He served a few years as an Illinois state legislator. He lost his bid for a seat in the United States Congress. He won a seat in the U.S. Senate partly by default, when his most formidable opponent was forced out of the race by a court order to unseal for public perusal a previously sealed divorce settlement. And despite the fact that he has only two years of Washington experience under his belt and no significant legislative achievement to his credit, Barack Hussein Obama is running for the presidency of the United States of America.
When it comes to his inexperience and lack of credentials, Mr. Obama actually touts them as a plus in his run for the White House. For instance, in his speech announcing his candidacy, he insisted that though he hadn't “spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington” it didn't matter, since the only thing one needs to know about Washington is that “the ways of Washington must change.” Interestingly, Obama’s Democratic Party, which presently presides over the ways of Washington, at least over its Legislative Branch, contends that questioning the war our country is currently engaged in is proof of patriotism, but questioning candidate Obama’s qualifications for the highest office in the land, not to mention the most powerful position in the world, is proof of bigotry.
Barack Obama was born to a black Kenyan father and a white American mother from Wichita, Kansas. Both parents are now deceased. Although Obama claims his mother was a Christian, he belies his assertion by also maintaining that she was a “lonely witness for secular humanism” who taught him that all religions were pretty much the same. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama tells how he grew up in a home where the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagaved-Gita shared shelf space with books on mythology. Obama attributes the ecumenical home life of his childhood to his mother’s belief that religion was “just one of the many ways—and not necessarily the best way—that man attempted to…understand the deeper truths about life.” Well, I'm sorry, but Obama’s late momma doesn't sound like a Christian to me.
On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is fond of referring to his late father as an African “goat herder.” Although it definitely makes for good campaign rhetoric and probably tops the expensively groomed John Edward’s incessant “I'm the son of a mill worker” line, the problem with Obama’s claim of a goat herding ancestry is its failure to represent the facts. Mr. Obama’s father was actually the son of a prosperous Kenyan farmer. This explains how he met Barack’s mother while the two were working on college degrees at the University of Hawaii. Just in case you didn't know, there aren't a lot of poor Kenyan goat herders attending American universities in tropical paradises.
Long before Barack Obama’s father met and married his mother at the University of Hawaii, he had already married a young Kenyan girl named Kezia. In fact, he left her in Kenya pregnant with his child when he came to America to work on his college degree. Once Barack’s mother learned of her husband’s other bride back home in Africa, she divorced him, but not before he had abandoned her and their two year old son and added a third wife to his growing harem, a woman named Ruth who he met at Harvard while working on his PH.D.
The Associated Press recently ran a story on Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s polygamist ancestors. Its justification for the story is the fact that Mr. Romney is a Mormon—a member of a cult with a long history of preaching and practicing polygamy. Okay, fair enough. But why hasn't anyone in the mainstream media uttered a single word about Democratic candidate Barack Obama’s bigamist father? After all, Mr. Obama’s father was raised a Muslim—a member of a polygamy-sanctioning false religion. According to the Muslim Holy Book, the Koran, each Muslim male is allowed to have as many as four wives (Surah 4:3).
Undoubtedly, today’s mainstream media will justify its double standard on the basis that Mr. Romney readily professes to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while Mr. Obama ardently denies any past or present adherence to Islam. To hear Mr. Obama tell it, one has to go back to his Kenyan grandfather to find a follower of Islam in the Obama family tree. Senator Obama’s father had supposedly apostatized from the Muslim faith and become an avowed atheist before he met the senator’s mother at the University of Hawaii. Yet, this ardent assertion by the Democrat’s fair-haired candidate raises another question that has gone unaddressed and unanswered by today’s mainstream media; namely, “How do you explain Barack Hussein Obama’s Muslim name?”
According to Senator Obama, his first name is a Swahili name. Although it is true that “Barack” is a Swahili derivative of an Arabic name, the name and its origin are definitely Arabic, not African. The name comes from “baraka,” the Koran’s word for “blessing.” In addition, Senator Obama’s middle name, Hussein, is undeniably an Arabic-Muslim name. Indeed, it is one of the most popular Muslim names in the world today, especially among the Shi’a Muslims.
The name “Hussein” is taken from “Husayn ibn Ali,” who was the grandson of Islam’s founder, the Prophet Mohammed. As the son of Mohammed’s daughter Fatima and Mohammed’s Cousin Ali—revered by Sunni Muslims as the fourth and final Rightly Guided Caliph—Husayn is revered among Shi’a Muslims as the martyred third Imam. His death is commemorated annually on the Day of Ashura, a day when Shiites make pilgrimages to Mashhad al-Husayn shrine in Karbala, Iraq, which is traditionally held to be the site of Husayn’s tomb. To many Muslims, Husayn was the precursor to modern-day suicide bombers, since he willingly gave his life to preserve and perpetuate the Islamic faith. Don't forget that it was the Husayn revering Shi’a Muslims who gave to our world the modern-day suicide bomber.
When it comes to Barack Hussein Obama, it’s high time the question was asked: “What’s in a name?” If his father was an atheist and his mother a Christian, as Obama himself insists, then why did they stick him with a Muslim moniker? Was he merely named after his father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., or is there something far more ominous about this curious christening? While Democrats cry foul every time attention is drawn to the fact that one of their candidates for the White House has a name evocative of two of our country’s worst enemies—Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein—surely they can't blame voters, especially during this time of war against Muslim extremists, for grappling with whether or not to elect a presidential candidate as our country’s Commander and Chief who has continually denied his Muslim name and heritage.
If his Muslim professing grandfather, his Muslim apostatizing father, and his own Muslim name were our only suspicions over Mr. Obama’s shadowy Muslim past, we could perhaps more easily calm our disquieted qualms. Unfortunately, such is not the case; there is the additional troubling topic of Senator Obama’s step-father, Lolo Soetoro.
Mr. Soetoro was an Indonesian Muslim who married Obama’s mother and moved both her and her six year old son to Jakarta, Indonesia—the nation boasting today’s largest Muslim population (175 million). Until the young Obama returned to Hawaii to be raised by his white maternal grandparents at the age of ten, he lived in Jakarta with his mother and step-father. It was during those years in Jakarta that Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, was born. Her recollection of growing-up in Indonesia differs somewhat from her brother’s. While the good senator ardently denies that he was raised a Muslim or has ever been a Muslim, his sister insists, “My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim.”
During his years in Jakarta, Senator Obama attended a Catholic School for two years and a Muslim school for two years. In both schools, he was registered as a Muslim. His first-grade teacher in the Catholic school, Israella Dharmawan, remembers him as a Muslim. Also, his childhood friends recall him going to Friday prayers at the local mosque.
Insight Magazine, a publication owned by the same company that owns the Washington Times, has reported that the Muslim school Mr. Obama attended in Jakarta was a madrassa—a school sponsored and run by radical Wahhabi Muslims for the purpose of brainwashing children and raising up a generation of Islamic jihadists. According to Insight, the information in its report was uncovered by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, a fact that Senator Clinton vehemently denies and attributes to a “right-wing hit job.” Whatever would Hillary do without the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to squawk at and scapegoat?
Although the Insight report has been cited on Fox News, CNN Headline News, and in the New York Post, as well as widely circulated on the Internet, it remains both unsubstantiated and unreliable. Still, the fact that Barack Obama was enrolled as a Muslim in a Muslim school in Jakarta where the Koran was religiously taught is indisputable. Even Mr. Obama admits it in his book Dreams from My Father, when he writes about getting in trouble for making “faces during Koranic studies.” Of course, one can hardly blame any boy for making faces while being taught the manifold abominations and absurdities of the Koran; such as, “Kill them [Jews] wherever you find them” (Surah 4:91).
Regardless of how deep or shallow Barack Obama’s past Muslim roots run, the most disturbing aspect of his faith is his present religious profession. Although he professes to be a Christian and claims to have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ,” he is quick to qualify his peculiar brand of Christianity as including a belief in “many paths to the same place” for all who believe in “a higher power.”
The “place” that Mr. Obama designates as the destiny of all higher power devotees should not be misunderstood as Heaven. According to the good senator, he doesn't “presume to [know] what happens after [we] die.” He just believes that lives well-lived will be rewarded. Though he’s unsure of “whether [our] reward is in the here and now or the hereafter,” he’s certain that we will be rewarded for whatever faith and values we align ourselves with.
What about the immoral and irreligious? Will they be punished rather than rewarded? Not necessarily. While Mr. Obama isn't sure about whether or not there is a Heaven to gain, he is sure that there is no Hell to shun. He insists that his “God would [never] consign four-fifths of the world to Hell.” According to him, a belief in Hell is “just not part of [his] religious makeup.”
Cathleen Falsani, a religion columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, acutely observed after interviewing Mr. Obama that his insistence “that all people of faith—Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone—know the same God” is a most “unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus.” In other words, Barrack Obama’s customized Christianity is completely incompatible with the historic Christian faith. There’s simply no way to square it with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
No one familiar with the historic Christian faith can seriously consider Barack Obama a Christian. How can he possibly be a disciple of Jesus Christ when he goes around denying and denouncing Christ’s teachings? Whereas Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6), Barack Obama says that there are many ways to God and it doesn't matter which one you choose. Whereas Jesus warned all who refuse to believe in Him of Hell, Barack Obama insists that unbelievers have nothing to worry about, since there is no Hell. Still, Senator Obama maintains that he is a follower of the Master, despite the fact that his so-called Christian convictions are contradictory to what the Master said.
Senator Obama’s unorthodox Christian faith apparently commenced with a rather unorthodox conversion experience. In the late 1980s, when he worked as an organizer of Chicago neighborhoods, Barack Obama was repeatedly told by ministers that joining a church would give him increased credibility in the neighborhoods he was attempting to organize. In what appears to be in direct correlation to the clergy’s oft-repeated counsel on how he could gain personal credibility, Mr. Obama began attending Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ.
According to the good senator’s own admission, he selected Trinity because he was so taken with its pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a liberal minister well-known for his dabbling in radical politics and delivering of music and profanity-laced sermons. Never before had Mr. Obama encountered a pastor who made religious pilgrimages to Africa, welcomed female clergy, had no problem with gay parishioners, and crooned Teddy Pendergrass rhythm and blues from the pulpit.
On a Sunday in 1988, Barack Obama was in the pews of Trinity Church when Pastor Wright preached a sermon entitled “The Audacity of Hope.” It is from this sermon that Mr. Obama got the title for his second best-selling book. According to Senator Obama, it was during Wright’s “The Audacity of Hope” sermon that the black liberation theology promoted by Trinity Church and proclaimed so boldly by its pastor began to dawn on him. In his best-selling memoir, Dreams From My Father, Obama explains how he began imagining during Wright’s sermon “the stories of ordinary black people merging…at the foot of the cross …with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians and the lion’s den [and] Ezekiel’s field of dry bones.” Suddenly and unexpectedly, Obama testifies to being overcome with emotion as it dawned on him for the first time that the Bible’s “stories of survival, freedom and hope” are really the black people’s story, as well as his own.
Four years after that eventful Sunday in 1988, Barack Obama finally walked down the aisle of Trinity Church to make a formal commitment of his faith. However, Cathleen Falsani, religion columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, warns us that Obama’s walking the aisle at Trinity is poles apart from what Christians commonly refer to as being “saved, transformed or washed in the blood.” In other words, it’s not to be confused with what Jesus called being “born again”; as Mr. Obama himself explains, “It wasn't an epiphany…but just a moment to certify or publicly affirm a growing faith in me.”
What kind of faith is it that is growing in Barack Obama? Is it the historic Christian faith? Not according to the good senator, who describes his faith as: (1) Suspicious of dogma (2) Without any monopoly on the truth (3) Nontransferable to others (4) Infused with a big healthy dose of doubt, and (5) Indulgent of and compatible with all other religions. Unlike traditional Christianity, which Mr. Obama bemoans for its “call to evangelize and proselytize,” the good senator’s faith is strictly a personal and private affair. Although he has no qualms about parading it in public in hopes of bolstering his political career, he would never dream of preaching it to others in hopes of converting them to Christ.
The more one learns about Barack Obama’s pastor, church, and denomination, the easier it is to understand his espousing of a heretical faith. To begin with, his church is the largest church in the United Church of Christ, which happens to be the most liberal mainline denomination in America. The United Church of Christ moved outside the parameters of orthodox Christianity years ago, being the first mainline denomination to ordain a woman, to ordain an openly gay man, and to endorse same-sex marriage.
Today, the denomination requires no adherence from its 1.2 million members to any particular confession of faith. Consequently, its membership is free to confess or deny the cardinal doctrines of Christianity; such as: (1) The Trinity (2) Original sin (3) Man’s need of redemption (4) The person and work of Jesus Christ as true God and true man (5) The doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (6) The person and work of the Holy Spirit (7) The second coming of Jesus Christ to judge the living and the dead, and (8) The eternal destiny of believers and unbelievers.
Along with being in a denomination that requires no adherence to the basic tenants of the historic Christian faith, Barack Obama is also a member of a church that touts itself as being “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian.” While I would never suggest that any race hang its head in shame over its ethnicity or skin pigmentation, I can't help but be suspicious of a church that “unashamedly” identifies itself with a particular race. Such a brazen self-characterization smacks of exclusivity and separatism, not to mention, flies in the face of the Bible’s promise: “Whosoever will may come.”
What would happen if a church today called itself “Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian”? Would it not be roundly condemned as racist? Would people of color feel comfortable going there to worship, or would they fear being unwelcome and unwanted? You know as well as I do that the latter would be the case, not the former. Likewise, whites, Hispanics and Asians cannot help but wonder whether the welcome mat would be put out or taken up for them at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ.
In an article posted at NewsMax.Com on August 9th of this year, Jim Davis tells of his visit to Barack Obama’s church on a “July Sabbath morning.” In an obvious allusion to another of Trinity’s famous congregants, Mr. Davis reports, “Trinity United is anything but Oprah-style friendly.” According to Davis, “a large young man in an expensive suit stepped out to block the doorway” as he “approached the entrance of the church.” Davis was then abruptly asked, “What are you doing here?” He promptly replied, “I came to hear Dr. Wright.” After what Davis describes as “an uncomfortable pause,” the man finally “stepped aside” and permitted him to enter. Once inside, Davis could not help but notice that he was one of “only a handful of white men” in attendance, the majority of whom he suspected were members of Senator Obama’s Secret Service detail.
I find Jim Davis’ experience at Trinity United Church of Christ quite ironic, especially in light of the United Church of Christ’s recent ad campaign. Do you recall the television commercial depicting brawny bouncers working a rope line in front of a church in order to prevent racial minorities and gays from worshiping there? The commercial, which was paid for by Senator Obama’s denomination, was intended to celebrate the United Church of Christ’s “all-inclusive welcome” and to condemn other denominations for turning people away who fail to fit the white heterosexual stereotype. As it turns out, however, the only denomination with bouncers at the doors of its churches is the United Church of Christ.
In addition to being “Unashamedly Black,” Barack Obama’s church also espouses Afrocentric theology. This distinct brand of theology, which is also known as black liberation theology, interprets the Bible as the story of the struggles of black people. According to Mr. Obama’s church, black people—thanks to the oppression they've suffered throughout their history—understand the Bible better than anyone else. Contrary to the teaching of the Apostle Paul, that it is the enlightening of the Spirit that enables all believers, irregardless of their race, to understand the Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:14), Trinity United Church of Christ teaches that it is the indecencies of slavery and segregation that have turned black people into the world’s foremost Bible scholars. If Mr. Obama’s church is right, one can't help but wonder why the Holocaust-surviving Jews don't have more appreciation for the New Testament and why America’s Indian Reservations aren't strewn with Bible colleges and seminaries.
In order to become a member of Barack Obama’s church, one has to pledge personal allegiance to the church’s Black Value System. Among other things, the church’s Black Value System calls upon its members to “disavow the pursuit of ‘middleclassness’” and to become “Black Christian Activists [and] soldiers for Black freedom.” According to the Chicago Tribune, Vallmer Jordan, a church member who helped draft the church’s Black Value System, explains Trinity’s repudiation of America’s middle class as an attempt “to empower the black community and counter a value system imposed [upon it] by whites.” In Mr. Jordan’s eyes, the moment “any black person…identifies himself as middle class” he “becomes a proponent of strengthening and sustaining the [white racist] system.”
What do you suppose would happen if word of Trinity’s litmus test for membership leaked out? How do you suppose it would play in white, middle class America? How about all of those white, middle class voters in Iowa and New Hampshire’s early primaries? Could Senator Obama’s rock star status suddenly be diminished and his presidential campaign derailed if voters learned that the only difference his church sees between America’s white middle class and the Ku Klux Klan is the hoods and robes?
In spite of the fact that it is located in Chicago, Illinois, Trinity United Church of Christ lays no claim to being an American congregation. What's more, it pledges no allegiance to our country, which its pastor routinely refers to as the “United States of White America.” Instead, the church claims to be a congregation of African people with “a non-negotiable commitment to Africa.” On its website’s “About Us” Page, the church boldly declares of itself: “We are an African people, who remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.” In light of this, one cannot help but question the fitness of a candidate for the Oval Office whose church denounces our country while declaring its undying loyalty to another continent.
Although the false doctrines of his church and the want of fixed doctrines within his denomination are disturbing enough, it is Barack Obama’s relationship with his pastor that I find most disturbing of all. Often referred to as the senator’s “spiritual adviser,” the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is credited by Mr. Obama for converting him from religious skepticism to Christianity. Along with being Mr. Obama’s spiritual father, Rev Wright also performed Barack and Michelle Obama’s wedding ceremony, baptized their two daughters, and dedicated their house in Chicago.
The title of Barack Obama’s second best-selling book, The Audacity of Hope, which is also the theme of his presidential campaign, was lifted from a sermon preached by Pastor Wright. According to the good senator, he relies upon his pastor to ensure him that he is “speaking as truthfully about what [he] believes as possible.” According to the good reverend, his celebrated parishioner often turns to him in moments of frustration, such as when a recent Congressional Black Caucus meeting proved more entertaining than substantive.
Who is this man that Barack Obama so highly regards and so heavily relies upon? Surely, all Americans have a right to know who it is that has the ear of this would-be president. Is Mr. Obama’s pastor and personal confidant just another run-of-the-mill Christian minister, or is Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. anything but Christian and run-of-the-mill?
Let’s suppose a white minister was sympathetic with and supportive of David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan. Also, let’s suppose that this minister accompanied Mr. Duke on a trip to visit a notorious foreign despot, who also happened to be a sworn enemy of our country and known supporter of international terrorism. Would anyone seriously consider such a minister to be a true follower of Jesus Christ?
Well, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright is a long-time friend and supporter of Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam—a black supremist cult that believes white people were created from a germ. According to the Nation of Islam (Black Muslims), white people are devils and less than fully evolved human beings. In 1984, Rev. Wright accompanied his friend Farrakhan on a trip to visit Libyan strongman Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, who was not only our sworn enemy, as well as Israel’s—our staunchest Middle Eastern ally—but also a well-known supporter of international terrorism. In spite of all of this, few people have ever questioned whether or not Rev. Wright is a true follower of Jesus Christ.
We all remember the media firestorm created when Rev. Jerry Falwell suggested to Rev. Pat Robertson that liberal organizations, like the ACLU, along with America’s pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, and lesbians were all partly to blame for 9/11. However, no firestorm ensued when Senator Obama’s beloved pastor suggested that the blame for 9/11 should be laid at the feet of “White America.” According to Rev. Wright, the 9/11 terrorist attack upon our nation was a “wake-up call” to “White America,” a wake-up call reminding it that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.”
According to Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy, Rev. Wright’s comments on 9/11 are indicative of “a certain deeply embedded anti-Americanism.” Whether it is rage and profanity-filled rants from his Chicago pulpit against America’s perceived rampant racism, his invective indictment that America alone poses “the greatest threat to global peace,” or his constant bemoaning of the fact that African Americans have to live in the “United States of White America,” Rev. Wright’s anti-Americanism is easy to see and hard to deny. Still, he remains the cleric, counselor and confidant of Barack Obama, a man who wants to be the next President of the United States of America.
Although Senator Obama had invited his pastor to pray the invocation at the formal announcement of his candidacy for the presidency last February, the prayer was cancelled at the last moment. Rev. Wright blamed the cancellation of his prayer on Senator Obama’s political advisers, who he felt wanted the senator’s campaign to get out of the starting gate without being saddled with the kind of controversy Mr. Obama’s close association with him would undoubtedly create. Despite the cancellation of his public prayer, Pastor Wright still prayed privately with the Obama family just before the senator’s public presidential announcement.
In an interview in March, Rev. Wright admitted that his constant criticizing of the establishment would not aid Senator Obama in his auditioning for the ultimate establishment position. “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to distance himself from me,” Rev. Wright conceded. He even admitted that he had “said [so] to Barack personally” and that the senator had responded, “Yeah, that might have to happen.”
While none of us should look for the good reverend to be sharing a public platform with his presidential-aspiring parishioner, there’s no reason for any of us to doubt that the good reverend will continue to have the ear of our would-be president. The Obama campaign may steer clear of the good reverend in public, but one cannot help but wonder how much the campaign’s candidate will be steered by his controversial clergyman in private.
We all know that the old adage “What you see is what you get” is not applicable to today’s politicians. When it comes to present-day politics and the public persona of political candidates, what we see is hardly ever what we get. Being constantly told by their political handlers what positions to take, what words to say, and even what clothes to wear, today’s politicians are nothing more than actors and actresses acting out roles that the latest opinion polls suggest should be played.
If ultraliberal Barack Obama can persuade voters that he is a moderate capable of uniting all Americans between the two extremes of liberalism and conservatism, he deserves an Oscar. His theatrical performance will place him among the greatest political thespians of all times, since he’s really no moderate at all, but an unconscionable liberal who has actually staked out positions to the left of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League). For example, let’s consider Mr. Obama’s unconscionable opposition in 2002 to Illinois’ Induced Infant Liability Act.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse, became a leading opponent of “live-birth abortions” after witnessing the dastardly deed firsthand at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. In this abominable practice, a newborn that survives a botched abortion is left abandoned until it dies. When Nurse Stanek brought this unconscionable practice to the public’s attention, she was met with stern opposition from a little-known Illinois state legislator by the name of Barrack Hussein Obama.
In 2002, the Illinois State Legislature attempted to outlaw this abominable practice with its Induced Infant Liability Act. Although one would think that no decent human being could possibly oppose such legislation, Barrack Obama did so. His indefensible opposition to a bill designed to protect the lives of newborn babies and his shameless support of abandoning newborns to die should come as no surprise, however, since Mr. Obama twice attempted to kill similar legislation in committee. The first time he did so by voting against a bill brought before a committee upon which he served; the second time he did so by keeping a bill from even coming up for a vote before a committee that he chaired.
Jill Stanek actually appeared before the committee that Barack Obama chaired, the Illinois Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee. Despite photographs of premature babies she presented to the committee and her own eyewitness testimony of how newborns were being left to die after surviving botched abortions, Mr. Obama blocked his committee from even voting on outlawing “live-birth abortions.” In the end, Nurse Stanek chillingly concluded that her words and pictures “didn’t faze him [Obama] at all.”
What kind of a man is Barrack Obama? How can anyone be so calloused and cold toward the most innocent and vulnerable among us? I don’t know about you, but I’m extremely uncomfortable with someone living next door, much less at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who remains unfazed in the face of something as reprehensible as “live-birth abortions.”
In the same year that Mr. Obama voted against a state law outlawing “live-birth abortions,” the United States Senate voted unanimously for a federal law to do so. Even the U.S. Congress passed the legislation with only fifteen dissenting votes. What’s more, President Bush signed the legislation into law with the support of NARAL; that’s right, even Pro-Choice America couldn’t do what Barrack Obama could—toss newborn survivors of botched abortions into hospital dumpsters.
When you add his inexperience and naiveté to his intentionally buried Muslim roots, his adherence to apostate Christianity, his membership in a black separatist church, his extreme left-wing politics, and his total indifference toward something as reprehensible as “live-birth abortions,” Barack Obama becomes as disconcerting a presidential candidate as our country has ever seen. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that the other candidates running for the White House are not disconcerting as well; it’s just that I don’t find any of them as disconcerting as Mr. Obama. As far as I’m concerned, if our current slate of presidential candidates is the best our country has to offer, we’re toast!
All across America folks are buying Obama T-shirts, baseball caps, key chains, bumper stickers, and buttons. In fact, no presidential campaign in history has done what the Obama campaign is doing; namely, listing paraphernalia sales as donations. Along with the brisk sales of Obama gear, millions of dollars are being contributed to the campaign through fund raisers like the one recently held in San Francisco’s luxurious Mary Hopkins Hotel where guests drank a boutique beer with Barack’s face on the label. According to one of the event organizers, “People want to be part of a cause…part of something much bigger than [they are], and Barack makes us feel that way.”
The Obama juggernaut appears to be proceeding unimpeded in spite of its idolized candidate’s recent gaffes, one of which occurred during a televised presidential debate. During the You-Tube debate on CNN, Obama said that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Cuba (Fidel or Raoul Castro), Syria (Bashar al-Assad), Venezuela (Hugo Chavez), Iran (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and North Korea (Kim Jong-II) in the first year of his presidency. As any seasoned diplomat knows, the only thing that could possibly come out of a naive president meeting with such notorious characters without any preconditions are photo opts that folks like Fidel, Hugo and Mahmoud could use to foster their credibility in the world.
What Mr. Obama proposes to do for the likes of Kim Jong-II, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Rick Warren—megachurch pastor and bestselling author—did for Mr. Obama last December. In December of last year, Warren invited Obama to speak in his pulpit at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. By doing so, Warren fostered the illusion that Barack Obama is a Bible-believing Christian who deserves the ear of American evangelicals. Furthermore, as columnist Kevin McCullough opined, Warren also “joined himself with one of the smoothest politicians of our times…whose wickedness in worldview contradicts nearly every tenet of the Christian faith.”
A few days after promising to rollout the red carpet at the Obama White House for our nation’s most fiendish foes, candidate Obama stuck his foot in his mouth once again when he threatened to attack one of our allies in the war against terror, prompting a rival candidate to quip, “He’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.” In a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Obama pledged to send troops into Pakistan—with or without the approval of the Pakistani government—to hunt down al-Qaida terrorists along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. To threaten an ally with an invasion of American forces is a reckless thing to do; however, threatening an alley that happens to be a Muslim country already seething with anti-Americanism is beyond reckless and bordering on insane.
Along with boasting the world’s second largest Muslim population (170 million), Pakistan is also the Muslim World’s only nuclear power. It is filled with Islamic radicals, many of whom are believed to be aiding and abetting Osama bin-Laden, who is thought to be hiding somewhere in Pakistan. Several assassination attempts have recently been made on the life of Pakistan’s President Musharraf. These attempts on President Musharraf’s life have been perpetrated by radical Muslims seeking to overthrown the Musharraf government and instigate an Islamic revolution in Pakistan. If these radicals are ever successful, Pakistan’s nuclear button could end up under the finger of a radical Muslim in league with Osama bin Laden.
By flexing his machismo at President Musharraf’s expense and adding fodder to the anti-American fires of Pakistan’s radical Islamists, Barack Obama has made the precarious conditions within one of our country’s most strategic allies even more volatile. If he can so significantly increase the perils of these perilous times while running for the White House, just imagine how dangerous our world will become if he ever takes up residence in the White House. As president of the United States, Barack Obama will not only have the “bully pulpit” from which to continue spewing his reckless rhetoric, but he’ll also have the ability to begin recklessly wielding the powers of the most powerful office on earth.
