I am looking forward to all this hoopla being over and we can FINALLY see what his plans are. Not what he SAYS he wants to do, not what he TALKS about doing, not what he CLAIMS to have done…but what he ACTUALLY does. I, for one, will be watching him closely over the next four years and I hope my gut instinct about him is wrong.

Lynn has the experience to do the job that he was appointed to, but my problem is that William Lynn III is presently the Senior Vice President of Raytheon Co.

Why is that a problem? The problem is that Raytheon has defense contracts with the United States. In my opinion, that makes it a conflict of interests. How can this be allowed that Obama can go ahead and appoint a person who might not hold the American taxpayer’s interest as his main concern.

How can you expect a man to do the right thing with the protection of the American people when he also has responsibilities to the company that he works for to make money? You can’t. He makes his bonuses by the amount of money the company makes. If he has to choose between protecting this country the best way possible or making his multi-million dollar bonus, how can you expect him to put himself second?

If he wants to take the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense, he must resign from his position at Raytheon Co. He is human and is bound to make mistakes, but to avoid a defense issue he must do the right thing first, which is to leave Raytheon and all his responsibilities to the company

Another kick in the pants is that the Democrats had a problem with Dick Cheney getting elected to office while he still had interests in Halliburton, but have not problem of William J. Lynn III being given the position. The American people didn’t get the right to vote for this man to be put into this office. I know that it’s two different position, but isn’t the President’s job to serve this country? Or is it his duty to go ahead and give positions to people who helped get him into office?

Just as a side note, Goldman Sachs has upgraded the the stock of Raytheon to a buy from a hold. What does that tell you?

I don’t know what’s to come of this, but I will say that I will be keeping an eye on it and posting about here on this blog.

From American Thinker:

After taunting 18-year old freshman Annie Grossmann for wearing her McCain-Palin campaign button at an election night get-together, and “getting in her face,” four women beat her for political views which, obviously, they did not share. Grossmann took verbal abuse at the party, then left for her dorm after it was clear, about 10 p.m., that her candidates had lost. She was followed by the four women into the shadows of a nearby skyway.

There she was beaten. The four women, all black, called Grossmann a “racist.” She knew none of them. Nor did they know her, to her knowledge. It was that damn campaign button that evidently caused their frenzy. Their earlier taunts proved that. They were, Grossmann said, “rubbing her face in Obama’s win.”

“Why do you call me a racist when you don’t even know me?” she screamed. Made no difference. Grossmann was felled by the largest of the four. She hit her head on the brick wall, and staggered back to her dorm. The other three black women at the beating chucked at this dark manifestation of partisan evil. They walked away laughing, offering no help to their victim. The banality of evil had asserted itself. And at four-to-one, it was also a cowardly act of mindless violence which, presumably, the four thought “normal.”

I guess their just following their orders from King Obama when he told his supporters to get in their face and argue with them.

Responding to a follow-up question I asked him, Steele responded that “the Obama campaign played the race card beautifully.” He said it hurt Bill Clinton and that it also hurt John McCain because he wouldn’t mention Reverend Wright. Steele argued that in taking Rev. Wright off the table, McCain surrendered the one issue that might have helped him win.

The co-chair of Barack Obama’s Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and used, shall we say, an interesting word to described what she thinks Barack Obama will be doing in January when he’s officially sworn into office. She told Tom Brokaw that Obama will be ready to “rule” on day one. It’s a word that reflects the worst fears that people have for Obama the “arrogant,” the “messiah,” that imagines he’s here to “rule” instead of govern.

Jarret told Brokaw that “given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.”

Someone needs to get to Jarrett and inform her that American politicians are not Kings and do not “rule” from office. But if this is the attitude of Obama’s transition team, what does The One himself imagine he is about to unleash? Could the fears that Obama thinks he is being anointed America’s King be far off with this sort of talk flying about?

And in related news…..

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

“It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

Obama’s comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation’s foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps “to renew our diplomacy.”

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” Obama said in July. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors “common sense” gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he’ll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun said. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The leader of a jihadi group in Iraq argued Friday that the election of Barack Obama as president represented a victory for radical Islamic groups that had battled American forces since the invasion of Iraq.

The audio statement came amid a very public discussion in the Middle East over what Mr. Obama’s election meant for the future — and what it said about the past. Most of the public reaction, in newspapers and on television and radio stations, was euphoric, with many commentators marveling at the election of a black man whose father was from a Muslim family. There was a general assessment that Mr. Obama’s election was a repudiation of the course taken by President Bush and his inner circle over the past eight years.

“It would be no exaggeration to say that we Arabs and Muslims were the main unseen voters who decided the outcome of these elections,” wrote Abdelbari Atwan in Wednesday’s issue of the London-based pan-Arab daily newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi.

Read the rest at the above link.

We’re a new community of people brought together because have one thing in common (we may come to find that we have a lot more in common, but we have one thing that brought us here) and that is that we did not vote for Obama. The next four years will be a trying time for us and this forum will serve as a place for us to vent, get information and share our thoughts with others who understand.

We Did Not Vote For Obama

Stop in and join us!

Several hundred people are still waiting to get their pay for last-minute campaigning. Police were called to the Obama campaign office on North Meridian Street downtown to control the crowd.

The line was long and the crowd was angry at times.

“I want my money today! It’s my money. I want it right now!” yelled one former campaign worker.

“It should have been $480. It’s $230,” said Imani Sankofa.

“They gave us $10 an hour. So we added it. I added up all the hours so it was supposed to be at least $120. All I get is $90,” said Charles Martin.

“I worked nine hours a day for 4 days and got paid half of what I should have earned,” said Randall Waldon.

“They say that they gonna call you or they going to mail it to you, but I don’t know. We’ll see what happens,” said Antron Grose.

“Talking about they’ll mail it to us. I ain’t worried about that, man. They’re not going to mail nothin’,” said Martin.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Celebration also follows the defeat of the attempt by anti-gay groups in Connecticut to try and call a constitutional convention so they could write marriage discrimination into the state constitution. Sixty-percent of Connecticut voters cast ballots to support their high court’s decision to uphold the freedom to marry and now, marriage equality is preserved in Connecticut. Same-sex couples can begin applying for marriage licenses on November 12th.

“Californians were bombarded by a massive $40 million anti-equality campaign of deceptive scare-tactics and lies. No matter the final vote on Prop 8, the campaign will not be the last word,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People’s Right to Marry. “Public opinion moves in favor of fairness, we have truth on our side, and 2009 will see advances toward marriage equality.”

Legal groups in California today filed a challenge to Proposition 8, in case it passes, telling the State Supreme Court that the state’s “initiative procedure cannot be used to undermine the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone.”

“The effort to defeat Prop 8 and attacks on gay families in other states inspired an unprecedented and tremendous outpouring of volunteers, donors, and supporters, gay and non-gay, from across California and around the country,” said Wolfson. “With the dawn of a new political era in America, this diverse and engaged movement for justice will seize opportunities to redouble the conversations that move people to fairness, win victories in 2009, and soon restore the freedom to marry in California as we advance toward marriage equality for all.”

— Freedom to Marry Staff