bresciani